Apple's move STINKS

[ohalexis]

The new octo Mac Pro was just announced, but all they did was just add a 2x3.0 Quad option to the top and charge us a ridiculous high amount!

I know they are here for profits, but won't they sell more if they lower the prices for the older models and maybe put some more configurations in it, say a 2.6/2.4G Quad option? EDIT: not to mention the GPU choices are so childish.

I'd say I'm totally disappointed after waited it for so long, I guess this is the reason Apple won't become mainstream, because they never ever will get the market until they figure out that we need something performs better than iMac, but not as expensive as a Mac Pro. Yes, basically a headless iMac with upgrades. NO, absolutely not a 2.0G Mac Pro, which is IMO the worst value in the lineup.

My motivation to buy a Mac Pro is now finally over, I'll just build myself a good PC and stick with Ubuntu for now. So long, Apple.

 

[PlaceofDis]

you have to realize that the price that apple are getting these chips for probably hasn't changed, so there is no reason for them to drop their prices either.

 

[munckee]

Enjoy the PC. Yes, the octo is really expensive, but it'll drop. Like everything else. I don't see how one machine introduction ruins the entire "move".

 

[zap2]

I guess this is the reason Apple won't become mainstream,.

Ya currently Apple is a company no one has ever heard of!

But what did you want? A Mac Pro Octo for 2k? Come on, I don't really know what you were waiting for?

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

We don't know what the 3 GHz chips cost yet - Intel hasn't really announced them. What we do know is they are probably about 700-800 bucks, at least, more than the 3 GHz dual-core chips.

Apple is probably making similar margins on these chips as their other ones...

They probably didn't offer 2.4 GHz Quads because they didn't offer enough performance to justify the expensive prices!

 

[Passante]

I didn't check his math but this was posted at TMO

Just worked this out:

3GHz 8-core Mac Pro with 2GB RAM, 250GB Hard Drive, 256MB Video Card, CD-RW/DVD etc etc
$4296

2.66GHz 8-core DELL Workstation, same spec as above (ie. no monitor, no floppy).
$5756

 

[Passante]

snip, "I guess this is the reason Apple won't become mainstream,"

snip "I'll just build myself a good PC and stick with Ubuntu for now. So long, Apple."

Is it still April 1

 

[princealfie]

The new octo Mac Pro was just announced, but all they did was just add a 2x3.0 Quad option to the top and charge us a ridiculous high amount!

I know they are here for profits, but won't they sell more if they lower the prices for the older models and maybe put some more configurations in it, say a 2.6/2.4G Quad option? EDIT: not to mention the GPU choices are so childish.

I'd say I'm totally disappointed after waited it for so long, I guess this is the reason Apple won't become mainstream, because they never ever will get the market until they figure out that we need something performs better than iMac, but not as expensive as a Mac Pro. Yes, basically a headless iMac with upgrades. NO, absolutely not a 2.0G Mac Pro, which is IMO the worst value in the lineup.

My motivation to buy a Mac Pro is now finally over, I'll just build myself a good PC and stick with Ubuntu for now. So long, Apple.

Wow, what a fairweather friend we have here

I thought that people here liked Macs. Or maybe we have tons of hypocritical users?

 

[Silentwave]

We don't know what the 3 GHz chips cost yet - Intel hasn't really announced them. What we do know is they are probably about 700-800 bucks, at least, more than the 3 GHz dual-core chips.

Apple is probably making similar margins on these chips as their other ones...

They probably didn't offer 2.4 GHz Quads because they didn't offer enough performance to justify the expensive prices!

DailyTech reported price-drops on the quad core Clovertown first flight for Q3 2007, but the 3GHz part is brand new and thus is priced where the 2.66 was at release- $1172 PER PROCESSOR in quantities of 1000. The 2.66 Quad core Clovertown is to be priced at a bit below the release price of the 3.00GHz Dual-core Woodcrest.

I will say this though- it is likely that Apple chose only to release the 8x3Ghz version at this point because the price drops probably haven't taken effect yet. Once they do, we might see the potential for a price drop on the quad core versions and the addition of the 2.66GHz version near the price point of the existing 4x3GHz model. Another thing to consider is...ready... the fact that most apps aren't sufficiently multithreaded! At this point, replacing the existing quad core machines with similarly priced octo configurations would mean a significant clock speed hit, and so unless all applications in use are state of the art and can use the huge number of cores (which very few are now), the potential would be wasted.

 

[Lancetx]

My motivation to buy a Mac Pro is now finally over, I'll just build myself a good PC and stick with Ubuntu for now. So long, Apple.

Go build your own, using the exact same processors and other components, and let us know how much it costs. Apple's price is extremely competitive considering how incredibly expensive these Clovertown CPUs are right now. Every comparable Dell I've seen costs more, and of course they won't run OS X either.

 

[shecky]

 

[TheAnswer]

Well...hopefully you can still use the iMac you have in this thread and the MacBook Pro you ordering in this thread. Doesn't sound like you're really in the market for a new machine yet, much less a Mac Pro.

 

[combatcolin]

The Octo mac isn't for us, same as you can't just decide to buy a Space Shuttle/ Apache/ F 14D Tomcat/ Eurofighter/ Challenger II to drive to work.

Yes its expensive, and yes its worth the money.

But, No - its not for the computer guy on the street.

