APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

Re: John Siracusa perspective on Mac Pro Successor

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Jeremy Garchow
Re: John Siracusa perspective on Mac Pro Successor
on Mar 25, 2013 at 5:50:32 pm

Also, from the article:

"Apple should keep pushing the limits of PC performance because it’s a company that loves personal computers. If Apple can’t get on board with that, then all the other completely valid, practical reasons to keep chasing those demons at the high end are irrelevant. The spiritual battle will have already been lost."

I would argue that a MacPro, is not a halo car.

It is the "top of the line" (read: most expensive) model that you can go in to almost any show room and drive it off the floor, or in computer terms, wait 3-4 days to get the BTO options. The same is true for all Mac computer models, when you need them fully maxed out, they come direct from the factory in a few days.

Using the current MacPro as an example, Apple is not designing the engine, the load balance, the CPU hardware and systems, the GPU systems, they are designing the chassis, to hold all of that purchased technology together, keep it cool enough to run, and practical enough to swap out what you need on the inside, and then write the software to integrate all the purchased technology and chassis together. They are not, however, designing the power plants. And really, this should be the end of my comment as there is no Xeon proc that carries Thunderbolt technology, that's why we haven't seen a new MacPro.

With the other current Macs, Apple has taken a different direction. They are, in fact, pushing the limits of the PC performance in ways that the author does not mention or perhaps simply ignores. Hard-wired RAM, non-standard SSD hard drives, high resolution integrated displays, ability to hook to ultra fast networks with computers that simply could not handle the speed or connection protocols, married to the fact that all of this tech was released to a lot of different types of working environments, which means that Apple (and intel) will have data on what works, what doesn't, and therefore be able to incorporate such findings in to a higher performance machine.

I have argued in the past that Apple was never a part of the moon race. As a company, it doesn't provide the fastest, biggest, loudest, gas guzzling machines on the planet to get you to the moon. That has never been a part of Apple history, and I don't think it will be a part of their future. The halo car is not needed for their business model to succeed. In fact, Apple has gone pretty far in ensuring that no matter what Apple product you have, it will be compatible with any other product you have, as long as the hardware is current enough to run the OS. Right now, the MacPro is the odd person out in the current Mac line up. You cannot by a Thunderbolt Apple display and plug it in to a MacPro, for instance.

I am not arguing that Apple does not need a MacPro, they do, I am just saying that building a special car that doesn't function as well as the rest of the cars in your lineup is not a business model that Apple seems to be chasing.

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2019 All Rights Reserved