or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Reinvention of Apple Computer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Reinvention of Apple Computer - Page 2

post #41 of 153
I wonder if the poster is the same Faeylyn who used to post at Macrumors.com. See for example:

Faeylyn Name Used Here
post #42 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by Krassy
what iCam?

The one Faeylyn seemed so sure of in this thread:AI- iCam Proof of Concept
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #43 of 153
Apple should buy apple records for 1 simple reason, the beatles catalog! can you say APPLE ITMS EXCLUSIVE of huge preportions? dont use the lable for new music, and whala - no competition to the other lables - unless paul McCartny threarens Creed
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #44 of 153
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by murk
The one Faeylyn seemed so sure of in this thread:AI- iCam Proof of Concept

Yes, I was wrong about that. Maybe I just wanted the prototype I saw to be real too bad. But Apple seems very reluctant to enter into commodity markets or those that will quickly turn in that direction. The iCam WILL come out. It just won't have an Apple logo on it. And, as long as you are looking at old posts, you could also bring up that I was correct about the G5 way back when....
post #45 of 153
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Nebagakid
There is no NEED for Apple to Purchase Pixar, or Disney for that matter. They are entertainment companies, not computer/software/hardware companies (except for Pixar which makes software already available on Mac OS X). It will not happen. I guarantee 500 AI Credits on it.

This would be like McDonald's purchasing Aamco.

I accept. Please deposit the 500 credits in my account ASAP.

For those who think the iPod/iTMS/AppleRecords deal is out of the question, consider the first part (analysis) of that second post. Be VERY SURE that top Apple brass has already come to the same conclusion. Apple is in very real danger of losing the majority of their market for both iPods and iTMS within 3 years and dumping both soon after.

Apple must do something to keep its hand in the music cookie jar. Something big. Something significant. iPods with 240GB drives won't do it. Color iPods won't do it. Apple cannot compete in a mature market like that long term.

The choice is to do nothing and give away another market they created or to do something and keep it. So, if you're so sure that the scenario above isn't going to happen, then how, pray tell, is Apple going to hold onto that market? Or are they in it for the quick buck and intend to dump (or sell) it after they squeeze all the high-margin profits out of it?
post #46 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by Faeylyn
Yes, I was wrong about that. Maybe I just wanted the prototype I saw to be real too bad. But Apple seems very reluctant to enter into commodity markets or those that will quickly turn in that direction. The iCam WILL come out. It just won't have an Apple logo on it. And, as long as you are looking at old posts, you could also bring up that I was correct about the G5 way back when....

Actually, no need to get personal on this...I this or I that.

Your two posts leading off this thread were indeed well thoughtout,well articulated and excellent examples of cartesian logic.

For me, the more impressive is actually the second one. Don't think there is much new to add in the first one. The second one on the iTMS and new Apple Studio, would be such an incredible master stroke if Apple can pull it off. What was particular impressive was your analysis of where iPod and iTunes will go, which did not fall into the trap of irrational exuberance exhibited by the various fora of Mac fans.

well done
post #47 of 153
What if the Apple Corps deal is cash plus Apple stock and the remaining members of the original quartet become promotors for Apple?!
post #48 of 153
Apple does seem to be grooming iTunes/iTMS to be a spinoff; and they have already licensed the iPod to HP.

Buying Apple Corps (aka Apple Records) might make a little sense. Buying Pixar, though, is completely unnecessary. If Pixar were in financial trouble it might make sense. (I agree with those who think the Pixar/Disney squabble is directly related to Roy Disney's struggle with Michael Eisner.)

The modular iMac and the IBM G4 have been discussed to death already.

As for the iCam, I'd like to see a camcorder using Sony's new MiniDisk format disks. The advantage of disk over tape is that you can jump to any spot quickly.

We would all like to be Wowed by Apple this year. However, the seemingly interminable wait for the G5 and the 15" alubook have seasoned us to not expect updates very often. It's sort of like baseball; "long months of complete boredom punctuated by moments of sheer ecstasy".
post #49 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Apple should buy apple records for 1 simple reason, the beatles catalog! can you say APPLE ITMS EXCLUSIVE of huge preportions? dont use the lable for new music, and whala - no competition to the other lables - unless paul McCartny threarens Creed

Michael Jackson needs the money, he owns the publishing rights to beatles songs correct????
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #50 of 153
Well, there's certainly no shortage of information to bat around, leaving aside questions of veracity.

PowerMacs: There seem to be several fairly reliable sources pointing to an ambitious and imminent update, and PMs are generally updated in early spring as it is, so no surprise there.

There aren't any "little birds" singing in my ear, but I've picked up some interesting tidbits from here and there:

1) Persistent reports that the 970 was "rushed." While there is no question that the processor is a beautiful design, it's quite likely that what was rushed was a move up to 130nm, which might have required some work. The much lower power draw characteristics for the 90nm 970fx tend to bear this out. I think IBM, like Moto, attempted to jump ahead to 90nm and they didn't quite make it.

