Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013(appleinsider.com)
appleinsider.com
Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/12/tim_cook_confirms_updated_mac_pro_coming_in_2013.html
6 comments
Actually, it hasn't been four years between updates:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro
The Mac Pro had updates in 2008, 2009, 2010, and yesterday. They may not be the type of pie-in-the-sky updates you might want, but that's another discussion.
The Mac Pro had updates in 2008, 2009, 2010, and yesterday. They may not be the type of pie-in-the-sky updates you might want, but that's another discussion.
Mid 2010 to the announced next update in late 2013 is 3 and a half years:
mid 2010 - mid 2011 : 1 year
mid 2011 - mid 2012 : 1 year
mid 2012 - mid 2013 : 1 year
mid 2013 - late 2013 : 1/2 year
Hence, my statement "it will be nearly 4 years".
mid 2010 - mid 2011 : 1 year
mid 2011 - mid 2012 : 1 year
mid 2012 - mid 2013 : 1 year
mid 2013 - late 2013 : 1/2 year
Hence, my statement "it will be nearly 4 years".
You still missed yesterday's bump. It'll be less than a year.
Not an update, it's a change in default configuration. They reduced the price of one model, slightly increased hard drive. Same chips, same motherboards, same everything. Even Apple has retracted the "new" tag.
For a company supposedly kicking their professional customers in the face again, and again, and then again just now, they really aren't doing too badly. My personal theory is simply that they just don't make all that much money from them...
Perhaps they don't want to just rehash the same old tower form factor.
Apple being as wealthy as it is implies, to the contrary, that it is not clueless.
Your statement sounds sensible, yet I can't seem to reconcile it with the fact that Justin Beiber is one of the wealthiest musicians of his time.
Even if Justin Beiber himself is clueless (and I don't think he is), the people around him are experts at creating a product that appeal to their target demographic. The most successful stars that, to you, seem to create shitty music are those that actually have the most clever people handling them.
I would classify his handlers as manipulative, not clever. I would classify Justin himself as clueless, largely due to his apparent immaturity that he constantly exhibits, but I'm sure he'll be pretty sharp when he grows up. We were all young and clueless at one time.
As for my previous statement, it was mostly a joke.
As for my previous statement, it was mostly a joke.
And this is why my statement was "either clueless or is having serious problems maintaining competent hardware engineers", and then proceeded to talk seriously only about the latter case.
I'm wondering who this news really impacts. Do Pro Users actually update their desktop systems more than once every four years? My Dell Precision 650 (Circa January, 2004, cost $4300 back then - top of the line workstation at the time) - is precisely as productive today, as it was when I was using it 8 years ago. The apps all run just as fast, I get the same amount of work done, I don't really have any need to upgrade to something newer. With the exception of operating system patches, it's mostly the same software.
Now - I _want_ a newer system, but, if you asked me whether, at the end of the day, my work output would be any different, or whether I would just be happier, I would have to answer the latter.
Instead of HN commentators feedback about how old the Apple platform is, I'm wondering whether they could comment on how the USB 3.0 + Thunderbolt + Retina Display upgrades they wanted will make a very real difference to their productivity. That would make for some useful reading, if it's the case.
It's not my sense with Pro Users that it is - and their tools will continue to work just as well for now. I think the Pro market is just different from the "upgrade every year or two" consumer market.
Also interesting, would be feedback from Pro Users who have decided that Apple not upgrading more frequently, will result in them changing platforms, and, what platforms they will change to - and why.
Now - I _want_ a newer system, but, if you asked me whether, at the end of the day, my work output would be any different, or whether I would just be happier, I would have to answer the latter.
Instead of HN commentators feedback about how old the Apple platform is, I'm wondering whether they could comment on how the USB 3.0 + Thunderbolt + Retina Display upgrades they wanted will make a very real difference to their productivity. That would make for some useful reading, if it's the case.
It's not my sense with Pro Users that it is - and their tools will continue to work just as well for now. I think the Pro market is just different from the "upgrade every year or two" consumer market.
Also interesting, would be feedback from Pro Users who have decided that Apple not upgrading more frequently, will result in them changing platforms, and, what platforms they will change to - and why.
I myself couldn't afford (and didn't need) a Mac Pro several years ago. However, I could really use one now. I'd buy one of the existing ones, but man... I really feel like a sucker paying so much for a system that's clearly lacking in a lot of spots, to know that I'll be upgrading in a year. And the current pricing feels absurd (although normally I feel Apple pricing is fine, right now the Mac Pro isn't a great deal).
It could be argued that a real "pro" would make their money on it either way, but I myself am sitting more in the "prosumer" market. I make videos for Youtube, but I don't really make much money on them... but I really enjoy doing it. The workflow on my Macbook Pro right now with 1080p is just painful.
