Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst

[AppleInsider]

Apple's next-generation iMacs are being held up for business reasons and a minor technical obstacle, according to one Wall Street analyst.

"We wanted to give an update on the Mac business from what we are picking up from our latest supply chain checks," Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu wrote in a report to clients Monday. "While new the iMac appears to be almost ready for primetime, what is holding it up appears to be business reasons and a potential small technical hurdle."

Specifically, Wu said his sources indicate that external casing changes will likely be modest and that "Apple is in the midst of figuring out whether to power the new iMac with Intel quad-core processors or more high-powered dual-core processors with larger caches."

Back in November, Taiwanese rumor site DigiTimes claimed Apple was waiting for new quad-core chips from Intel so it could "launch products based on" the new processors, but did not specify in which systems Apple would use the parts.* Intel subsequently rolled out*the new processors just last week.

Wu said he was surprised Macworld didn't bring new iMacs and believes Apple may be hesitating on quad-core processors for the iMac on fears that the decision could cut into Mac Pro sales.

"While quad-core would provide a material improvement in performance and potentially jumpstart sales, it could cannibalize the Mac Pro, its high-end tower, whose low-end configuration is currently a quad-core," he wrote. "Apple could choose to stick with dual-core on the iMac or make 8-core the new low-end for Mac Pro."

Wu's concern may be misplaced given acting chief executive Tim Cook's comments during Apple's fiscal first quarter earnings call last week. Asked about Apple's Pro segment, Cook admitted that Mac Pro sales are sluggish given the "current economic climate", and that Apple's desktop business is "primarily iMac."

In addition, Wu said he's also picked up on chatter that the iMac's vents and cooling systems may see a redesign to deal with higher heat dissipation.

A report from last December noted that the cooling module for the next-gen iMacs would be manufactured jointly by Foxconn and Auras Technology. Given that the report, which provided no further details, singled out the cooling system, it led to speculation that the new iMacs may employ a different cooling system than current models. Whether that's actually the case remains unclear.

In his report to clients Monday, Wu suggested that one final variable delaying the release of new iMacs could be the timing of Snow Leopard.

"While Leopard would take advantage of multiple cores, Snow Leopard takes it to the next level with better support for multi-core, multi-processors, and OpenCL, with enhanced graphics capability," Wu wrote.

The Kaufman Brothers analyst now predicts an iMac refresh in the March quarter or, given additional delays, the June quarter at the latest. Those claims conflict with earlier predictions from the Chinese-language Economic Daily News, which cited supply chain sources as saying new iMacs were due to arrive in January.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ipodrulz]

"new iMac with Intel quad-core processors or more high-powered dual-core processors with larger caches"

I don't even know what'd I'd want.

[rpm16601]

What about the itanium chips?

[e1618978]

The Mac Pro is such a small sales number, I just don't buy the cannibalization idea. Make the iMac as good as possible, because it sells in much larger numbers, and then release the i7 mac pro.

And release a displayPort card for the mac pro, and a displayPort 30" monitor.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

[Editor's note: Wu's claim that the current Mac Pro is available as a quad-core system is incorrect. The low-end model is an 8-core system featuring two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Harpertown” processors for a total of 8 cores.]

The Editor's claim that Wu's claim is incorrect is incorrect. The low end model is indeed a single Quad-core system.

[sumitagarwal]

The Mac Pro is still available in a quad-core configuration. After selecting the Mac Pro in the online store you can downgrade it to a single Xeon for a $500 savings, thus making it roughly equivalent to a quad-core iMac.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The Editor's claim that Wu's claim is incorrect is incorrect. The low end model is indeed a single Quad-core system.

You have to custom configure it that way. But I'll remove the note given that it is an option. The default retail config is an 8-core.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by e1618978

The Mac Pro is such a small sales number, I just don't buy the cannibalization idea. Make the iMac as good as possible, because it sells in much larger numbers, and then release the i7 mac pro.

And release a displayPort card for the mac pro, and a displayPort 30" monitor.

Yeah. As a Mac Pro owner myself I'd sure like to see some kind of upgrade path show up this time. Too often the Mac Pro has been sold as the "upgradeable" computer, only to have a single expensive RAID card be the only realistic upgrade option.

The previous towers (G3's, 4's), all had various upgrade options, processor upgrades, video card upgrades etc. and a lot of them are still in use today. I can't remember seeing a single Mac Pro that had it's CPU upgraded and only one ever that had a new video card installed (out of hundreds that I have personally seen and worked on).