2) The realization among several Ars denizens that the poor positioning of the HDD heat sensor and the small number of internal hard drives - both in a case which is otherwise acknowledged to be the best case anyone has seen - both point to a last-minute expansion of the middle heat zone to accommodate hot CPUs. The rather obvious heat pipe on the CPU daughtercard - which isn't even for the CPU! - also points to a possible "oh crap" measure. In other words, we might see a case revision that expands the number of available drives - actually, the original case design, to handle the originally envisioned 90nm CPUs.

3) The Xserve. It handles ECC RAM now. I've seen the argument that technologies like ECC aren't useful in PCs, but the PowerMac isn't a PC. Apple's pushing it as a workstation. Now, of course, there is no bright line between "desktop PC" and "workstation," but there are some general differences. Workstations generally have much higher system bandwidth; PowerMacs stomp everything in their general price range (and higher) in system bandwidth. Workstations generally have extra-mile features like ECC, just so that there's one less thing to worry about. The PowerMac currently doesn't. I think the next revision will feature another boost in general bandwidth and ECC RAM, making it a bona fide, no excuses workstation. The only think it will lack is radiation-hardened components, but I don't know that it's possible to offer that in a $3K machine.

As for Xserve, the main reason for that to remain a 1U, 2 processor server is so that it can borrow lots of components from the PowerMac and use the economies of scale to remain cost-competitive. Right now, the market for Apple servers simply doesn't support anything else. If it ever does, there will be room for other models, and I'm sure Apple skunkworks is ready for that possibility. The G5 architecture is scalable in a way that the G4 was not (you could have 8 G4s in one machine, but only if you hung them all off the same MaxBus), so there are no real technological obstacles. There just have to be enough people willing to buy a serious server from Apple.

Why one of these instead of 2 or 4 Xserves? The 4-CPU 3U model would probably be cheaper than 2 2-CPU Xserves, and the 8-CPU 3U model would be more space efficient than 4 2-CPU Xserves.

The 1.8GHz G4 PowerBook. The Mot G4 is dead, yes. There is no roadmap past the 7457. However, this forum and others have been kicking around the IBM G4 - the "VX" - for some time now. If the Motorola offering can hit 1.25GHz on 130nm in a Moto fab it's not that much of a stretch to see IBM hitting 1.8GHz on 90nm in Fishkill. Apple said that the G4 had a long life yet in their products; they never said that the Motorola G4 did.

I'm not 100% sure about the iPod argument. Accessories do not follow commodity-market rules, or the iPod mini would be dead on arrival. There's a real question about what Apple has to do to keep the iPod a desirable accessory - a current iPod with 240GB of storage is silly - but Apple's been pretty good at keeping the design fresh and the functionality updated so far. The trick is to make sure that by the time the cut-rate people have finally figured out how to do last year's iPod, it's only last year's iPod. Windows only caught up to Mac OS because Mac OS stagnated for the better part of a decade.

As for Apple the publishing company: While buying Apple Records would be a way to settle that catfight for once and for all, it would put Apple in direct competition with the labels, and at least outside the tech industry you really don't want to compete with your customers, especially in an industry where you're the new guy. I think this is more likely than Apple absorbing Pixar and going into the movie publishing business, though. Big music is pretty dysfunctional, and Apple just might pull an FCP on them just to shake some sense the industry and give both artists and customers a better break. I don't think there's much of an analogy to the film industry, though.

Mark my words: There will never be a direct line from GarageBand or Logic to iTMS. Never.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #51 of 153
I think the idea behind Apple Inc. is pure genius. The aquisition of both Apple Records and Pixar would make Apple Inc. a *REAL* player in the industry. Pixar would lend the new company an instant validation, while on the music side of things Apple could genuinely turn the music biz on it's ear. Imagine...a music company that actually values talent and creativity...and pays the artist accordingly. Very novel, very simple, very Apple.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #52 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by 709
Imagine...a music company that actually values talent and creativity...and pays the artist accordingly. Very novel, very simple, very Apple.

... the first time I heard of Garageband (and it being an integrated part of iLife) this is EXACTLY what came to mind.

Remember mp3.com? They used a similar model for unsigned (and yes, admittedly, in many cases untalented) artists. I think the idea has legs...

In addition, I can see a band like "Pearl Jam" (who just got out of their record deal) buying into iTMS big time ... a few of those, and iTMS as a distribution label is a reality. Add a section for GB musicians, and you've performed a coup.

-John
They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwords, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing; play it forward and it installs Windows.
-TBobMac
Reply
They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwords, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing; play it forward and it installs Windows.
-TBobMac
Reply
post #53 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by bangstudios
... the first time I heard of Garageband (and it being an integrated part of iLife) this is EXACTLY what came to mind.

In fact, when I heard the name GarageBand I thought it was an incredibly stupid name for an incredibly powerful iApp. If Apple would indeed open up a side-portion of its music biz...the 'garage' so to speak...to up and coming musicians...

