Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TwitchFunnyguy77 t1_itjoxp5 wrote

Reply to comment by spaceraingame in Apple testing Apple Silicon Mac Pro with 24-core CPU, 76-core GPU, 192GB of memory by prehistoric_knight

I know Reddit is anti-Apple anything so I'll probably be downvoted, but people do realize this is not marketed to general / avg consumers, right? $25,000 workstations are nothing new, regardless if they're made by Apple or not.

67

spaceraingame t1_itjqqjw wrote

That $25,000 was a joke. I made that figure up. I have no idea what it costs.

1

drjonase t1_itkahqf wrote

It’s realistic. But you can use it at least 3-4 years to make 300-800k and the expanse is 100% deductible.

Apple has some ridiculous pricing on some parts but their original hardware is really good and comparing to pro workstations by Dell and HP not much more expansive

31

johansugarev t1_itl8ogd wrote

The current one costs between $6k-$45k. I suspect the higher end configs will come down in price but the ones that make sense will be around the $10-15k range as they have always been.

3

ArionIV t1_itkacg7 wrote

Nah you're not allowed to kid about Apple ever /s

−16

mangodelvxe t1_itkvp3i wrote

Wtf do yo you mean? Reddit is constantly sucking off Apple in every tech sub on here

−6

Nytonial t1_itkoln9 wrote

So because insulin isn't aimed at the average person we can charge 20k for it?

Apple making something cost an obscene amount of money, with an obscene markup, for no reason other than pure greed is why we hate them

−22

benanderson89 t1_itkp4j2 wrote

The MacPro and MacBook Pros in the workstation market are some of the more affordable options

13

Nytonial t1_itkpaci wrote

Because they aren't workstation spec unless you mean "contain software you're trapped into" as a reason they are a workstation

They are average hardware with shocking thermals, untill m1, which isn't compatible with enough yet

−7

benanderson89 t1_itkqkww wrote

They've always been workstation grade hardware because they've been designed for specialised tasks with certifications from software vendors and optimised for a strict subset of tasks. The previous intel systems had dedicated hardware for video (EG the T2 chip in many models doubled as a transcode processor), ECC Graphics RAM and were highly optimised 2D Image and Audio processing. Current ARM systems are highly optimised for high memory throughput applications and multi-processing (and the genius NUMA implementation in the M1 Max Ultra is a legitimately innovative piece of technology; the interconnect between the two domains being as fast as local node memory is a stunning achievement).

The reason Apple sell so many systems to business is because they're a good buy for business and price and feature competitive with other *nix systems like the Dell Precision, Lenovo ThinkPad or HP Z. Not checked the pricing on the IBM Power systems recently but I imagine those are going to be astronomically priced by comparison.

6

Nytonial t1_itku879 wrote

"designed for specialised tasks" is that a fancy way of saying browsing Facebook? Since anything else would cook them down to 1ghz speeds.

While I agree m1 is a big change and actually incredible development, nothing about intel Mac's was workstation class without excessive gatekeeping mentality.

−9

mocha-only t1_itkqjbi wrote

What a shit comparison—lifesaving drug for some vs. powerful computer. Gunna hit you with a wild thought: if you don’t like apple no one’s gunna make you buy it.

8

Nytonial t1_itkul08 wrote

The issue is apple sets examples and pushes stupid design choices into the industry.

I complain because if apple fans stopped just accepting single usb ports, no expandable storage on iPhones and removal of basic features to charge more to users it wouldn't be so prevalent across the rest of the industry. I'm equally critical of Samsung and many pc manufacturers for example.

If people are valuing brushed aluminium and a high pixel count over actual computing ability AT AN EXTRA PREMIUM PRICE, yeah I'm going to ridicule it

−6

mocha-only t1_itl2e0u wrote

Can you see Tim Apple in the room with you right now?

1

podaypodayson t1_itmbzwg wrote

The great thing about computers is that there are plenty of options to choose from. Apple hasn’t supported removable memory in iPhones since day one. If consumers really cared, android OEMs would have continued supporting it and grown market share. But the market has spoken. Most people don’t care (and one should note that android doesn’t officially support removable memory anyway).

The same follows here. If the Mac Pro isn’t a good value for the intended audience, that audience will leave the building.

1

podaypodayson t1_itkvd06 wrote

Well this is the dumbest take I’ve seen in years. Let me know when a Mac Pro is a lifesaving medication.

2

Nytonial t1_itkw4gc wrote

What does something not being life saving medication mean it's then absolutely ok to be bent over by a company charging a 200% markup?

Why be soo proud that you're making some apple shareholders ridiculously rich so you can have an underperforming fashion statement?

−2

podaypodayson t1_itkwq4l wrote

I can’t believe you’re actually this daft.

• People who buy insulin do so in order to not die

• People who buy Apple products do so because they feel like it

If you think Apple products are too expensive, simply don’t buy them, and their pricing structure has no effect on your life. It’s pretty cool how easy it is!

5