It could be argued that a real "pro" would make their money on it either way, but I myself am sitting more in the "prosumer" market. I make videos for Youtube, but I don't really make much money on them... but I really enjoy doing it. The workflow on my Macbook Pro right now with 1080p is just painful.
Right - I can't imagine spending any of their _own_ money on a Mac Pro. If you are a gamer, you go build one of your own systems, or have someone like JNCS (who built my gaming PC). If you are Joe Average consumer, you buy an iMac for the home.
Hard to see anyone but a Pro User (for whom dropping $5K on a machine that just gets the job done, and sits their for five years doing it, is the goal) buying the MacPro. It left the sweet spot for personal purchases of Macs (if it was ever there) a couple years ago.
Hard to see anyone but a Pro User (for whom dropping $5K on a machine that just gets the job done, and sits their for five years doing it, is the goal) buying the MacPro. It left the sweet spot for personal purchases of Macs (if it was ever there) a couple years ago.
I imagine it was mainly done to stop the spread of rumours, that post's such as Marco Arment's could spark (perhaps already has?): http://www.marco.org/2012/06/11/half-assed-mac-pro
I used to edit video in Avid on a Mac Pro. Multimedia usages will drink memory like water, and your system being more powerful directly implies that you get more work done. Less render time is a big one.
To that end, I can understand some of the complaints.
To that end, I can understand some of the complaints.
Re: Memory - http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Mac%20Pro%... gets you 64 Gigabytes for the MacPro for $800.
I'm presuming most Pro Users kick their box up to 64 GB without thinking twice about it.
I'm presuming most Pro Users kick their box up to 64 GB without thinking twice about it.
I don't understand why you would trust a company whose product roadmap consists of a single cryptic email, with the tools you use to maintain your livelihood.
Are there other computer manufacturers that publish a public product roadmap? I'd be curious to see one of these.
I'm gonna be cynical-guy and ask if there's any indication that this is anything other than CYA, since "later next year" tells me work is only just beginning. Were there any leaks or rumblings before the backlash?
Regardless, this would seem to be a very uncharacteristic stumble for Apple in the expectations-management department.
Regardless, this would seem to be a very uncharacteristic stumble for Apple in the expectations-management department.
No, there were rumors circulating for a while about secret teams and major upgrades in the work. If there redesigning the whole thing then it could be a big job and maybe they are waiting for certain components to get to where they want them to be.
The remarkable thing about this email is that Apple never pre-announces things. And just the other day they said something about doubling down on secrecy. I think what happened here was a tremendous swelling negative rumor mill that Cook figured would cost Apple more in terms of pro defections than they would lose from current buyers waiting. For Microsoft that's just another day at the office, but for Apple it's extremely rare.
The remarkable thing about this email is that Apple never pre-announces things. And just the other day they said something about doubling down on secrecy. I think what happened here was a tremendous swelling negative rumor mill that Cook figured would cost Apple more in terms of pro defections than they would lose from current buyers waiting. For Microsoft that's just another day at the office, but for Apple it's extremely rare.
The remarkable thing about this email is that Apple never pre-announces things.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Does anybody else think secretive companies annoy customers more than open ones? A lot of bad feelings could have been avoided yesterday were this public information, without Tim having to e-mail someone to break it. There was a genuine rash of anger, obviously (from the HN coverage), and just taking a few moments to say what's in the pipeline, while very not Steve, would have made this situation a lot better.
It's not just Apple I've noticed this with. Maybe it's time we rethink secrecy from a product development standpoint? Does it really give your competitors an advantage to know what you're working on in the days of the Internet? Is this something that business types have put thought into, since secrecy seems to be the status quo?
I can understand new products entirely, but a simple update to their Mac Pro is something they could just say, publicly, with little recourse, to reassure its small (and dedicated) fan base.
It's not just Apple I've noticed this with. Maybe it's time we rethink secrecy from a product development standpoint? Does it really give your competitors an advantage to know what you're working on in the days of the Internet? Is this something that business types have put thought into, since secrecy seems to be the status quo?
I can understand new products entirely, but a simple update to their Mac Pro is something they could just say, publicly, with little recourse, to reassure its small (and dedicated) fan base.
I think this comment is one reason: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103596
I could really use one now. I'd buy one of the existing ones, but man... I really feel like a sucker paying so much for a system that's clearly lacking in a lot of spots, to know that I'll be upgrading in a year.
Buying electronics is always a gamble of buy now or buy later. Announcing there is an update coming can poach some sales of the current model. I'm sure there is more to it than that. but it can happen.