Some of this has to do with the age of the machines of course, but excuse me for assuming the $3,000 super computer I bought should be able to be upgraded with new processors or a new video card once in a while.

[megatrick]

As a general rule, I find the granularity of Shaw Wu's analysis kind of ridiculous. How does this knowledge (garnered in a vague and clandestine manner) benefit his clients. Simultaneously, it harms Apple and (its shareholders, his clients) by spreading rumors about unannounced products that might affect overall sales. The best thing he could do is shut the ____ up.

Originally Posted by e1618978

The Mac Pro is such a small sales number, I just don't buy the cannibalization idea. Make the iMac as good as possible, because it sells in much larger numbers, and then release the i7 mac pro.

And release a displayPort card for the mac pro, and a displayPort 30" monitor.

[Constable Odo]

Gee, the iMac line seems so different from the MacPro line, I don't see how large an impact it would have. Besides, nobody seems to be buying the MacPro anyway. The MacPro is a fantastic design, but it's price is a tad high for most people. I think Apple should go with the four-core iMac and they should be able to sell a huge number that would easily make up for the MacPro sales loss. It would be nice for offices to have such a powerful and slim machine on the desks, rather than have all that bulk of a MacPro. Staying with a dual-core iMac seems like a bad move for Apple and the consumer what with Snow Leopard on the way.

[eAi]

Originally Posted by rpm16601

What about the itanium chips?

I assume that's a joke... Itanium isn't compatible with x86 code, except through a software interpreter (which is comparatively slow)... Hardly anyone uses Itanium for this reason...

[Frank777]

I don't understand how Apple is said to be "hesitating" on this.
This isn't like deciding what flavour of ice cream cone to buy at Baskin Robbins.

Apple had months of notice on whether to use 4 or 8 cores in the iMac, and the fact that a slight case redesign occurred would suggest that the decision was made. Either way, this isn't something that can be just left to the last minute.

Perhaps a delay in the next Mac Pro would mean that the order of the upgrades would be problematic.
But again, it's been known for months that the new Pros would be available in March/April.

[Hattig]

Surely one of the draws of the Mac Pro is the upgrade path - 4 drive bays, more memory slots, PCIe slots, etc? Even the ability to attach an awesome display without having another display built into the computer... never mind having 8 cores.

If you don't need this, then an iMac is fine. Apple need to accept this, instead of crippling the mass-market computer.

On the other hand, most consumers will be fine with a dual-core processor, as most software is only optimised for that. I'm sure grand central will change things, but it will take time for software to appear that uses it well. Personally I think a quad-core iMac should be left as a high-end option, or a build-to-order item, so that Apple can say they offer the choice of fast or wide.

[hillstones]

The iMac already cuts into the sales of the overly expensive Mac Pro. Having 8 cores is useless, and the editor should have obviously noted that the Mac Pro is available as a 4-core system. Maybe Apple would have better sales if they went back to their standard 3 system (Good, Better, Best) marketing routine. Maybe then most users would realize the Mac Pro is available for $2,299, instead of seeing only $2,799 on the web page. Of course they should try and drop the Mac Pro to $1,999, since that was the average starting price of the Power Macs.

Even though the "default" config is an 8-core, you cannot buy it like that without clicking on Configure, in which you will immediately see the option for the lower cost 4-core.

[macxpress]

Originally Posted by eAi

I assume that's a joke... Itanium isn't compatible with x86 code, except through a software interpreter (which is comparatively slow)... Hardly anyone uses Itanium for this reason...

Maybe he meant the Core i7 chip?

I also can't see why Apple would think a quad-core iMac would hurt MacPro sales. There are far more reasons to get a MacPro than just a quad-core processor. Too many to go into details.

I think it would be silly of Apple not to include a quad-core CPU, especially with all of this grand central technology thats going into Leopard. Basically this means they're doing all of this primarily for the multi-core MacPros then? I mean will grand central make that much of a difference with just a dual core setup?

[BlueDjinn]

I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).

The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.

I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:

1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.

COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.

2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.

COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.

3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.

COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.

The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.

[macxpress]

Originally Posted by hillstones

The iMac already cuts into the sales of the overly expensive Mac Pro. Having 8 cores is useless, and the editor should have obviously noted that the Mac Pro is available as a 4-core system. Maybe Apple would have better sales if they went back to their standard 3 system (Good, Better, Best) marketing routine. Maybe then most users would realize the Mac Pro is available for $2,299, instead of seeing only $2,799 on the web page. Of course they should try and drop the Mac Pro to $1,999, since that was the average starting price of the Power Macs.

