Who's buying the Mac Pro?
So I got an email today from my Matt, my techie friend. He had been pricing Macs on the Apple Store Web site, as many of us are wont to do. For me, mobility has become paramount of late, so I generally am scoping out my ludicrously tricked out fantasy laptop. Matt has a netbook for when he travels, though, and so he was taking a look at the desktop machines, and he noticed some intriguing overlap between product lines.
Right now, the high-end iMac -- with a 2.8 GHz quad-core chip, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB hard drive -- will set you back $2,199. Meanwhile, a low-end Mac Pro with a 2.66 GHz quad-core chip, 3 GB of RAM, and a 640 GB hard drive costs $300 more -- and that's without a monitor. You could add an Apple cinema display for an additional $900, but that would still be smaller and lower-res than the spiffy new 27-inch iMac's built-in monitor.
This sort of discrepancy is not unheard of, especially after one segment has just seen a refresh. And those spec comparisons aren't quite apples-to-apples: the iMac has a Core i7 chip whereas the Pro has Xeons; there's also the question of the Pro's NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics card versus the iMac's ATI Radeon HD 4850, which I am extremely unqualified to answer, though for what it's worth they both have 512 MB of VRAM.
But the obvious and reasonable explanation is that Apple doesn't really expect anybody to buy the low-end configuration of the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro's target market is probably among people doing research or running render farms -- people who want to do high-end number-crunching and need tons of hard drive space. They're spending other people's money, which is good because once you really start tricking the Pros out, adding RAM and extra hard drives, you can very quickly get into five-digit territory on the price. The whole point of the machine is to be expanded, either at the factory or after market with obscure add-in boards. Nobody buys the base model Mac Pro any more than they buy a base model car, whereas even the low-end iMac is something that I'm guessing many people actually buy.
Still, it does represent a certain end of an era -- an era that I'm guessing came with decent margins for Apple. At the beginning of this decade, tower Macs were what you bought if (for good reason or not) you took yourself seriously as a computer user. Now if even hard-core enthusiasts like Matt and myself are turning to laptops and iMacs, I have to imagine that the Mac Pro niche is only getting nichier.
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
Esther Schindler
If the comments are ugly, the code is ugly
claird
SVG a graphics format for 21st century
pasmith
Take Chrome OS for a test spin
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Solaris Tip: Have Your Files Changed Since Installation?
jfruh
Android fragments vs. the iPhone monolith
mikelgan
What Gizmodo missed about the Pro WX Wireless USB disk drive
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.














But why?
At the risk of being the pro-windows, pro-pc troll, why would you shell out for a Mac Pro even if you're doing a render farm? Off the shelf generic pc's, workstations, or servers are more inexpensive, and more flexible. And for a render farm, why not use a linux cluster and save license fees while you're at it?I think the only people buying Mac Pros are Rush Limbaugh and Leo Laporte.
High End video and audio
High End video and audio editing can explain the Mac Pro. Hardware expandability, not to mention expansion slots to interface with pro multimedia hardware are essential.dude please proofread your article
dear god it's gibberish!