I could really use one now. I'd buy one of the existing ones, but man... I really feel like a sucker paying so much for a system that's clearly lacking in a lot of spots, to know that I'll be upgrading in a year.
Buying electronics is always a gamble of buy now or buy later. Announcing there is an update coming can poach some sales of the current model. I'm sure there is more to it than that. but it can happen.
I think Apple annoys people more than other companies. It's something of a lightning rod. Should they be more open about product roadmaps? Past performance would seem to indicate know. It doesn't matter if people are annoyed if they're selling out everything like hotcakes.
The people I know who buy Mac Pros keep themselves quite up to date with technological developments. They know when Intel releases a new processor family, they know when nVidia and AMD release a new generation of GPU. They know that when these items are on the market they could easily call up Dell or HP and have a workstation with these components, but they don't want a Dell or HP, they want an Apple. As a result they are annoyed when Apple continues ignoring their flagship product, a product that now is now two generations behind in both CPU and GPU.
They're also typically the type of people that are irked that Apple's geometry shaders run on the CPU and not the GPU.
They're also typically the type of people that are irked that Apple's geometry shaders run on the CPU and not the GPU.
The MacPro hasn't been the flagship product for years
My comment was a generality. For example, if Apple (or any company) tomorrow published:
Say you're Dell. You see Apple is working on a Mac Pro update. Does that change your priorities at all, strategically? Does it matter to you? Now Apple working on a game-changer, that I understand, but a simple update? Why keep that secret? What do competitors gain from knowing every little detail of what Apple is up to?
I'm trying to figure out Steve's reasoning, since I'm not terribly versed in business, and this generally seems to be a business decision. It's especially epidemic in IT, where all of us are writing cool software, but nondisclosure prevents us from sharing with competitors except in special circumstances. So instead of advancing the state of the art, we're all reinventing the wheel because our prior wheel inventions are nondisclosured to the prior company.
I just don't get secrecy.
Q1 2013 (tentative) iOS 6.1
Q2 2013 (tentative) Mac Pro update
Q3 2013 (tentative) iOS 6.2
Say you're Dell. You see Apple is working on a Mac Pro update. Does that change your priorities at all, strategically? Does it matter to you? Now Apple working on a game-changer, that I understand, but a simple update? Why keep that secret? What do competitors gain from knowing every little detail of what Apple is up to?
I'm trying to figure out Steve's reasoning, since I'm not terribly versed in business, and this generally seems to be a business decision. It's especially epidemic in IT, where all of us are writing cool software, but nondisclosure prevents us from sharing with competitors except in special circumstances. So instead of advancing the state of the art, we're all reinventing the wheel because our prior wheel inventions are nondisclosured to the prior company.
I just don't get secrecy.
Giving out that sort of information would change some amount of people from just buying now to waiting for the new product. That's nice from a customer standpoint but bad for Apple.
Consider:
1) Less outdated inventory moved.
2) More problems keeping up with new product demand, which Apple already can't do.
3) More customers think about the question of buy now or wait when making a purchase. This doesn't sound like a lot, but Apple strives for the simplest possible buying experience.
Consider:
1) Less outdated inventory moved.
2) More problems keeping up with new product demand, which Apple already can't do.
3) More customers think about the question of buy now or wait when making a purchase. This doesn't sound like a lot, but Apple strives for the simplest possible buying experience.
Don't forget:
4) The freedom to release or not release anything at any time.
4) The freedom to release or not release anything at any time.
Good points. I hadn't thought about it from a supply chain perspective or that of cannibalizing sales. That's definitely a consideration.
A big part of the secrecy is the way that they can surprise and delight people by blowing their minds and then making the product available almost immediately. It's theatre as much as anything.
In this case I definitely agree with you. Professionals should have some sort of roadmap. Pro software investments can be huge, and I wouldn't want to invest in pro software for a platform that may no longer support pro hardware.
In this case I definitely agree with you. Professionals should have some sort of roadmap. Pro software investments can be huge, and I wouldn't want to invest in pro software for a platform that may no longer support pro hardware.
Possibly they're more worried about potential bad press if they fail to meet whatever tentative deadlines they announce?
Apple is either clueless or is having serious problems maintaining competent hardware engineers despite them being the second wealthiest corporation in human history and sitting on a massive war chest. Instead of hiring the talent they need, obscene bonuses are delivered to executives since Jobs died.
The question is, why are they having trouble finding designers? I have heard various accounts from people, as well as rumors, that their pay is below industry standards. Also, certain jobs are not stable with Apple hiring people for consultant like specialized positions at employee wages, tying them to insidious contracts, and then dismissing them when their niche skills are no longer needed. It is also reported to be an abusive place to work where employees are belittled and insulted and their contributions not acknowledged.