Are Apple computers heading for decline?

[MikeTheKnight]

My 2012 Mac Mini is better than the latest top of the range Mac Mini. The Mac Pro starts from £2,999. Apple are not selling anything in-between that hasn't got a built-in monitor screen

 

A lot of people with old Macs without built-in monitors are now switching to PCs because Apple are not making desktop computers that they want to buy. 

 

People with PC's already have a monitor so are unlikely to want to go to the extra expense of buying an iMac with one. Most would want an iMac without a monitor. 

 

Therefore, how do Apple expect to retain their computer customers and attract PC users to buy a Mac computer?

[skijumptoes]

I don't get it at all, being in the apple eco system you genuinely felt well catered for, now you're looking at walls and obstacles when it comes to upgrade, that they've deliberately put up.  as you say, you could get the old Mac Mini Server model, with the quad core i7 - and the most they do now is a dual core i believe?.  

 

You could also throw aftermarket/branded  RAM expansions into them, then apple removed the ability to do that too (Is that still how it is?! i don't know).

 

I mean, it's as though the only way they can justify a 'pro' machine is by lowering the standards on their base/affordable machines - It's just crazy, and lazy.

 

I'm hoping that when i need to upgrade that they pull something out of the bag, i just couldn't go with a windows machine.  I know you get more bang for buck - But that would mean no more Logic, no more MainStage, no more being able to plug instruments/devices on the fly, would mean using a machine which is practically trying to send every piece of data about my usage to MS HQ (And beyond!).

 

I think what's gone against Apple is the Intel CPU range, performance is becoming a less exponential increase than what it was initially when they went through the Core2Duos, i3/i5s etc. - if Apple could have it their way we would be on i10's by now, and it would make a great marketing gimmick for them, and everyone would be happy.

 

As it is, they're doing what they can to keep the 'pro' lines attractive within the Intel range at their disposal.  And to be honest, that sucks - it's deliberate sales and marketing determining the specs of machines that their customers are funnelled into using, not what they could actually offer their customers, and maintaining true upgrades in each price range.

 

Back in 2012, i'm sure you were thinking that an i7 Quad CPU would be baseline-mid tier specs in 5 years!!  I certainly did.  

[MikeTheKnight]

I know you get more bang for buck - But that would mean no more Logic, no more MainStage, 

The only reason why I have a Mac is to use Logic but I now realise that you can do much the same things on most of the popular DAWs, and more plug-ins are available etc. 

 

no more being able to plug instruments/devices on the fly, 

I do that fine on a PC.

 

would mean using a machine which is practically trying to send every piece of data about my usage to MS HQ (And beyond!).

ISPs and governments will know almost everything you do online anyway. 

 

It has been so long since Apple made mid-range computers without a built-in monitor, that Apple are soon going to be losing customers who have been waiting for a very long time to replace their old desktop-tower Macs. They are giving a lot of Apple customers no option but to move to PCs.

[skijumptoes]

I tried to make the move from logic to Studio One about a year ago, in the thought that i'd have something that was quite similar, Presonus have a good active development cycle, and most importantly was cross platform.

 

However, while it was very good in some aspects - there was so much in Logic that i missed, particularly Mackie control, SysEx for my V Drums (Cymbal clasps etc.), and most notably the efficiency of Logic is superb for my use.

 

I'm lucky in some respects as i still use a lot of outboard equipment, so i could probably run on my current hardware for another 3-4+ years easily.  And hopefully by then, the users which have jumped ship will lead Apple into sorting their philosophies (I had another word their initially ) out.

 

However, i've got this odd feeling that the lower end models (Mac Mini, 13" MBP etc) will slowly merge into an IOS like eco-system, because they've clearly restricted these models in the current flavours.

 

It's making me feel a bit sick thinking about it now! lol

[MikeTheKnight]

It seems that someone at Apple might have read my message...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/04/apple-planning-new-imac-mac-pro

[MikeRobinson]

Frankly, "a computer is a tool for a job."  You don't buy a computer to look at the thing, and different models of computers are not interchangeable.  A Mac is not a PC is not a Linux box.  Therefore, you buy the tool that does the job you want or need to do.  If you have free choice in the matter, then choose freely.  But usually, you don't.

 

Usually, you have a "killer app."  And that "killer app" drives a certain choice of hardware and operating-system.

 

If you want to run Logic, or MainStage, you must use a Mac.  But if you're standardized on ProTools your decision parameters may be 150% different.  Doesn't matter:  "the job (or, the software choice) defines the proper tool."

 

Some of the parameters are more subtle than others.  For example, all Mac monitors are calibrated, and they're all calibrated the same.  Walk into an Apple store and look at the phones, the Macs of different descriptions, the iPads, and you will see that every display of "the same image" is the same.  (Now, go into the electronics section at Wal-Mart and try to find any two TV's whose displays look the same.)  Now, look at the (Windows) laptops.  Same thing.  If you were into digital imaging, that would be an enormous deal.  It is frequently a decision-decider in that space.

