I keep hearing this argument over and over and it's frustrating. Yes, it does seem clear that Apple is targeting media studios with this Mac Pro, but that entirely misses the point about why so many people like me are upset.
Apple used to make what I considered just about the perfect machine for me. It was the cheese grater Mac Pro, and one sat under my desk until a few months ago when I gave up on Apple every refreshing that machine in a way that works for me, and I got a Mac mini instead. It's a fine machine, but there is not really an upgrade path for the internal components, the graphics processor is weak, and now I have a bunch of cables all over my desk for expansion.
The cheese grater Mac Pro used to be a little bit pricey for the actual performance you were getting, but it was worth it to spend a little more to get that thoughtfully designed machine that ran Mac OS. Now it just feels like anything in Apples product line that "is for me" just feels like a giant compromise. Sure Apple can do whatever they want with their product line, but that fact doesn't make the current situation any less frustrating for me and people like me.
Maybe you should consider switching OS? Apple will always be behind on performance, upgrade paths, compatability and pricing. So if you want a high performance computer that you can upgrade then Apple isn't for you.
I can't directly refute any of your points, but I also think you are still talking around the problem a bit. The point I was making is that in the cheese grater era all the items you point out where Apply is behind were also true, but the delta between Mac and PC on each of those points seemed much smaller. It was worth the tradeoff to be able to use Mac OS. This is not the case with the latest Mac Pro. The world changes over time, I get it, but I think given that at one time Apple was able to hit that sweet spot, the hope is that maybe they one day will be able to again.
The author doesn’t mention gaming in the article at all and I don’t think any person with decent knowledge of Mac products would assume the new Mac Pro would be a gaming machine.
What the author and many others are trying to convey is that Apple again has pushed out a premium product with mid to semi-high level components for a luxurious price — often out of reach for the lay consumer. If we take the common criticism of Apple and their products, especially the Mac Pro, it again comes down to them catering to a base but doing so by itemizing their product list. They know people in studios will use these products and pay what they must, so it’s simple: Studio A has old Mac Pro’s and just needs a new monitor, so they’ll buy the new 32-inch and put out some more pocket change for the stand that’s sold separately. But studio B has monitors and needs a new desktop, hence they’ll purchase a new Mac Pro w/o a screen.
In the end, these products will sell, not because of their future proof parts, but more so because it’s a new machine for that niche base who most likely are too deep into the Apple ecosystem to use a PC equivalent.
Because historically the old mac pro was a more than a 6000 dollar toy that only the rich and studios purchase. Apple is basically pissing on all of their old mac pro fans who are getting priced out by this update.
I think the "this is for studios" argument is just an excuse to make up for the fact that Apple completely missed the mark with this new refresh's price point. If Apple _really_ wanted to create a flagship desktop to appeal to studios, they would have not used the mac pro's name, they would have created a new brand for the SKU to reflect that its target audience is different from that of the mac pro.
I disagree with this. This viewpoint is the side-effect of Apple's lifestyle brand marketing. Apple releases a machine you can't afford and they're "pissing on you"? No, they're diversifying their product towards the high-end market they want to re/capture. If your favorite car company releases a nice premium product are they also "pissing on you"?
Steve's 2x2 matrix with portable vs desktop on one axis, and consumer vs pro(sumer) on the other axis, was announced and filled around 1998.
It was populated initially with:
iBook, iMac;
PowerBook, Power Mac.
Later:
MacBook (Air), iMac;
MacBook Pro, Mac Pro.
The "pro" version had always been accessible to consumers. It was a bit more expensive, but if you wanted more power and expandability than the consumer model you could get the low-end "pro" model easily. And, yeah, the "real" professionals could spec it out and get a high-end pro machine.
Now, this latest Mac Pro is a machine that's out of range of your average prosumer and even pro, even in the lowest configuration. That's what upsets people.
> This viewpoint is the side-effect of Apple's lifestyle brand marketing.
