Should Apple change "G4" maketing strategy?

What the hell is the G5, anyway? I don't think anybody on this board actually knows. It always amazes me to see people posting about "The G5 will do this" or "The G5 is so fast", when the name doesn't refer to anything real; it doesn't even refer to anything that's been designed, as far as we know.

Sigh.

It's a tricky one.

But it's a trap of Apple's own making and mostly Moto's. The twins of evil, eh?

I suppose, you could, in fairness, say the G4 plonked in a 'coming soon' G5 motherboard could qualify as a 'G5' more than the altivec enhanced G3...cough, sorry, 'G4' did.

Depends if they also make alterations to the apollo's feeble 'floating-look-ma-one-count-'em-point' unit.

It seems clear to me that all the smoke from Moto' rumours on the net is that Apple will release a m/board enhanced G4 in July. 1.2 gig conservative and 1.6 optimistic. Bump it in January 1.6 - 2 gig.

'Real' G5? July 2003. It may be called 'G6' by then...

I know.



Lemon Bon Bon

SO far as the pro desktops goes.. I haven't seen a marketing strategy other than the sligh-of-hand misdirect that Appl ehas had to do using Photoshop bake offs.

For the most part , the marketing of G4 desktops has been shelved for about 2 years now. Except for some cube foldout ads in time (prosumer) and the occasional mention of LCD displays.. the mention of the actual desktop machine has been a non-event.

Apple has to find someway to breath e life into this product . If it's not a performance, then it has to be a added value for DTP/audio/video pro's. They want performance, but if Apple can find something they didn't ask for, and convince people they need it, then that may work also. (i.e. Airport, I never asked for that)

MSKR

What's wrong with G4/5/etc.? It hasn't been around as long as Pentium. Brand recognition is a good thing.

[quote]Originally posted by Ssendam:
<strong>What the hell is the G5, anyway? I don't think anybody on this board actually knows. It always amazes me to see people posting about "The G5 will do this" or "The G5 is so fast", when the name doesn't refer to anything real; it doesn't even refer to anything that's been designed, as far as we know.</strong><hr></blockquote>The G5 exists <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230" target="_blank">here.</a>

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>The G5 exists <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230" target="_blank">here.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

How does that prove the chip exists? This is some pretty weak evidence, especially as a basis for all the claims of super performance the G5 believers assert.

Doesn't matter what they call it or how they get it faster, as long as its faster; and who cares how fast a 20-stage intel chip is: it ain't mac osx.

[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
<strong>

How does that prove the chip exists? This is some pretty weak evidence, especially as a basis for all the claims of super performance the G5 believers assert.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think what BRussell meant was that the "G5" name exists on Mot's ppc roadmap.

I don't see why Apple wouldn't call the next gen powermac a G5 and I also don't see them calling a new revision of the 74xx "G4" chip a "G5." Apple didn't coin the "Gx" moniker; Mot has been using it as a generational "code name" since the beginning of the ppc architecture.

I think Apple switched to the "G3" name not only because of the jump to the ppc750 but because they had run the course of the original PowerMac 6/7/8/9xxx numbering scheme. When they hit 10,000, was it going to be pronounced "PowerMac ten hundred/233 or ten thousand/233, eleven eight hundred/400 or eleven thousand eight hundred/400" or whatever? No, that sounds dumb. Hey Mot is calling the 750 a "G3." Short, simple, name scheme. Let's use that...

Bringing this rant back to the present, Apple has never said that the "PowerMac G5" is imminent. The have never even publicly used the term "G5" that I know of, they have only said no comment when asked of it.

The only reason people want a G5 so badly and the reason that clonenode thinks the G5 name is backfiring for Apple, is because they have been whipped into a mad frenzy listening to all the unsubstantiated RUMOR flying around the internet and even our own comfortable little corner of the net here on these boards. "pssst... hey I'm new here but my bowling partners, roommates, cousin who lives in Greenland, dates a guy that heard on the radio about a guy who new a guy who was working on the G5 and he said it has 80Gflops of power and will be out next week!!!"

I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE!!! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

When the P4 first came out, it was getting beat by the PIII performance wise, and we on our high powermac horses pointed and snickered and said, "You suck." Now when this was happening I never once (and I work as a technician for a pc/mac sales and service company) heard the PC crowd get all worked up saying their salvation was the P5. Now that isn't exactly the same as our current scenario, but you get the point.

What we really want and need are faster, higher performance processors. I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that the G5 is the answer to this when technically the only "G5" that exists according to Mot's roadmap is an embedded processor.

OSX and games are going to benefit most from more bandwidth (mobo), and optimization/better drivers. Now according to everyone around here, 3d and rendering et. all seem to need the G5, but nobody wants to talk about what a revised, higher Mhz G4 / new mobo with all the speculated goodies will do performance-wise for 3d...

