Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 321 posts

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#161

Post by achompas »

akeefer wrote: post #131
robomartin wrote: post #98

This illustrates the issue I highlighted in another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 The fact that Apple keeps hardware and, increasingly, software, so tightly controlled leads to a situation like that of this "new" Mac Pro. If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up an…

Apple is what it is because they tightly control the end-to-end user experience, from the hardware to the software. You can't maintain that and open up the hardware ecosystem; it's an either/or choice. So far, their choice has worked out really, really well for them, so why should they mess with that? I'm sure you're aware of Apple's fairly disastrous entry into the world of Mac clones back in the day. What you're ar…

What you're arguing now is essentially the same theory back then: clones would benefit them by increasing the marketshare for their OS.

That's not what OP is saying:

If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up and prices would come down.

This isn't "moar market share," it's "the end user would benefit greatly if Apple hardware opened up."

Today is much different than the Mac clone era for two reasons:

(1) Apple clearly has no intention of offering a high-end desktop solution. Instead of losing those users to high-end Windows or Linux machines, they could keep them in the ecosystem by licensing OS X for use in boutique-style desktops.

(2) Apple holds much more power now. In the 1990s they licensed Mac OS from a point of weakness; today they could license to high-end, boutique manufacturers who meet their design standards.

Is this the right way forward? Maybe, maybe not. But OP's suggestion does not necessarily lead to the Mac clone days of the 90s.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#162

Post by angli »

beambot wrote: post #128
AncientPC wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's improving the base model look and size for the majority at the cost of adapters for the outliers. Apple has always been consistently designing for mass market appeal for the past decade. If you are an outlier, Macs are not for you.

What is the opposite of "If you are an outlier, Macs are not for you" ? Is it, "If you are average, you should buy a Mac" ? That doesn't sound like a very good marketing tactic.

No, it doesn't, but the quality of the "opposite" is rarely a relevant indicator – if you tried to recruit people into the pro-choice movement, you'd have a far harder time if you called it the "anti-life" movement.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#163

Post by corwinstephen »

kbuck wrote: post #148
alaskamiller wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of this post is so hilarious to me, this is Apple coming full circle from its clone wars days. Man, those were some shitty experiences. Apple is an hardware company. They make money off the nuts and bolts pieced together with premium markup, software is but icing on top. They practically give away the results of their development costs on OSX. You're encountering the cognitive dissonance as experienced in t…

I disagree. Apple is both a hardware and software company, and I would argue that most of the decision to buy a Mac lies in software, not hardware. People don't say "I need this computer because it has an aluminum case"; they say "I need a Mac because it's easier to use." Not charging for minor updates doesn't mean they're giving them away. It means they've already rolled the cost into the original sale price.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. True, it's not the aluminum case they're after. But it also isn't the ease of use; The ease of use paradigm is yet another clever Apple marketing tactic to give people something to talk about when trying to explain to their friends why they made the decision to buy. The real reasons people buy Macintosh (and I'm talking about the general public here, because admittedly, the personal preferences on this board are likely to be skewed) are subconscious: People's brains notice that Apple products don't make the typical creaking/squeaking sound typical of tightly screwed together plastic parts when you touch them / pick them up. People notice things like magnetic power cords on laptops and cases and accessories designed to flawlessly fit their products without a centimeter to spare. People are influenced by what they see around them. People want to fit in, and do what's relevant. But most of all--and this is the one that a lot of us have trouble accepting--people care about style EVEN MORE than they do about function. Don't believe me? Take a look at how people dress. If people cared most about function, every single person on this planet would be walking around in New Balance trainers (or maybe Crocs), basketball shorts/track pants, and a Wallmart t-shirt. But instead, people pay hundreds of dollars for jeans that are far from functional. And sure, you might argue that not everyone does that, but a lot of the people who are buying Apple's products do.

My theory on why they don't care about the Mac Pro? They're phasing it out because Apple as a company is sustained by sexy, identifiable gadgets that are fun to flash and look at, and no matter what you do to the Mac Pro, it's still a computer tower. You're never going to bring it on vacation. You're never going to see it at a party. You can't even take it out into your living room to show your friends when they come over. The Mac Pro is a purely functional product, and Apple is about as much a functional company as C is a functional language.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#164

Post by mcantelon »

alaskamiller wrote: post #130
robomartin wrote: post #98

This illustrates the issue I highlighted in another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 The fact that Apple keeps hardware and, increasingly, software, so tightly controlled leads to a situation like that of this "new" Mac Pro. If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up an…

The irony of this post is so hilarious to me, this is Apple coming full circle from its clone wars days. Man, those were some shitty experiences. Apple is an hardware company. They make money off the nuts and bolts pieced together with premium markup, software is but icing on top. They practically give away the results of their development costs on OSX. You're encountering the cognitive dissonance as experienced in t…

>Man, those were some shitty experiences.