 

Apple briefly flirted with "clone-makers" until Steve Jobs (RIP ...) regained control of his company and put the kabash on that silly idea.  They simultaneously control both the software and every piece of hardware that it might possibly run on.  They don't go for "cheap" in either case.  And they've been rewarded for that by unswerving customer loyalty.  There is far more to both their software and their hardware than meets the casual eye.

 

Other "killer apps" are based on Windows.  Others, on Linux.  Whatever your "killer app" is, should be what drives your choice of what computer(s) you must own to get your  job(s) done most effectively (... for you).

 

As for me, I'm a professional software business consultant.  So, I've got one-or-two of damm-near everything:  Mac, Linux, Windows, weird-stuff.  My "killer app" is whatever my clients have got, and/or what runs virtual-machines well.  I make no attempt to run a copy of "their software" on something that doesn't match "their hardware."  I'll buy another brand-new gently-used machine, if necessary, to ensure that what "their software" does on "my box" is identical to what it does on "theirs," and properly write off the purchase as a business expense ... which it is.

[skijumptoes]

You say they're tools for the job, as a professional, try losing a MacBook or a PC Laptop and see which one loses you the most sleep.  For me, also being a professional, the encryption and priority Apple put on securing our data is crucial.  There's an element of comfort being on the move with that kind of equipment.

 

Likewise, i would never use a PC over a wifi network unless i know it's fully secure and who else is accessing it, it's far too easy to breach a windows machine, that's why they practically force updates and restart your machine when your back is turned, often losing you work.

 

Look at the sheer amount of IOS Devices out there which curl up and lock themselves if the incorrect login data is attempted too many times, people complain about that, but i think it's great and pray that Apple never change their stance because users are too ignorant to manage their credentials.

 

If you hold any kind of sensitive data, such customer records, payment etc. then it's such a massive element as a professional to have this piece of mind, let alone reliability.  I've had a single MacBook that's still running strong in the time that 2 windows laptops have broken down (now on the third), plus the MacBook gets far more use!

 

In terms of music and creation, i think your choice of hardware also makes a big difference to creativity and how that flows, and there's no denying mac's are a cleaner/more transparent option - however, they certainly lack the sheer processing grunt that you can drag out of a pc.

[Wolfie2112]

If you hold any kind of sensitive data, such customer records, payment etc. then it's such a massive element as a professional to have this piece of mind, let alone reliability.  I've had a single MacBook that's still running strong in the time that 2 windows laptops have broken down (now on the third), plus the MacBook gets far more use!

 

In terms of music and creation, i think your choice of hardware also makes a big difference to creativity and how that flows, and there's no denying mac's are a cleaner/more transparent option - however, they certainly lack the sheer processing grunt that you can drag out of a pc.

I came over to Mac from Windows a few years ago, and this is so true. Did I pay a huge pricetag for the MacBook pro? Absolutely! However, it has not given me any grief...and this is from daily use since 2013. Windows PC's and laptops? Always issues. My slave machine is a PC, but it only gets used for that purpose (and does it well). I know the Mac will be ready to when I need it, without the BS. I see guys on this forum using Mac pro's that are ten years old! You can't do that with a windows machine, no way. 

[simon.a.billington]

I think Apple has realised some of its "mistakes" or miss steps and is now rethinking the future of the desktop.

 

A large part of their eco-system is "closed" because it's what Steve Jobs insisted. Now he's been gone for a while and the company has learned to be successful without him, I think they are ready to do away with some of his past restrictions.

 

They're looking at doing their own GPUs as well so they can ultimately bypass the bottle neck of waiting for 3rd party to providers to get their s$&t together. It will also means no need to complrimise for PC compatibility.

 

It may even bring down the cost because there would be no need to pay for licensing.

[MikeRobinson]

... but now you have to design and manufacture hardware.  Specifically, semiconductors.

 

Nevertheless, many parts of "the Mac ecosystem" are open.  For instance, OS/X is based on "Darwin" Unix, which is completely open.  Many of their codecs are also open – some which had previously been proprietary.

 

To me, the key to the success of the system is that they never pursued "clone makers."  (When Steve Jobs regained control of Apple, he immediately put a stop to that!)  Thus, they design and they completely control the only hardware that their software is allowed to run on.  It's not the cheapest hardware in the world, but it's arguably the best, and software designers never have to wonder "what the hardware actually is."  Apple always knows of the entire set of hardware which could be running their stuff, and they know everything that there is to know about all of it.

 

Microsoft, on the other hand, took the position that "their product is an operating system," a piece of software, and the related pieces of software which run on it in a very tightly-integrated train-wreck stack.  But they don't control the hardware on which their software might run:  "anything goes."  This is part of what creates the headache of "drivers" in the Windows world.  Because they have no control over what it is that they might run into, they have to be prepared for anything.  This makes it especially difficult to use this platform for professional work in which consistency and predictability is critical.

[Ploki]

@MikeRobinson: iOS is based on the exact same OS as macOS is.

 

And I suspect they will be progressively locking down macOS as well.