Or bedroom .

 

[patrick0brien]

Does the term "Histrionic" apply here?

 

[deputy_doofy]

Ya currently Apple is a company no one has ever heard of!

But what did you want? A Mac Pro Octo for 2k? Come on, I don't really know what you were waiting for?

Agreed. It would be nice to see a slight price drop, but Apple won't do that until Intel does. As for the new Octo, there are plenty of people who are looking for seriously high-end equipment and would normally spend the amount of money that the Octo-core costs.

Sounds like there are too many people here that want an Octo for the price of the cheapest iMac...

 

[kwood]

The new octo Mac Pro was just announced, but all they did was just add a 2x3.0 Quad option to the top and charge us a ridiculous high amount!

I know they are here for profits, but won't they sell more if they lower the prices for the older models and maybe put some more configurations in it, say a 2.6/2.4G Quad option? EDIT: not to mention the GPU choices are so childish........

I need some help understanding here... how can the choice of video cards be childish? And what in the current line of video cards makes them so childish...Am I missing something here?

 

[weaverra]

The new octo Mac Pro was just announced, but all they did was just add a 2x3.0 Quad option to the top and charge us a ridiculous high amount!

I know they are here for profits, but won't they sell more if they lower the prices for the older models and maybe put some more configurations in it, say a 2.6/2.4G Quad option? EDIT: not to mention the GPU choices are so childish.

I'd say I'm totally disappointed after waited it for so long, I guess this is the reason Apple won't become mainstream, because they never ever will get the market until they figure out that we need something performs better than iMac, but not as expensive as a Mac Pro. Yes, basically a headless iMac with upgrades. NO, absolutely not a 2.0G Mac Pro, which is IMO the worst value in the lineup.

My motivation to buy a Mac Pro is now finally over, I'll just build myself a good PC and stick with Ubuntu for now. So long, Apple.

Actually Dell charges $1600 to upgrade to the 2.66 dual quads. That system when upgraded to the Mac Pro Octo specs cost $1000 more and it is basically the same hardware. It's like $5060 for the Dell and $3997 for the Mac Pro.

 

[netdog]

So get a Dell.

EDIT: Just saw that a Dell was more LOLOL

 

[zap2]

Well...hopefully you can still use the iMac you have in this thread and the MacBook Pro you ordering in this thread. Doesn't sound like you're really in the market for a new machine yet, much less a Mac Pro.

Stalker?

Put good job...looks like we've got a troll.

 

[iJawn108]

If you are that worried about the price you obviously arn't a pro, at least not a successful one.

 

[statikcat]

I am just upset the current line did not get a revision in addition to the 8 core. The same MP quads since August with NO price adjustments or updated parts! That is embarrassing. Hopefully it will be coming up here by June.. I have a feeling they are waiting for the revision to be a big one and probably be related to some Intel price drops this month. And of course RAM, the GPU, and other parts have fallen in price since August. So hopefuly this = cheaper existing models and new models in the next few months.

 

[Umbongo]

I'm surpised that so many people today have been complaining. Road maps for CPUs, GPUs and chipsets have been out for a long while and Apples release and product range history has barely changed since Jobs returned. It doesn't take much effort to realise when things can and can't come. This is not a rev b mac pro, just another upgrade option. Yeah the Mac Pro has been out 6 months, but like most workstation components pricing hasn't really altered, their arent the market forces to drive down prices on such specialised hardware.

However I get the impression more and more that the majority of people complaining aren't ever going to be happy because the Mac Pro is not a computer aimed at them.

 

[Eric5h5]

I am just upset the current line did not get a revision in addition to the 8 core. The same MP quads since August with NO price adjustments or updated parts!

Remember when the move to Intel was first announced, and a lot of people were running around saying, "Ooh, now the models will be revised 4 times as often and cost half as much!" And I said, "No. It's still Apple (and anyway Intel chips aren't cheaper than PPC). Just...no." NOW do you want to listen to me, people? I personally am not disappointed because I wasn't expecting anything else. Just being realistic. (Anyway I'm not in the market for a new computer for at least another couple of years.)

--Eric

 

[apb3]

Not following this too closely but from Macintouch:

"[Ed Sikorski] I've been following pricing of the quad-cores (x5355) from Intel and the best "street" prices I've found is $1200 "each" for a X5355 @ 2.66Ghz. Yes, you'll need $2400 to get close to this new Mac Pro. I can't find any info on this 3.0Ghz quad core other than it may be part of the Clovertown family. Anyone know this 3.0Ghz Core ID number?
Pricing-wise, Apple's 3.0Ghz Quad is only $2000 more than what I paid for my 2.0Ghz Dual Core Mac Pro; $400 savings over me upgrading my 2.0Ghz to 2.66Ghz Quad Core. I sure would like to know the pricing Apple gets for "volume pricing" from Intel on CPU cores... "

http://www.macintouch.com

 

[plinden]

I didn't check his math but this was posted at TMO

Just worked this out:

3GHz 8-core Mac Pro with 2GB RAM, 250GB Hard Drive, 256MB Video Card, CD-RW/DVD etc etc
$4296

2.66GHz 8-core DELL Workstation, same spec as above (ie. no monitor, no floppy).
$5756

I did the same exercise after the announcment and the Dell was "just" $1000 more expensive. But the 8 core Dells max at 2.66GHz.