I did IT at the time for a Mac-friendly company and had no issues with the clones of the day.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#165

Post by scarmig »

Only tangentially related, but what's the consensus on which "ultrabooks" look best to compete with MBP/MBA? I was hoping that Apple would make my choice for me, but I'm underwhelmed.

I'm personally surprised that the Lenovo X1 Carbon hasn't gotten more notice: 14 inch screen, 1600x900, made of carbon fiber, beautiful body, less than 3 lbs, embedded 3G connectivity.

Question marks seem to be battery (I've heard numbers ranging from 3.5 hours to 10 hours) and price (I'd wager around $1200ish?).

Skepticism around the claims of improved sound.

The Samsung Series 9 (also 1600x900, but 13.3 inch screen) also looks solid. Any others out or on the horizon worth noting?

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#166

Post by rdl »

mcantelon wrote: post #164
alaskamiller wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of this post is so hilarious to me, this is Apple coming full circle from its clone wars days. Man, those were some shitty experiences. Apple is an hardware company. They make money off the nuts and bolts pieced together with premium markup, software is but icing on top. They practically give away the results of their development costs on OSX. You're encountering the cognitive dissonance as experienced in t…

>Man, those were some shitty experiences. I did IT at the time for a Mac-friendly company and had no issues with the clones of the day.

The problem with them was that they were better than the Apple products of the time, thus killing Apple's margins.

(although, really, most Apple products of the mid 1990s were abortions of various kinds -- Performa and Centris especially, and the weird education-channel-specific stuff. Good Macs stopped with the IIfx and IIci and began again with something around 1998)

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#167

Post by creamyhorror »

ghshephard wrote: post #30
seanica wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you don't have to worry about Anti-Virus and Firewall software management, admin permissions" Are you sure about that? "Flashback" is just one example. Apple has also approached an av vendor to help harden OSX.

Flashback is the exception that proves the rule. As much as I like to disagree with people who suggest that the OS X is "fundamentally more secure than windows" (it really, really isn't) - it does tend to have many fewer active exploits than Windows Platforms do - and your average OS X system is much less likely to be loaded up with malware than your average Windows XP system.

Perhaps, but I find it unlikely that professional companies would let their workstations - Windows or OSX - get loaded with malware. In fact, I hardly encounter exploits or malware on PCs nowadays, and never at all in the few corporate environments I've been in.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#168

Post by robomartin »

alaskamiller wrote: post #130
robomartin wrote: post #98

This illustrates the issue I highlighted in another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 The fact that Apple keeps hardware and, increasingly, software, so tightly controlled leads to a situation like that of this "new" Mac Pro. If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up an…

The irony of this post is so hilarious to me, this is Apple coming full circle from its clone wars days. Man, those were some shitty experiences. Apple is an hardware company. They make money off the nuts and bolts pieced together with premium markup, software is but icing on top. They practically give away the results of their development costs on OSX. You're encountering the cognitive dissonance as experienced in t…

The problem with the early attempt Apple made at inviting the clone market is that they didn't give it time to evolve. The first wave or two of IBM clones were a mess. A disaster. Compatibility problems galore. People who buy crap don't continue to buy it and they sure as hell don't recommend it. The crap PC clones died a quick death.

It didn't take long for the market to evolve and "grow up". Companies like Compaq surfaced. Very soon you had a million hardware ideas iterating from every angle trying to do it better and for less.

Today you can buy a PC notebook for a fraction of the cost of a Mac notebook --maybe a third or less. And, frankly, quality is excellent. Today you can walk into a place like Walmart and quite-literally grab almost any notebook computer and walk out with a quality product.

That's what Apple missed out on. Everyone got spooked as they watched the evolution begin and they pulled the plug.

Also, evolutionary forces are interesting. They naturally select product that people want. Perhaps Apple was afraid that they'd loose a lot more than the hardware war if they let go of the hardware. I don't know.

Barring a few details, today a PC and Mac notebook are basically the same machine. Same processor, memory, graphics, etc. Yet Apple isn't iterating the hardware as quickly and efficiently as the PC market continues to.

It'll be interesting to read what will be written in business books about this in twenty years.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#169

Post by rdl »

sciurus wrote: post #124
sillysaurus wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which monitors did you buy? How did you get them so cheaply?

You can get the Dell U2412M for $300. Reviews seem good; e.g. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&#3...

I prefer U2410.

If you buy in quantity or through the right channels, pricing should be 300-400, 500-600, and 800-1100 for 24/27/30 Dells.

Re: Mac Pro gets half-assed “update”

#170

Post by nikatwork »

joshAg wrote: post #20
wmf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PCIe cards. Multiple matte 30" monitors. Anything really CPU intensive.

I think he meant, why wouldn't a windows/unix/linux machine with similar hardware work just as well?

Most creative pro apps are only available on Windows or OSX. I don't hate Windows7 but I find OSX superior (integration, stability, decent shell etc). If you want OSX, you generally need a Mac.

I'd switch to Linux if the apps were there, but it's not even close. And I'm an edge case, I suspect most creative types would rather not mess with xorg.conf.

Post reply on HN