Worldwide exposure for no-names trying to make one? Power to the people...and those people would jump at giving Apple half of their 99 cent fee per download. Anyone would.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #54 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by tak1108
This seems way to "just made up for me" First of all, 1.6, or 1.8 G4s? Come on. We all know the G4 is dead. Unless, the IBM G3 with altivec is the 1.6 G4 you're talking about, this will NOT happen. Is there some magic that happened when Motorola spun of the semiconductor unit, that made it possible to not only make a 1.6 or 1.6 G4, but make them in sufficient quanity? No there isn't. Mot. spun off the semiconductor unit, and the mot G4 will die soon.

Quad Xserves? 8 processors? You're kidding right? This has been wished for, for a long long time and has always been "rumored". Now, if they are "in the lab" then I do believe with your sentiment that they won't be released.

EDIT: I would expect that with everything involved in a 4 or 8 processor Xserve, it would be cheaper to manufacture and sell 2 or 4 dual processor Xserves, thus making money for apple. I do not see 4 or 8 processor Xserves. Xserves are 1u and that's they way they will stay.

The new new iMac. Sounds just like a cube! yes, the same cube that several of us have been wanting for a long time. yes a cube with a 17" widescreen display. Just what I've wanted for a long long time.

This just seems like dreaming to me.


these ARE ibm g4s.
the g4 is FAR from dead my friend as you will soon see.

I as well as mr.macphisto have been telling any "insiders" who would listen that apple would use this chip in the powerbooks.

im very excited about what the new "cube" form factor will look like.
post #55 of 153
Am I the only person who noticed that the "headless iMac" represents a cost increase over the current model?

$999 just gets you the base. How much is the LCD on top?

All else being equal (i.e., if you have to design the case and board for both), AIOs are more cost-efficient than any collection of separate units. For this to work, Apple will have to resort to the old sleight-of-hand of advertising an iMac as $999*






*monitor sold separately.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #56 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Am I the only person who noticed that the "headless iMac" represents a cost increase over the current model?

$999 just gets you the base. How much is the LCD on top?

I guess it depends on how far Faeylyn's projected price cuts on the monitors go.
j00u = twh funnay.
Reply
j00u = twh funnay.
Reply
post #57 of 153
Bah, Faeylyn is making it up.

1. Xserves will stay single or dual processor with a 1U form factor in perpetuity. It is the most cost effective solution in performance and in volume. Any hypothetical 8 processor 3U Xserve will not offer any benefits over a 4 1U dual processor Xserve, especially how expensive it will be to produce an 8 processor architecture.

2. Not much of prediction. The PowerMac G5 came out in late August. By adding 6 to 8 months for the typical product cycle, we can expect new PowerMac G5s in late February to March with top speeds in the 2.4 to 2.6 GHz range. Whether the bottom end is dual or single processor is not that big of deal. If dual, it'll have a $2k price. If single, it'll be ~$1.8k. I'll speculate that the next PowerMac G5s will be dual 1.8, dual 2.2 and dual 2.5 GHz for $2k, $2.5k, and $3k, and I bet I won't be far off at all.

3. The iMac will stay in an AIO form factor. They will use the 970 architecture.

4. Displays will have G5 based styling, if they are actually updated.

5. Displays will be 17", 20" and 23". There will not be a 23+ inch display because DVI doesn't really have the bandwidth to go much higher than the 23" resolution.

6. I believe the next Powerbook will be a Powerbook G5. It is by far the most sensible thing for Apple to do. They really can't afford to do multiple "advanced" architectures anymore. So, at most, Apple is waiting on the 90nm 970fx to become plentiful and for a 90nm system ASIC. It is simply stupid for Apple to develop another system ASIC with 333 MHz FSB for a G4 architecture when the G5 is wholly adequate if not the best option. Simply add 6 to 8 months to the last Powerbook G4 release to determine when a Powerbook G5 will come out, which will be the late March to May time frame.

7. iBook will essentially use the Powerbook G4 motherboard in the next revision minus the cardbus slot, Firewire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, illuminated keyboard and other features Apple considers "pro" features. It'll have 1 to 1.25 GHz 7447/7457 chips. Simply add 6 to 8 months from the last release date and that will be the approximate date for new iBooks.

8. There is one possible G4 revision left for the eMac at 1.25 GHz. The iMac doesn't have much life left in it. If Apple comes out with a headless G5 Macintosh, then Apple will retire the eMac, push the iMac to the 800 to 1500 USD, and the new headless Mac will be in the 1300 to 1800 USD range. If they don't, I think it'll be retired after the 1.25 GHz revision and the iMac 15" will be pushed to to 800 to 1000 USD while the 17" and 20" will be in the prosumer range. It is only popular because it is the cheapest Mac.

9. Apple will ride the iPod as far as they can. Then they will hopefully license the architecture out, and I expect they have to be forced to do it. They will be perfectly happy with being the market leader in high-end music players for as long as they dominate the high-end market.

10. Apple will never ever, never buy Pixar. Apple will never ever become a record label.

11. The next big thing in computing is truly pervasive computing, and the key component to that is wireless networking with a constellation of satellites. There needs to be constant access everywhere. So, Apple either has to create the client or make the hardware for the network to be in on the next big thing in computing.
post #58 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Bah, Faeylyn is making it up.