Even though the "default" config is an 8-core, you cannot buy it like that without clicking on Configure, in which you will immediately see the option for the lower cost 4-core.

Or they could just make the standard configuration the $2299 model and upgrade from there. Seems weird they don't already do that.

[KindredMac]

The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.

When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.

A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

The previous towers (G3's, 4's), all had various upgrade options, processor upgrades, video card upgrades etc. and a lot of them are still in use today. I can't remember seeing a single Mac Pro that had it's CPU upgraded and only one ever that had a new video card installed (out of hundreds that I have personally seen and worked on).

Some of this has to do with the age of the machines of course, but excuse me for assuming the $3,000 super computer I bought should be able to be upgraded with new processors or a new video card once in a while.

The reason the G3 and G4's were upgradable was because there were faster processors readily available, and priced right for upgrades. The G5's were not upgradable because the processors were too expensive and the cooling systems were too advanced. Who would want to mess around with the liquid cooling system if they upgraded their G5? Also, the G5 only topped out at 2.7 GHz, so it wasn't that much faster than the lower end G5.

The G3 and G4 market was much different. There were many upgrade options available for a wide variety of Power Macs. The upgrade process was much easier too.

The Mac Pro hasn't seen that much of a difference in processor speeds, so there is no upgrade value. I am also assuming the Intel chips used in the Mac Pro are quite expensive too.

[hexor]

Originally Posted by hillstones

The iMac already cuts into the sales of the overly expensive Mac Pro. Having 8 cores is useless, ...

It is not useless. It is a Pro desktop machine. Those of us that actually need a Pro system use software that uses the extra cores. Any developer using Xcode for instance takes full advantage of every core the system offers. 8 cores cuts compile times almost in half compared to a 4 core system. This adds up to significant time savings.

The Mac Pro is easily the best desktop Mac Apple has ever produced (and I've used Macs since the Mac 128K). I'm about to add 1TB drive to the system for example. Because I have 4 HD bays I can simply order an internal drive and not have to add an external like someone with an iMac will.. (saving $50-$100 right there). and taking advantage of the SATA interface.

[Sabon]

Originally Posted by KindredMac

The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.

Just because the person that wrote the article is clueless does NOT mean that Apple is. Apple is VERY aware of everything that is happening including how we feel about different choices they make for their computers.

Steve Jobs is also very aware of these and he already knows exactly what he wants up to a year or more ahead. It's a matter of whether the hardware or software is ready and what he has to settle for.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by rpm16601

What about the itanium chips?

Maybe for a the iBarbecuer.

Seriously, we have 1300 servers and are slowly dumping Itanium. Too expensive to support and Intel's x64 is just as good for our needs.

I wonder what the hold-up is for the new Mac Mini now. Snow Leopard or Quad Cores?

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by KindredMac

The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.

When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.

A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.

Apple now markets the Mac Pro strictly for the "Professional." They didn't do that with the Power Mac G series. I went from the Beige G3 to the iMac G5 and I am very happy with the iMac. The Beige G3 was too big on the desk and too noisy. The iMac is much nicer. The external hard drive I added to my iMac is much more versatile. Although not as easy, I can still upgrade the hard drive in my iMac. My next upgrade will be another iMac. And you can connect two displays to the iMac and extend your Desktop, if needed. The Mac Pro does seem to be overkill for most home users, especially at the price.

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by BlueDjinn

I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).

The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.

I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:

1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.

COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.

2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.

COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.

3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.

COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.

The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.

I say Option 2.

[archer75]

core i7 please. With a Nvidia gtx260 or better. Or ati 4850 or better.

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple's next-generation iMacs are being held up for business reasons and a minor technical obstacle, according to one Wall Street analyst.

"We wanted to give an update on the Mac business from what we are picking up from our latest supply chain checks," Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu wrote in a report to clients Monday. " . . .

Wu, Wu, Wu. We only read your material for entertainment purposes now.

Let me summarize for those who have not followed the Wu-ness for long . . .

The iMacs are being delayed for some kind of business reasons.
Or maybe it's a technical obstacle.
The cases might be slightly changed, or might not.
The air venting might be slightly changed, or might not.
They might be quad-core, or might not.

It's like reading a horoscope -- after some event happens in a month or two,
Wu can tell his clients how right he was, and it'll almost look like he was,
no matter what happens.

iLaugh

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by hexor

It is not useless. It is a Pro desktop machine. Those of us that actually need a Pro system use software that uses the extra cores. Any developer using Xcode for instance takes full advantage of every core the system offers. 8 cores cuts compile times almost in half compared to a 4 core system. This adds up to significant time savings.