No, the anger is born from an expectation (namely, that prosumers can get the low-end pro model) that well predates the whole life-style brand marketing (iPod 2001, iPhone 2007).
No, the anger is born from an expectation (namely, that prosumers can get the low-end pro model) that well predates the whole life-style brand marketing (iPod 2001, iPhone 2007).
I believe this is also incorrect. Apple has consistently had a lifestyle brand marketing tactic when Jobs was at the helm. The clone years were a different animal, for sure, but pre and post Apple was most definitely marketed as a lifestyle brand and "experience". The difference is that it worked better the second time, with the addition of the iPod, iPhone and iPad.
Steve's 2x2 matrix was obviated almost immediately upon his passing. The product teams at Apple may from time to time use it as a reference to bolster a point in their favor but those days have long since vanished. People are 'angry' because they want a desktop PC like experience within the Apple eco-system and they don't have anywhere to turn. Personally, I think it is unjustified, as there are more than enough product spans to fill that gap BEFORE the introduction of the Mac Pro. All of this silly 'anger' to me is just another iteration of people being upset at Apple because they didn't fulfill their personal 'peeve'. Honestly, if you don't like the stuff or it's not what you want, then use something else. If you CAN'T then I submit that you're a victim of the aforementioned lifestyle marketing.
I believe that selling a branded product that targets audience X, then in a refresh raising your pricing so much that a large subset of X can no longer afford the product is pissing on their target audience, yes.
If Apple wanted to sell a more expensive SKU to that wealthier subset of X, then it should have been a new brand instead of using the Mac Pro's brand.
I don't own any apple desktops, so there's no personal animosity on my part.
The Mac Pro brand was basically dead for years. Your complaint would be reasonable if they made such a large change between generations for a product on a yearly cadence, but this is more like when a car company brings back a model they discontinued 15 years ago.
Don't car manufactures use different brand names for luxury and mainstream to indicate who the product is for? Customers would be confused if Toyota took a new mid-range Lexus, kept the pricing, but branded it as a Toyota Avalon (the highest end Toyota sedan model in US).
> Customers would be confused if Toyota took a new mid-range Lexus, kept the pricing, but branded it as a Toyota Avalon (the highest end Toyota sedan model in US).
I'm confused. I can't tell what point you're trying to make here. The Lexus ES and Toyota Avalon already are basically the same car, modulo some styling changes and about a 10% difference in base price. This clearly isn't causing Toyota much trouble, because they've been doing this for a long time.
> If your favorite car company releases a nice premium product are they also "pissing on you"?
If Toyota re-releases the Corolla as a 60K car, then yes.
Apple is not "diversifying" their product. They are straight pushing it upmarket leaving current Mac Pro customers, the ones paying until today $3000 for a trash can Apple swore was the future, out in the cold.
Who believes what Apple says? Most things Apple says are completely bullshit.
From the Mac Pro trash can product page(norwegian): "Enough performance to realize all your biggest ideas"
"You will never want more speed"
And let's not forget why Apple is sticking to 3.5" screens. It is the perfect size, and that's why Apple won't make phones bigger. It's definetly not because Apple is lagging behind. Oh, wait...
Never belive Apple's marketing. It's misleading and often false.
I'm not saying you should believe Apple. What I'm saying is that it is completely fair to criticize them based on what they say and do.
Apple promised a Mac Pro replacement for pro customers but delivered a new Mac Pro only for the high end of those customers. That is why they are being criticized.
The old Mac Pro wasn't exactly pro, no matter how much Apple says it is.
The new Mac Pro is an actual pro product, at least the higher specced ones. So they did make a replacement.
Is Apple terrible at naming? Yes. Do they throw Pro into the product name for no reason? Yes. Is it better this way? Who knows. They still have the MacBook "pro".
The article stopped right before it made any analysis of the facts presented. There wasn’t an argument for us to talk about. Yours sounds like what should have come next though.
That's how I felt watching the presentation. It very quickly became apparent this was not a machine for me. I don't work with multiple 4K video streams let alone any instrument mixing or 8K video.