Not unlikely; but at least s/he's borrowing from a lot of other rumors if so. And there's plenty of stuff for us to chew on.

Quote:
6. I believe the next Powerbook will be a Powerbook G5. It is by far the most sensible thing for Apple to do. They really can't afford to do multiple "advanced" architectures anymore. So, at most, Apple is waiting on the 90nm 970fx to become plentiful and for a 90nm system ASIC. It is simply stupid for Apple to develop another system ASIC with 333 MHz FSB for a G4 architecture when the G5 is wholly adequate if not the best option. Simply add 6 to 8 months to the last Powerbook G4 release to determine when a Powerbook G5 will come out, which will be the late March to May time frame.

Possible, but it depends more on the cost and capabilities of the 970fx than anything else.

If the 970fx does really well on the cost and efficiency fronts as the fab process matures, certain of Apple's lines might be able to limp along on the 7455a and 7457 until Apple can stuff G5s in everything (at which point the towers will sport the POWER5-derived CPU. This is the best case, and one that I don't consider likely.

What I see as more likely is that Apple figured they'd need something under the 970, so at about the time they started work on GPUL with IBM, or not long after, they started the VX project to replace the G3. There is no particular reason why this CPU can't use Elastic Bus, although it might not ship with the same 2:1 ratio that the towers use. That saves Apple some cost and trouble in developing a replacement for the low-end system controller, and (more importantly) frees Apple once and for all of the performance-nerfing 60x family of busses (including MaxBus). Then there's a pretty straightforward path from the VX to the 970 when the latter is ready. One of the things that influences my thinking in this direction is a late rumor that Apple and Moto had split over the issue of what bus technology to use. Apple wanted "ApplePI," which now appears to be Elastic Bus.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #59 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by THT

1. Xserves will stay single or dual processor with a 1U form factor in perpetuity. It is the most cost effective solution in performance and in volume. Any hypothetical 8 processor 3U Xserve will not offer any benefits over a 4 1U dual processor Xserve, especially how expensive it will be to produce an 8 processor architecture.

Quite a few people have said something like this about bigger XServes. If it were true, however, no >2 CPU boxes would exist. Maybe we should call up IBM and tell them that we at AI just had some amazing insight, and they should stop bothering with their midrange midrange pSeries.

Not every problem can be solved with clustering.
post #60 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by 709
In fact, when I heard the name GarageBand I thought it was an incredibly stupid name for an incredibly powerful iApp. If Apple would indeed open up a side-portion of its music biz...the 'garage' so to speak...to up and coming musicians...

Worldwide exposure for no-names trying to make one? Power to the people...and those people would jump at giving Apple half of their 99 cent fee per download. Anyone would.

That was my thought when I started this thread.

I know Amorph doesn't believe it can happen, but I think it may have a play in the long run.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #61 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
1) Persistent reports that the 970 was "rushed." While there is no question that the processor is a beautiful design, it's quite likely that what was rushed was a move up to 130nm, which might have required some work.

The much lower power draw characteristics for the 90nm 970fx tend to bear this out. I think IBM, like Moto, attempted to jump ahead to 90nm and they didn't quite make it.

I think this would be baseless speculation, not to mention that I think it is rather illogical to begin with. The most sensible thing for IBM to do was to fab the 970 on the 130 nm node. Wouldn't fabbing a new processor design on a brand new node be the riskiest proposition? Just look at the P3, P4 and Athlon. All of them were huge, hot and expensive when they first came out, just like the 970. It was only after the first process shrink that the processors hit their stride, and so it will be with the 970.

Yes, the 970 is likely designed for 90 nm, but to say it was rushed out on the 130 nm node seems too conspiratorial when it is the typical design practice. Pentium 4 hit its stride at 130 nm, yet it came out at 180 nm. Athlon hit its stride at 180 nm, yet it came out on 250 nm. Are we to say that those processors were rushed too?

Quote:
2) The realization among several Ars denizens that the poor positioning of the HDD heat sensor and the small number of internal hard drives - both in a case which is otherwise acknowledged to be the best case anyone has seen - both point to a last-minute expansion of the middle heat zone to accommodate hot CPUs. The rather obvious heat pipe on the CPU daughtercard - which isn't even for the CPU! - also points to a possible "oh crap" measure. In other words, we might see a case revision that expands the number of available drives - actually, the original case design, to handle the originally envisioned 90nm CPUs.

Possible. But if Apple ships a 90nm 970fx at 3 GHz in 2H 04, CPU power consumption and heat dissipation once again will be in the 50+ Watt range and would necessitate the same level of cooling. So, I wouldn't be too sure about that speculation.

Apple only having 1 "external" 5.25" drive bay and 2 hard drive bays in the G5 case is just typical Jobsian design philosophy. Ie, why put in 3 to 4 SATA channels when only 5% of the customers will use them all.

The only reason we will see a case change is when customers make it the number 1 demand. That also means Apple has to put it more SATA channels in the I/O ASIC, which I'm not sure Apple is willing to do. With drives getting so large, the percentage of customers who will want that many drive bays will only get smaller and smaller.

