Some time back, I wrote a commentary suggesting that, one of these days, Apple might give up on the Mac Pro, for essentially the same reason that the Xserve is no more. If customers aren’t buying them in sufficient quantities to justify production, Apple isn’t going to produce. Period.

Unfortunately, a few online pundits misrepresented my statements, claiming I was talking about something that would happen in the very near future, and thus I was off my rocker. Well, I concede the latter, while at the same time I should point out that I didn’t suggest this was going to be something that would happen very soon. Having owned a couple of Mac Pros in my time, perhaps I was being too optimistic about its prospects.

Now since the last Mac Pro revision came out in the summer of 2010, you have to wonder what’s happened and why Apple seems to have abandoned their most powerful and costly computer, which is basically a workstation. The fault lies with Intel, since they haven’t delivered on any credible updates to the expensive server-grade Xeon chips that Apple uses. The next update is not expected until early in 2012, which is when you’ll see a new Mac Pro, or maybe not.

A few things have occurred since I wrote my first articles about the Mac Pro’s future. First is that portables are gaining a higher and higher share of Mac sales. It’s roughly at the three quarters level as of the last quarter. While Mac sales are still growing faster than the rest of the industry, with the exception of a few PC companies, most of that growth is obviously coming from the note-book segment, although the iMac and Mac mini continue to do well. Apple, of course, doesn’t break down models beyond desktop and portable, but it’s not hard to guess what’s going on. The Mac Pro is largely the province of heavy-duty content creators and gamers who find the iMac to be subpar in delivering maximum rendering speeds and superior frame rates with all the fancy rendering features enabled. Certainly the ability to install expansion cards inside the Mac Pro is a huge plus for such customers.

But Apple has begun to level the playing field between their professional and consumer Macs. Consider the arrival of Thunderbolt, a technology developed by Apple and Intel that, in effect, establishes an external PCI connection. Thunderbolt supports external displays, powerful hard drives, and all sorts of products that may still be on the drawing boards. You could even connect a PCI breakout box, such as a Magma ExpressBox 3T, and use it to install all or most of the same expansion cards you’ve been using in a Mac Pro. Maybe it’ll require special drivers and all, but it means that even a lowly Mac mini, the MacBook Air, the MacBook Pro, and even the iMac can now support those cards.

Yes, as I said, a great equalizer.

The other value of a Mac Pro is sheer CPU horsepower. Although most benchmarks show the high-end Mac to be little faster than a loaded iMac, the equation changes when you run software that can exploit all those extra processor cores. The most powerful Mac Pro, starting at $4,999, utilizes a pair of 6-core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processors. The most powerful iMac, a $2,199 build-to-order option, contains a quad-core Intel i7. Other than the few truly multicore savvy apps, the iMac keeps up quite nicely with the Mac Pro, but the exceptions are the rule for professional customers.

Now Intel happens to have 6-core versions of the i7, the 990X, but Apple hasn’t configured any iMacs with this particular processor. Since it also carries a retail price of $999.99, even if you allow for a substantial discount because Apple would be buying them by the tens or hundreds of thousands if they decided to offer a higher-end model, your $2,199 iMac would become substantially more expensive, though still a whole lot cheaper than a Mac Pro. And that’s still a single processor, since you’d need a Xeon to support pairs.

Another problem is that, every time you buy an iMac, you are also buying a brand new 27-inch display, and Apple’s only “headless” option, other than the Mac Pro, is the mini. And don’t get me started about those failed hopes and dreams for an iMac sans display.

Would a souped up iMac serve as a worthy substitute for the Mac Pro? For most customers, probably. But there are still some for whom a Mac Pro is the tool of choice, and if Apple fails to provide that tool, they might consider jumping to Windows, assuming they’re not tethered to Apple’s Final Cut Pro or Logic Studio of course.

I wouldn’t presume to second guess Apple’s motives and future plans. If no new Mac Pro arrives once the refreshed Xeons are here, there will probably be room for concern. On the other hand, if Apple’s development costs are limited to simply updating the core components every year or two, and no other changes are made to the aging Mac Pro casings, maybe it’ll make sense for Apple to continue to build them. But there’s a point of no return, a point where sales are just too small to justify even carrying it in the catalog. It’s not as if Apple wants to build products in tiny quantities anymore.

It may even be that the latest round of speculation is little more than a trial balloon, designed to judge whether or not there will be much negative reaction to the possibility the Mac Pro is on life support. Or maybe some of those Mac rumor sites have too much time on their hands, and not enough new material.

