Hacker News Reader

Comment by robert_nsu | Hacker News Reader

I don't get it. Why don't they just discontinue the Mac Pro?

Mac OSX is still solidly used in many industries, such as media and publishing. Recording studios need the Pro to install expansion cards, video production houses the same. I've seen close to riots because a production house wanted to move all their staff to Windows, and as much as you think it might save costs, you don't have to worry about Anti-Virus and Firewall software management, admin permissions etc on top of all that, Windows Pro licenses etc. Integration with iPad and iPhone is also important given that a lot of media development for these goes on in this studios.

I (still) work in old-world publishing. Honestly, Mac Pros are losing their edge in this industry. My machine was recently upgraded from an old Mac Pro to a new Mac Mini. Even when I spam my machine with a half-dozen Adobe apps at once, I don't really hurt for performance.

Granted, some still need a Mac Pro to drive multiple huge monitors, cut video, add weird device interfaces, etc. Some will demand super expensive hardware for reasons more political than practical. All that said, overall, the publishing industry seems to be hitting a performance-plateau where the old Pro is no longer necessary among many practitioners.

Right, I wonder if the Thunderbolt isn't going to replace the expansion cards in the future. As long as latency is as low there is no other reason I can think of to maintain expansion card chassis, and thus discontinue the Mac Pros for the Minis.

"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.

No, Apple hasn't approached an AV vendor to help harden OSX. That was marketing FUD by Kaspersky that was later retracted. Kaspersky is conducting its own internal audit of OSX, and Apple has said that it would naturally be open to listening to any reports of vulnerabilities that Kaspersky might discover. This is far different than what was reported by computing.co.uk.

Because there's still a handful of people willing to pay $5000 for an above average desktop computer.

Because there are audio/video professionals who want a Mac that has hardware expandability similar to a PC. The market becomes more niche by the day, but it's there.

That being said the vast majority just have a laptop Its fast enough and support high rez external monitors.

That's probably the reason. When the niche for desktops is too small, it will eventually die. Because Apple only produce stuff that makes a pretty good amount of money. If it doesn't, it's removed.

It make sense, even if it's annoying.

It make sense on pure dollar value, but I think it would really hurt the brand perception of Macs as a premium computer, and it would drive the pro market elsewhere which could have a nasty trickle down effect over time. I don't think Mac Pro is going anywhere, maybe they have something bigger in the works and just need more time.

Probably because they want to clear out some parts, or finish up supply agreements as Marco suggested.

I really doubt it. As long as there's a few customers willing to buy it, and as long as they can make what must be a ridiculously large profit margin on them, they're gonna continue to make 'em.

I think Apple's "ridiculously large" profit margin is lower than other vendors on their high-end workstations.

Dell charges through the roof for memory. 16GB of 1600MHz ECC memory for only $700 more? Wow, that's thrifty!

A 12-core Mac Pro still offers significantly more processing power than a quad-core Ivy Bridge i7. So the Mac Pro still serves its purpose.

Because its easier to sell your stockpiles of CPU's/other left over assets this way.

If a product is still profitable, why discontinue it?

Perhaps they would save more by discontinuing the line than they make in profits on it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Any profit, however small, will exceed any savings you get.

I guess maybe we have different assumptions about what "profit" means. I'm assuming that when someone refers to a line of products as profitable, they are taking into account all administrative costs as well.

The factory could be used to make other even more profitable widgets. The guy who writes hardware drivers for it could be writing drivers for some other next big thing. If you're offered the choice between a penny and a dollar, you choose the dollar, even if the penny is "all profit".

Youre talking about opportunity cost. Most definitions of profit account for opportunity cost. So that penny in all profit takes into account the dollar you are forgoing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com