Quote:
3) The Xserve. It handles ECC RAM now. I've seen the argument that technologies like ECC aren't useful in PCs, but the PowerMac isn't a PC. Apple's pushing it as a workstation. Now, of course, there is no bright line between "desktop PC" and "workstation," but there are some general differences. Workstations generally have much higher system bandwidth; PowerMacs stomp everything in their general price range (and higher) in system bandwidth. Workstations generally have extra-mile features like ECC, just so that there's one less thing to worry about. The PowerMac currently doesn't. I think the next revision will feature another boost in general bandwidth and ECC RAM, making it a bona fide, no excuses workstation.

Agree here. ECC will become more and more of a necessity for the next PowerMac as it addresses more and more memory. So I think it'll eventually happen. At some point Apple should also add in RAID options too. The next PowerMac G5 will probably be able to "officially" address 16 GB of memory too.

Quote:
The 1.8GHz G4 PowerBook. The Mot G4 is dead, yes. There is no roadmap past the 7457. However, this forum and others have been kicking around the IBM G4 - the "VX" - for some time now. If the Motorola offering can hit 1.25GHz on 130nm in a Moto fab it's not that much of a stretch to see IBM hitting 1.8GHz on 90nm in Fishkill. Apple said that the G4 had a long life yet in their products; they never said that the Motorola G4 did.

The G4 class CPU is dead to Apple. They have zero need for it past 1.25 GHz. With the 970fx at 66 sq mm, it'll be plenty cheap enough to put in low-end machines (eMacs, iBooks and the like) in about 8+ months. In 2005, Apple will probably have the option of using a 970 derived processor with 1 MB L2 cache and multithreading for their high end processor.
post #62 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Apple only having 1 "external" 5.25" drive bay and 2 hard drive bays in the G5 case is just typical Jobsian design philosophy. Ie, why put in 3 to 4 SATA channels when only 5% of the customers will use them all.

The only reason we will see a case change is when customers make it the number 1 demand. That also means Apple has to put it more SATA channels in the I/O ASIC, which I'm not sure Apple is willing to do. With drives getting so large, the percentage of customers who will want that many drive bays will only get smaller and smaller.

[...]

At some point Apple should also add in RAID options too.

Why would Apple add any more support for RAID than they currently have if they're only going to ship a system with two drives? You can't run RAID 5 without at least three.

I think we will see hardware RAID support (borrowed, again, from Xserve) and three drives (borrowed from Xserve, whose controller supports 3 SATA channels).

Quote:
The G4 class CPU is dead to Apple. They have zero need for it past 1.25 GHz. With the 970fx at 66 sq mm, it'll be plenty cheap enough to put in low-end machines (eMacs, iBooks and the like) in about 8+ months. In 2005, Apple will probably have the option of using a 970 derived processor with 1 MB L2 cache and multithreading for their high end processor.

The putative VX would be cheaper still, and (most important for the 'Books) it could run substantially cooler than either the 970fx or the 7457. On the consumer desktop side, the cooler the CPU, the more design options Ives can entertain.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #63 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
If the 970fx does really well on the cost and efficiency fronts as the fab process matures, certain of Apple's lines might be able to limp along on the 7455a and 7457 until Apple can stuff G5s in everything (at which point the towers will sport the POWER5-derived CPU. This is the best case, and one that I don't consider likely.

I think this is the likeliest scenario.

Quote:
What I see as more likely is that Apple figured they'd need something under the 970, so at about the time they started work on GPUL with IBM, or not long after, they started the VX project to replace the G3. There is no particular reason why this CPU can't use Elastic Bus, although it might not ship with the same 2:1 ratio that the towers use.

Why waste time doing this when just plugging in a low MHz 970fx would solve the same problem?
post #64 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by dealing_death
Quite a few people have said something like this about bigger XServes. If it were true, however, no >2 CPU boxes would exist. Maybe we should call up IBM and tell them that we at AI just had some amazing insight, and they should stop bothering with their midrange midrange pSeries.

Not every problem can be solved with clustering.

I take your point, but I think IBM is getting the idea pretty quick since they are gradually offering more and more 1U servers. There is of course some room for the high-end stuff, but that is quite far away from Apple's server market.

In the context of Xserves and Apple, why should they do it? It doesn't add any value for Apple. Unless, Apple thinks it should cut into IBM's mainframe business? If the idea of an 8-way Xserve is to add more computational power, then it really isn't worth Apple's time since a 4 1U Xserves will do about the same job.
post #65 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
10. Apple will never ever, never buy Pixar. Apple will never ever become a record label.

I think people are forgetting that Apple already thought about buying Universal Music, but they decided not to because it would cost too much. Apple never bid, but they were more then likely in discussions. Why would Apple deny bidding, but not deny being in discussions? This means Apple is/was interested in entering this arena.
post #66 of 153
Quote:
I think people are forgetting that Apple already thought about buying Universal Music, but they decided not to because it would cost too much. Apple never bid, but they were more then likely in discussions. Why would Apple deny bidding, but not deny being in discussions? This means Apple is/was interested in entering this arena

Apple never had any intention of bidding for Universal - they were obviously just in negotiation to get music rights for the iTunes store.