It’s not just a legend but a fact that Steve Jobs and crew visited the famous Xerox PARC labs in the 1970s, and were thus inspired to build the Macintosh and the Mac OS, with the famous graphical user interface. Of course PARC didn’t just invent GUIs. They were responsible for key innovations in laser printing, object-oriented programming, and lots of other goodies.

Now contrary to urban legend, Apple didn’t steal the idea from Xerox. According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject, “Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.” In other words, they had the perfect right to build the Mac OS, and, in fact, some PARC engineers ended up at Apple, including Bertrand Serlet, the former senior vice president of Mac Software Engineering.

Now imagine if that GUI found itself in a Xerox branded computer instead of one built by Apple, but the big difference between the two concepts is that PARC envisioned a computer for professionals, whereas Apple focused on a consumer-oriented machine.

But that is just one of the key influences for Apple’s inventions over the years, some of which have been touched on in these columns. A good example is the handheld computing device depicted in “Star Trek: Next Generation,” the first and probably most popular spin-off to the original series, which starred Patrick Stewart as the Captain of the starship Enterprise. Nothing strange about this, as ideas first introduced in science fiction stories, movies and TV shows have later found their way into real commercial products. Let’s not forget the famous Motorola StarTAC cell phone, which was clearly inspired by the communicator in the original “Star Trek.”

So I wasn’t surprised to read a column this week from a blogger who actually believed that the resemblance between the “Star Trek” mobile computer and the iPad was a brand new discovery. Talk about tunnel vision. Besides, it’s not as if such a gadget is a novel idea. Prototypes for tablet computers were developed in the 1970s, but it took years before the miniaturized parts were available, and at prices that allowed companies to make them affordable.

Indeed, Apple’s genius — and I grant that many credit much of that genius to Steve Jobs, although he had lots and lots of help and sometimes had to be persuaded to adopt a particular product idea — was to take existing product ideas and find superior solutions.

So while Apple may have invented one of the first affordable personal computers, beginning with the Apple I in the 1970s, many of their other concepts had been tried by others before Apple found a better way.

Certainly, the iPod was inspired by a number of other digital media players, all of which might be considered to be digital equivalents of the Sony Walkman. But it’s too bad that Sony, once a key designer of innovative products, never found a way to succeed with a portable digital player.

Although one may wonder whether Jobs paid much attention to science fiction shows, the iPad was no doubt deigned to be a better way to implement the tablet computers that were first introduced by Microsoft. For years, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer touted the tablet as the next great thing, only to be left abandoned at the altar when Apple found a superior solution.

As you probably have heard, the iPhone itself was a fork of the iPad project. After denigrating the quality of mobile handsets for years, Jobs green lighted what was essentially a tinier version of the iPad with a built-in telephone. Till the iPhone arrived, most smartphones used tiny keyboards, typified by the BlackBerry. After the iPhone was unveiled, it was all or mostly about touch.

It’s also true that not every feature in the iOS or Mac OS originated with Apple. In the 1990s, for example, Apple actually acquired the rights from third party developers to distribute such utilities as Apple Menu Items and Extensions Manager as an integral part of the OS.

Nowadays, Apple adapts ideas from lots of places to embed into their products and software, and there’s been an ongoing cross-pollination between the iOS and OS X. Apple’s advantage now and always has been to improve upon existing concepts, while still maintaining a relatively seamless integration within a product, and among the entire product lineup.

If you want to be picky about such things, you can say that a lot of what Apple creates is adapted from other innovations, or employs technologies acquired by purchasing smaller companies. Certainly Siri is a notable example; the company was acquired by Apple last year, and I realize that the end result does indeed resemble the talking computer in “Star Trek,” including the female voice.

The Apple A4 and A5 chips, for example, were designed by the processor engineers who came to the company when Apple bought P.A. Semi in 2008.

In the end, of course, it’s not where the idea started, but how it was executed in a real product, which is where Apple usually excels.

I suppose it’s going to be a long time before we stop talking about the best-selling biography of Steve Jobs from author Walter Isaacson. It’s filled with fascinating details, and tantalizing clues. Consider Apple’s “hobby,” the Apple TV, which continues to be a product in search of an end game.

Now the claim that Jobs found or “cracked” the solution or formula only raises more questions. If Apple is going to build their own TV set, what can they offer aside from the expected slick iOS-inspired interface, integration with other Apple gear, the Siri personal assistant, and support for iCloud? Other than being built into the TV itself, thus offering a simplified setup menu (something the average TV user will rarely use after setup), what are we going to see that you can’t get on an Apple TV today?