The Mac Pro is easily the best desktop Mac Apple has ever produced (and I've used Macs since the Mac 128K). I'm about to add 1TB drive to the system for example. Because I have 4 HD bays I can simply order an internal drive and not have to add an external like someone with an iMac will.. (saving $50-$100 right there). and taking advantage of the SATA interface.

Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.

[r.kirkerrr]

i reckon i am probably the only person on this forum that is happy to see the iMac being held back, if we are to believe what we have heard.

main reason being is that if they release a new iMac soon, i will feel inclined to purchase sed mac, which would not really benefit me in the long term as a result of a rather piss poor economic climate.

so i reckon a march release would do me quite nicely, well, my parents.

[macxpress]

Firewire or no sale!!!!

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by MacTel

I wonder what the hold-up is for the new Mac Mini now. Snow Leopard or Quad Cores?

Apple probably doesn't want to update the mini until the new iMac is available. A new mini would probably stack up pretty nicely against the current iMac and eat into iMac sales. So they need the new iMac ready to go before the new mini can be released.

So they need to hurry up wtih the new iMac so I can get my new mini!!

Then again, if the reports I've read about the new mDP not playing nice with 3rd party monitors is true, that will have to be resolved first since the minis will very likely be hooked up to many non-Apple screens (vs MB and iMacs which are seldom hooked up to any other monitors).

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by italiankid

One thing is certain...

If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....


IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.

So where is your proof? What is an iPhone light leak? I have seen many first generation iPhones (and I own one) and there is no such thing as an iPhone light leak. The choice of LCD displays in an iMac is a not a "major design problem." It is the choice of LCD panel used. If you claim your MacBook hinge is loose, go to Apple and use your warranty.

The use of a chip is primarily concerned with availability. Cooling hasn't been a problem since the liquid cooled G5's in 2005.

[sflocal]

Originally Posted by e1618978

The Mac Pro is such a small sales number, I just don't buy the cannibalization idea. Make the iMac as good as possible, because it sells in much larger numbers, and then release the i7 mac pro.

And release a displayPort card for the mac pro, and a displayPort 30" monitor.

I agree. Remember that for most folks considering a MacPro, the biggest reason is that it supports a lot more than the 4GB max that the iMacs have. So even if someone buys a single 4-core Xeon, it will still outperform an iMac (theoretically) if you do a lot of high-end work requiring lots of memory. And of course, using a lot more internal drives too.

I'm waiting to see what the iMac and MacPro will look like and then purchase one accordingly. Should be really interesting!

[hypoluxa]

It makes perfect sense for Apple to up the iMac to a quad-core chip. It is the midrange desktop system, therefor it should be a quad. Snow Leopard will shine on a quad core I bet, and then just make low-end Mac Pro an 8 core, so it can still be the king of the desktop hill. What do you all think?

[mstone]

Originally Posted by macxpress

I also can't see why Apple would think a quad-core iMac would hurt MacPro sales. There are far more reasons to get a MacPro than just a quad-core processor. Too many to go into details.

I agree. They need to upgrade the whole line and continue to differentiate the iMac and Mac Pro by putting more power in the Pro too. I guess at some point though even the lowest configuration is going to be plenty powerful enough for 90% of the buyers. Only video editors, engineers or scientists will have a need for high end super computers.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by macxpress

Firewire or no sale!!!!

I'm sorry, do you mean Firewire 400, 800, 1600 or 3200?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Frank777

I'm sorry, do you mean Firewire 400, 800, 1600 or 3200?

I'm sure that FW400 will be dropped from all Mac desktops in favour of just FW800. Anything faster will not be ready yet. And I'd reckon that FW800 will be on the new Mini too since I feel that the removal of FW400 on the Mac notebooks was do to space constraints.

[Cubert]

"While Leopard would take advantage of multiple cores, Snow Leopard takes it to the next level with better support for multi-core, multi-processors, and OpenCL, with enhanced graphics capability," Wu wrote.

I believe OS X has always been able to use more than one processor/core. The efficiency, however, has been improving with each release, and Snow Leopard will take this to a new level.

[thompr]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.

Eight cores will be a huge advantage once Snow Leopard arrives. The software will definitely run faster then.

Thompson

[power]

Originally Posted by rpm16601

What about the itanium chips?

Itanium is a different architecture than x86 and intended for servers. It's been an utter failure to date.

[Haggar]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.

The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.