That story was silly season nonsense written by journalists who knew nothing about what was going on.

it makes no sense for Apple to buy Pixar, they don't have any business as content providers.They don't sell movies through any mechanism. They never will - not without massive increases in internet bandwidth capabilities. They have said this. It makes sense.

It doesn't make any sense to buy Apple records either; nor would Yoko, Paul, Ringo, and the Harrison estate ever think of selling. Apple Records is privately owned.

It makes no sense for Pixar to be bought by Apple, exactly how the CEO would sell that to the Pixar owners ( i.e. the shareholders ) is beyond me. A shareholder revolt or a class action suit would ensue.

I think people are getting caught up in the fact that Apple has the same name as a record company; and, by pure circumstance - the same CEO as a animated movie company. But all that means nothing, really.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #67 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Bah, Faeylyn is making it up.

6. I believe the next Powerbook will be a Powerbook G5. It is by far the most sensible thing for Apple to do. They really can't afford to do multiple "advanced" architectures anymore. So, at most, Apple is waiting on the 90nm 970fx to become plentiful and for a 90nm system ASIC. It is simply stupid for Apple to develop another system ASIC with 333 MHz FSB for a G4 architecture when the G5 is wholly adequate if not the best option. Simply add 6 to 8 months to the last Powerbook G4 release to determine when a Powerbook G5 will come out, which will be the late March to May time frame.





I agree, i think the new g4s will stay in the ibooks, but the powerbooks will move to g5

Quote:


8. push the iMac to the 800 to 1500 USD, and the new headless Mac will be in the 1300 to 1800 USD range. If they don't, I think it'll be retired after the 1.25 GHz revision and the iMac 15" will be pushed to to 800 to 1000 USD while the 17" and 20" will be in the prosumer range. It is only popular because it is the cheapest Mac.

The headless prices are much too high.. Apple is aiming for the sweet spot in the desktop market...which is apx $800-$1200. A superdrive less cube for $999 is ridiculous is in today's environment..especially with current levels of RAM and hard disk and video standard equipment.

Quote:


post #68 of 153
Quote:
10. Apple will never ever, never buy Pixar. Apple will never ever become a record label.

As true as it ever will be. At least now. We dont know where Apple stands 15 years into the future...
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #69 of 153
Perhaps th einternals will get a massive upgrade, such as a radeon 9600 in the bottom model?

I doubt prices will decrease, but perhaps the spec will finally start to justify the price. For example, Powermacs might not be out now, as Apple may want to release them with the next gen ATi chips.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #70 of 153
There is no way Apple will produce an 8-way X-Serve. Dell, according to my sources, dropped the new 8-way Xeon MP machine. 2-way and 4-way machines are getting too powerful and too cheap to justify the development of an 8-way machine. What we can do with clusters now one could only dream about just 5 years ago.

A machine to equal the power of my new database cluster would have cost me over a million dollars just 5 years ago. When you get into the realm of an 8-way server you start dealing with much more then just 8 cpu's. Apple server hardware is nowhere ready for 8-way...I would rather have IBM or SUN for this level of hardware.
post #71 of 153
What, exactly, is the criteria used to determine one "less-than-five-posts" poster being a complete nutball troll and another being worthy of "hmmm, you might be on to something" status?



Simply the quality of their writing and use of some big, smart-sounding words and phrases? Interesting.

This thread goes on for two pages, spurring all kinds of "serious" discussion, while others of equally "yeah, right..." vibe get hammered. Or locked.

This of course, coming from a guy (me) who doesn't believe anyone anymore, so...



At least he's not claiming to have gotten some Apple employees drunk on the eve of Macworld...



So he's got THAT going for him...

Welcome to AI. I guess.
post #72 of 153
People keep saying there is no advantage to >2 processors in a single machine, but that is just bunk. Processors in the same box are shared memory machines, and for some kinds of processing this is a huge advantage over a cluster. Toss in a dual core PPC and you have an 8 processor box. There is a market for it, but it is a subset of the market for the 1U XServe. This is what Elastic Bus was designed for.

The "IBM G4" most likely would not use Elastic Bus (and therefore not have SMP support), and it wouldn't require a different ASIC. Why? Because it'll have an on-chip memory controller and a HyperTransport bus port. If Apple is closely involved in this chip's development (and why wouldn't they be?) then we might also see more functionality mixed in, such as their DMA controller and whatever other magic lives in the G5's memory controller ASIC. This is exactly the kind of chip development that IBM is pushing. As an IBM designed PPC of 750 lineage w/ AltiVec on their 90nm SOI process, speeds approaching 2 GHz at really low power levels seem entirely reasonable. This chip ought to compete just fine with Intel's Centrino line. Might even be able to go dual core by the 65nm process node.


