Apple released the 2019 Mac Pro at their WWDC keynote to much applause. Sure, things like iPadOS, system-wide dark mode, and the creation of Project Catalyst (formerly known as Marzipan) which allows you to run iOS apps on the Mac are all major software changes, but the new Mac Pro looks amazing.
The question is, can the 2019 Mac Pro compete with desktop workstation PCs using its server-grade hardware or is it just too expensive and overpriced like Macs of recent years?
Snazzy Labs analyzes the new Mac Pro and its Intel Xeon W Cascade Lake CPUs.
MacDailyNews Take: The base Mac Pro is priced the way it is so that Apple can make a profit as they know those units are most likely to be upgraded with third-party cards, etc. Apple won’t see any profit on those “entry” Mac Pro units, unless they price it as they’ve priced it. Like it or not, Apple has to pay for the R&D and everything else that went into the Mac Pro, including development of macOS (free annual upgrades to users). They can’t give away Mac Pros at a starting price that doesn’t allow them to recoup expenses or that undercuts iMac Pro.
Good to see that Snazzy Labs gets that the Mac Pro isn’t targeted at anyone other than highly demanding professional users, even if the bulk of their (likely Windows suffering mouth-breathing) YouTube commenters don’t.
Bottom line: The Mac Pro is perfect. No “kinda” about it.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “TheloniousMac” for the heads up.]
Now the big question:
Have those “highly demanding professional users” given up on Apple after all this time?
That’s a good point. A good portion of the professionals that moved away have invested significant funds into their current non-Apple setups and may be reluctant to pay another $12K+ per unit till they amortize their machines.
Perhaps the next question is how long is Apple willing to wait for those pros to come back and will Apple continue to invest in platform updates in the meantime.
Well, we have Apple’s disclosure of what their five year plan is for modular incremental improvements to this framework….
…oh, wait…
All sarcasm aside, with the motherboard based on PCIe 3, I don’t really see it as being all that viable of a platform for multiple iterative updates, unless they’re going to be coming along every six months.
I find it fascinating that the 1984 computer for the “rest of us.” when adjusted for inflation, cost about the same as the 2019 Mac Pro. That computer came with 128K of RAM and a 400K floppy disk drive. It tells us how far we have come since those days and how much cheaper technology actually is today.
Good point. I can’t image being able to afford the new 2019 Mac Pro, but I purchased a brand new Apple //e in 1982. The $2500 I spent is worth more than $6600 today, Maybe I can afford a Mac Pro. Hope the wife agrees.
“I find it fascinating that the 1984 computer for the “rest of us.” when adjusted for inflation, cost about the same as the 2019 Mac Pro.” True, but that 1984 Thin Man Mac was a complete computer. You didn’t have to pay that much again to get the monitor too.
The saying back in the early 1980s for those buying maxed out PCs (or IBM compatibles) or moderate capability workstations was that a top of the line machine was going to cost $5,000. Macs in those days did not fit into that class. The initial Thin Man and the Fat Mac did not fit into that class. They just didn’t.
Yes, that $5,000 equates to just over $12,300 today, but that’s not what the concept/saying meant.
The concept really meant, and the way it was discussed was, that hardware prices come down while capabilities go up. Yet the best will still be $5,000. A state of the art, high end $5,000 computer in 1984 would not be the state of the art, high end $3,000 computer by 1990. The state of the art, high end would still by $5,000 in 1990.
Besides, IF the assumptions everyone has on pricing is even close to correct, that $12,300 brought forward from the $5,000 of January 1984 does not get you anything but the base new Mac Pro model and the monitor. It does not get you even into a mid range machine.
Further, up through the original Mac II and likely beyond, there were huge discounts to specific market segments. For example, in 1986 students and faculty could get a Mac Plus at about half off the suggested retail price. You really could get a Mac Plus for about $1200 as I did. I would be very pleasantly SHOCKED if Apple has a similar set of pricing segments for this new Mac Pro.
This is true. Even an old Power Mac could set you back $10,000. It’s why the clones nearly ruined Apple. Ah, but there’s the kicker: companies like Power Computing had no problem undercutting Apple’s prices to the point that it nearly killed them (Mac computers were their main product back then, no iPhones or iPads to fall back on). Sorry, MDN: you missed the boat on this one. If the iMac pro is their justification, perhaps they should have scrapped the iMac Pro. They would have sold a ton more of these machines.
Except that digital technology hasn’t followed the CPI for inflation. That’s why we can buy a 10TB hard drive today for less than what a 10MB drive cost in 1985.