Before we say that Apple's marketing strategy is backfiring because of a ficticious processor they don't acknowledge and we don't have, how about we wait to see what they actually release...

Vote Quimby

[quote] Originally posted by opuscroakus:

What we really want and need are faster, higher performance processors. I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that the G5 is the answer to this when technically the only "G5" that exists according to Mot's roadmap is an embedded processor. <hr></blockquote>

Just like to point out that if you look at Mot's site, all the processors that are used in Apple's dektops are described as embedded (although I know that they do distinguish between them in the roadmap).

No more proof, no less.

<strong>Originally posted by opuscroakus:
I think what BRussell meant was that the "G5" name exists on Mot's ppc roadmap.

I don't see why Apple wouldn't call the next gen powermac a G5 and I also don't see them calling a new revision of the 74xx "G4" chip a "G5." Apple didn't coin the "Gx" moniker; Mot has been using it as a generational "code name" since the beginning of the ppc architecture.</strong>

Always remember to read the small print and minutia of all marketing (including press releases) materials. In the same road map, Motorola has at the bottom:

6xx, 7xx, 7xxx high performance microprocessor targeting computing and high-end embedded
8xx, 8xxx integrated processor targeting the Communications and Consumer markets
5xx, 5xxx integrated processor targeting the Transportation market

Mind that all this marketing material becomes so much mulch material when new marketing mulch comes out. If this is to be believed, it appears all G5 processors will be integrated processors of the 8540 variety, ie, worthless for Apple, and Apple has to use 7xxx type uprocessors. That's not a bad thing if the right things are done.

Apple should change their G4 fabbing strategy! Yes, I know they don't fab them, but I think everyone gets the point.

It's funny, no one ever asks what kind of processor is in my iBook (600 Mhz IMB PowerPC 750CXe). All I usually hear is "what a cool laptop" or "where can I buy one of those". If anyone does ask me "What processor is in that thing", I'm sure as hell not gonna reply, "Oh, why, it's an IBM PowerPC 750CXe, mate" when I can just say "G3". The G3/G4 marketing names are effective and memorable, but Apple is marketing its computers, of which the processor is only a part.
Maybe IBM and Moto should begin marketing their processors. I see plenty of Intel Pentium 4 ads on TV, but I've never once seen an ad extolling the virtues of the G3 or G4.

[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Scooterboy ]</p>

I like the Gx naming scheme. Makes things a lot simpler and clearer than how they used to name processors (68xxx; PowerPC601, 602, 603, 604e, etc).

The Gx naming scheme doesn't suffer from the same stigma that the Win9x name does because Gx is simply a scheme of progressive numbers; Win9x sets up a temporal comparison whereby people expect a new operating system to be released every year (Win2K? It's 2002 for christsakes!).

Also, people aren't calling for the G5 because of the naming scheme; they're calling for the G5 because Apple's hardware is a couple of years behind the current technology curve.

Flamers, please just make it easy on us. Attach a big windoze logo above your names. TIA
The naming scheme is all marketing, just as any company uses naming schemes. I am sure you don't want to drive the next BMW zxcvabsnn,ll34545455.67 type 456ret version3423443, but then maybe you do. The G5 is here of course, the question is...is it what people have postulated? Prostate..ulated? postulated? Ummmm goodnight!

[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: BungHole ]

[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: BungHole ]</p>

[quote]
OSX and games are going to benefit most from more bandwidth (mobo), and optimization/better drivers. Now according to everyone around here, 3d and rendering et. all seem to need the G5, but nobody wants to talk about what a revised, higher Mhz G4 / new mobo with all the speculated goodies will do performance-wise for 3d...
<hr></blockquote>

I think we're starting to see a time where video games are moving back to the console. Through the use of specially designed OSes, hardware layers, and I/O, games just seem to work better. the only exception is strategy games, but they don't seem to require the raw pixel-pushing HP as action games.

For 300 bucks I can get a sweet console. That's less than the extra cash I'd need to make a normal computer a good gaming computer. Plus it's more fun with friends.

"Also, people aren't calling for the G5 because of the naming scheme; they're calling for the G5 because Apple's hardware is a couple of years behind the current technology curve."

Ah-men.



Lemon Bon Bon

AND . . . getting rid of the Gx naming scheme won't solve that. People will always be clamoring for the next smaller-faster-better-cooler-(add more adjectives at your own discression) version of a processor-computer-monitor-OS-(add more nouns at your own discression). Whether it be called the Itanium, G5, P4, Saw-Tooth-Claw-Hammer . . . Whatever. There WILL always be rumors flying around about the next tech even if we don't know what to call it.

Since Apple is on such a slow revision cycle as compared to PC manufacturers, the prices on current products are way too high by the time they update them since tech prices tend to drop. Some people will always play the waiting game, trying to hop in at the right time to get the most bang for their buck.