While I'm skeptical that Apple Computer will turn itself into a media company, I am quite certain that Apple executives are (and have been) burning the midnight oil trying to figure out how to hold onto this music market that they have a tenuous grip on. Being able to offer unique content is certainly one option, but it doesn't seem like a big enough draw for Apple to continue growing this part of its business... or even keep it as healthy as it already is. What does seem obvious (at least to somebody completely removed from the music business) is that we are on the verge of a potential revolution in how music is created and sold. Ever since they realized that they missed the boat on recordable CDs, Apple has been aggressively chasing everything to do with music technology. Now they provide all sorts of technology to help creators do their thing, they are helping publishers do their publishing, and they are helping customers enjoy the end product. The only piece that seems to be missing is the direct link from creator to publisher. This is kind of like desktop publishing for music, and it seems like such an insanely cool idea that its hard to believe that somebody somewhere isn't going to do it -- so why not Apple? They've got a DRM system to protect the creator's rights, and the distribution/sales system to get the content to the customer and the money back to the creator. This is a gross over-simplification, but that is where acquiring a real label would come into the picture. And that is where the seperation into two companies would come into it... to avoid the conflict of interest. The iTMS and technology half of things would remain with Apple Computer, the content side of things would become the new Apple Studios (nee Records).



Interesting idea anyhow. Interesting initial post(s) on this thread -- certainly well thought out and presented. They are all plausible enough that I wouldn't be surprised to see all of them come true in the next year or two. At the same time they are optimistic enough that it feels more like a wish list. Ah well, hope springs eternal...
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #73 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by bangstudios

In addition, I can see a band like "Pearl Jam" (who just got out of their record deal) buying into iTMS big time ... a few of those, and iTMS as a distribution label is a reality. Add a section for GB musicians, and you've performed a coup.

-John

... as great as it would be if Apple could create a "slash-dot" for music, and make it pay ... the problem is the major labels are scared stiff of any such thing, and would do everything possible to crucify Apple if it tried.

... all-the-while, over on the side lines is Uncle Bill smiling, shaking hands, and handing out business cards to the effect that - "hey, we want to turn the home computer into a closed appliance, with full DRM everything - ain't this exactly what you big media content guys want anyway? All you've got to do is buy into OUR WM format and OUR DRM - and look, Apple just screwed you! - so what have you got to loose? C'mon, get a clue guys, you're more or less a monopoly, and we're definitely a monopoly ... if we don't work together to keep everything the same, there's no place to go but down!"


The truth is, with the power of a G5, and a few tens of thousands of dollars (not many, just a few), anybody with a decent garage and a half decent sense of taste - and a bit of time on their hands (let's be generous and say, one person in 100 who buys a MIDI/DigAudio system hoping to be a star), can put out stuff as good or better than any of the major labels can ... and - shock of shocks - with some means of internet distribution, make a living at it, no big labels required!

It's not like the big labels don't know this.

Suddenly in North America alone, you'd have at least 10,000 good new acts - in just about any style of music! - to choose from! People setting up their own Internet radio stations, distribution networks, (based on their own agreements that cuts out the dinosaurs) ... and the major labels would be reduced to simply picking winners from a pool of artists who would have far more clout/leaverage/independence/income than those now, who - comparatively - have a choice between continuing their careers in landscaping/dry-wall/hospitality, or signing away their souls for the chance of doing what they love full time, and maybe one day getting paid for it.

So, do the arithmetic - if you're a media dinosaur, and see your justification for existence being threatened (or even if you just identify with this group - like say, if you're Uncle Bill, and fear the independence P2P gives - which is the unspoken multiplyer on the other half of the equation that makes computers/Internet more than just worth while) ... then action must be taken ... and it has!

Whoever it was that bought MPG.com, (Polygram? Vivendi?) has - just short of the very words coming out of their mouths - made it very clear that they bought it just so they could shut it down. Why? was it failing? Was it a money pit? No, they shut it down becaues it was working! Even the internet archive - an open , well funded project, independent of the music bizz - offered to archive the contents of MP3.com, all that they wanted to do was get an archive of all the tunes - crappy or not - on MP3.com. No way said the parent company - so (apparently) the hard drives have been wiped, and years of independent artistic community work - that was making a profit AND starting to give a few artists a reasonable chance at an independent living - dissappeared.

You can just hear the labels collectively breathing a sigh of "Whew, that was close!"

Look, there is a huge revolutionary system that could be tapped into - but it would take time, and it would take incredible risk - such that Apple would find a way to offer it's DRM to small independent artists, and create a kind of MP3.com of it's own ... ensuring that Artists got paid, and that cut out the big media gate keepers.

But it's such a huge risk, and the price Apple would pay by pissing off the big media it depends on to give it's format and DRM legitimacy, makes it rather unlikely.

(At least for now)
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #74 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by OverToasty
... as great as it would be if Apple could create a "slash-dot" for music, and make it pay ... the problem is the major labels are scared stiff of any such thing, and would do everything possible to crucify Apple if it tried.

.
.
.

But it's such a huge risk, and the price Apple would pay by pissing off the big media it depends on to give it's format and DRM legitimacy, makes it rather unlikely.

(At least for now)

You make some EXCELLENT points (I know that I agree with you when I find myself getting rather pissed off as I read your post), and after some careful consideration I must agree -- as angry as it makes me.