The unanswered question is all about content. Does Apple hope to supplement existing cable and satellite services, or replace them? If the former, you’d still be forced to contend with the existing set top boxes and DVRs. What I suppose Apple could do is allow their custom user interface to act like a universal remote, allowing you to choose channels and schedule and record episodes without having to interact with the usually crummy interface the cable and satellite boxes deliver. This shouldn’t require any special licensing agreement. Apple’s elegant user interface would to act as a substitute for the functions of a standard remote control, working behind the scenes to issue the necessary commands to a set top box. After all, just about every TV and set top box remote can be configured to work with other devices. And translating the service’s standard display menus ought to be a simple process.

Certainly putting a pretty interface on complex commands is already part of Mac OS X and the iOS, both of which contain Unix-based cores. If you’ve ever tried to figure out the Unix command line structure, and how Apple’s operating systems make those functions seem so simple, you’ll know what I mean.

On the surface, this would seem a clumsy solution, but it may be the best way for Apple to deliver all the TV content you get now, without forcing you to cut the cord.

The other solution would be for Apple to somehow expand content offerings way beyond what you can get today. You certainly cannot rely on iTunes and Netflix, plus the smattering of other options, to deliver a reasonable percentage of the content that any cable or satellite provider offers on a subscription basis. Even if Hulu is added, it wouldn’t be enough.

Those 300 or so broadcast and cable stations that are generally included in your TV provider’s bill of fare include scripted shows, reality shows, live sports, news and other events. Maybe you don’t need all that stuff, but I suspect most of you want to be able to watch so-called “live” TV from time to time. How is Apple supposed to handle that dilemma? Or do they expect to provide slimmed-down substitutes that they hope will satisfy most customers?

The reason this question arises is based on the statements from Steve Jobs some time back that the standard cable or satellite box, available free or as a cheap rental, is the major impediment towards the ultimate success of an Apple TV. Even if the capabilities are expanded and built into an Apple branded TV set, how is that going to change?

Sure, I suppose it’s possible for Apple to set themselves up as the replacement for Comcast, Cox Communications, Warner Cable, AT&T U-verse, DirecTV, Dish Network and all the rest. To do that, however, they’d have to sign the very same agreements to carry cable channels, plus find a way to somehow offer local stations in the mix. If Apple could manage such an achievement, and it’s going to be difficult, they’d still have to contend with the problems of saturating broadband bandwidth to deliver content for many customers, not to mention dealing with the vagaries of an Internet provider, such as those occasional service hiccups or outright outages.

Does Apple really want to play that game?

Now with all that spare cash in the bank, Apple could, I suppose, consider setting up their own satellite networks, offering themselves up as direct competitors to existing TV providers. Now it can take several years to set up such a system, not to mention the estimated $50 to $400 million fees for launching each satellite in their system. Also, for this to work, Apple would have to consider providing service to customers in Europe and elsewhere. Would they really want to risk the expense of building up infrastructures and satellite systems there too?

Frankly, the very idea doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I’m skeptical about the prospects of an Apple connected TV, but I’m more skeptical about Apple trying to replace existing content delivery systems. Maybe my suggestion about software that acts as a universal remote control makes the most sense. That way, Apple can still offer their own content through iTunes and the streaming companies with whom they have licensees, allow you to keep your cable and satellite connections, and offer seamless integration for everything.

Is that the solution Steve Jobs devised in his final days? I have no way of knowing, but just thinking about the possibilities makes me extremely curious. How about you, gentle reader?

There’s an interesting article at Macworld, from my friend Lex Friedman, which focuses on the rapid growth of Mac OS X in the early years, and how, as the frequency of upgrades has slowed, the changes have been less drastic. Lex assumes, perhaps with a reasonable amount of justification, that things will settle down with the iOS before long.

Now when it comes to Mac OS X, consider that, before Lion arrived, it had been four years since Apple released a major OS upgrade. Yes, Snow Leopard came between Leopard and Lion, but there were few feature enhancements. Mac OS 10.6 was meant as an OS upgrade to deliver new system-level capabilities that would improve performance and reliability. Well, at least when app developers made their software compatible.

Indeed, if you didn’t migrate to Snow Leopard, 10.6, you may not have noticed much of a difference, at least until the Mac App Store arrived and gave you an iOS-inspired method to acquire software. Of course, that also became the main destination to upgrading to Lion, so many of you might have been forced to upgrade to Snow Leopard anyway if you craved 10.7. Yes, Apple has a costlier USB stick version, but they really want you to download Lion. And, for now at least, Lion is the only route on the Mac to iCloud.

Continue Reading…