This is precisely why I haven't purchased a new CD in over two years -- not because I want to pirate music (I don't; I either buy used discs or used LPs), but because I cannot, in good faith, support an industry that acts in this way. Naive? Maybe, but I'm not going to buy into their severely flawed business model.

My $0.02,

-John
They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwords, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing; play it forward and it installs Windows.
-TBobMac
Reply
They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwords, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing; play it forward and it installs Windows.
-TBobMac
Reply
post #75 of 153
with the shambles of of the media market and the way it is right now... I think this is a viable outlook. While the other mp3 players out there aren't doing well at all, sure they in the future. But right now on the wintel side of the fence, there isn't any direction.... there isn't any focus... or any predictions in the future of it either.

the media industry will soon be a lot smaller and there won't be the big 5 anymore... television broadcast revenue is down as is ad sales everywhere, and there a huge fallout of music sales that people attribute to stealing music, when in actuality its just obvious that the music thats out now sucks. I think apple could see the writing on the wall that there is a huge hole to jump into and be on top of the new media revolution that is to come. putting it into perspective the reason why I say this is because if you add an independent system of records sales online for any artist think of the possibilities. we couldn't be spoon fed all this craptastic music thats out.

As for the pixar deal I have a feeling it won't be a full fledged merger... I'm sure it'll be a partner or some other deal. I have a distant thought actually there is going to be something with WB (time warner) and apple coming up. Maybe this is a cog in the wheel tho.
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
post #76 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by OverToasty
...
But it's such a huge risk, and the price Apple would pay by pissing off the big media it depends on to give it's format and DRM legitimacy, makes it rather unlikely.

(At least for now)

I can tell you that for now... the media industry is on the verge of collapsing. There's going to be a big fallout, as because they are trying to maintain control right now. With tivo players and mp3 players... I can see the writing on the wall... its going to be come like the way of the book publishing business...
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
post #77 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by kraig911
I can tell you that for now... the media industry is on the verge of collapsing. There's going to be a big fallout, as because they are trying to maintain control right now. With tivo players and mp3 players... I can see the writing on the wall... its going to be come like the way of the book publishing business...

Explain yourself.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #78 of 153
re: Keeping iTMS the leader.

Well #1 They have to keep the sales popping. I just purchased 5 songs today and let's just say Pepsi and I will be close this month

Next they need to isolate themselves from being controlled by the Big 5. Within 2 years Apple must have more tracks from independants than Big 5. Right now Apple will have a "ceiling" on their success because they are wholly dependent on the licensing of the Big 5. The more I think about it the more I realize that a future conflict is inevitable. Distribution and TV/Radio play is really the only thing that the large Distributors can offer at the price of giving them ownership of your music. The future is Internet Distribution and keeping the rights to your own IP. What established artist right now is not thinking of this right now. Double your profits and even if you sell half the copies you make the same.

The problem is the 3 headed Cerebus. Stores/Radio/TV. Right now if your a Pearl Jam and want to self-distribute you are swimming upstream to get your product played on Clear Channel ahem I mean the Radio. TV exposure would be very diffcult as well.

So to make this viable there has to be a way of getting that exposure. Perhaps Apple could create their own iTMS radio station playing the hot tracks of iTMS or perhaps they can take advantage of videos using iTMS as well. iTunes Music Store should morph into iTunes Media Store.

I just don't see how Apple can succeed without damaging the Big 5. They are on divergent paths.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #79 of 153
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
People keep saying there is no advantage to >2 processors in a single machine, but that is just bunk. Processors in the same box are shared memory machines, and for some kinds of processing this is a huge advantage over a cluster. Toss in a dual core PPC and you have an 8 processor box. There is a market for it, but it is a subset of the market for the 1U XServe. This is what Elastic Bus was designed for.

You are certainly correct that there are advantages to > 2 processors in a single box (more then even memory as you know). The only problem that Apple faces is diminishing return on investment the bigger they go. Apple should certainly come to market with a 4-way machine.

The big question is how does Apple hardware compare to Dell's. This is who they will be competing against. I am getting ready to order a G5 x-serve to test in our database cluster (with Dell 1750's). We have been talking to Apple for a couple months about the new x-serve. My only hold-up has been the memory limit of the G4 x-serve. This is what Apple will be competing against.

I will be interested so see if Apple can share mother board design cost effectively with larger server hardware.
post #80 of 153
Regarding >2 processors in a box. Need I say more than xGrid? I think this is the starting point of doing away with huge workstations for someone other than, oh let's say Pixar.

Regarding DRM and independents vs record labels, bahhhh.....record labels are too pig-headed to see the presence of independents as a threat. But it will come to that, and as others have said, it will be the falling of the record labels as we know it. Let's face it, they have to adapt to current and future trends in the business, or else they will go the way of the dodo. Good for them too!

Look at people like Brad Sucks. I visit his sight once or twice a week to see if he's released anything new. Now he's on iTunes. It has started already. I'd love to hear what kind of deal, if any, he's made with Apple and the revenue made from the download of his iTunes.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Reinvention of Apple Computer