or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UBS raises Apple estimates, says Intel Macs may come early
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UBS raises Apple estimates, says Intel Macs may come early

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
UBS Investment Research said this week that it is raising its Apple estimates due to strength in the company's current product offerings and expectations of an early launch of Intel-based Macintosh computers.

"After surveying several stores, we are more enthusiastic about prospects for upside in iPods given excitement around nanos and [video iPods]," analyst Ben Reitzes wrote in a research note released to clients on Monday. "Also, we believe iMac sales could have some upside into calendar 2006 based on our additional survey work that shows the new iMac G5 has been well received by customers."

Reitzes said momentum for iPods is picking up leading into the holidays, with checks indicating that both nanos and "especially new video iPods" are selling "very well." Meanwhile, the analyst said wait times for the new iMac have been increasing on Apples website and are now at 3-5 days for the 17-inch and 7-10 days for the 20-inch.

Looking ahead, Reitzes believes it is likely Apple will announce new products and content at its January 10, 2006 Macworld expo, with a possible introduction of the first Intel-based Macs. "We note that Intel will be introducing its dual-core Yonah processor in January (shipping now to vendors in pre-launch)," the analyst said.

After discussions with his firm's Semiconductor Research Team, Reitzes believes the Yonah processor may be a good fit for an Intel-based Mac Mini, which the firm says could make its debut as early as the Macworld Expo. "We also believe it is possible for the Yonah chipset to be included in an iBook, but we believe this option may be less likely for Apple right away since it could cause some performance disparities between the iBook and the PowerBook."

Reitzes added, "We continue to believe that both the PowerMac and PowerBook will be introduced at a later date (late 2006 or early 2007) with the possible use of the Intels Merom processor for the PowerBook and Conroe processor for the PowerMac."

Also a possibility for the upcoming Macworld expo is an expansion of Apple's digital hub offerings, the analyst said. "We believe Apple could eventually discuss more innovations around media hubs (and related services) that act as storage units for music, movies, photos and/or other types of home entertainment."

Reitzes notes that Intel will be introducing its Viiv technology in early 2006, which promises to explore additional consumer entertainment opportunities within the PC. "We believe that Apple is positioned to play a significant role in the home digital entertainment arena and this offering from Intel could catch Apples eye eventually," he said.

Given Apple's recent strength, UBS is raising its December quarter earnings per share (EPS) estimates from 50 cents to 53 cents based on 43-percent revenue growth. The firm is also raising its iPod sales estimates for the quarter from 10.3 million units to 11.3 million.

For the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years, UBS its EPS estimates from $1.78 to $1.85 based on revenue growth of 30-percent and from $2.08 to $2.18 based on and 28-percent revenue growth, respectively.

The firm continues to rate Apple a "Buy," raising its price target on the company from $64 to $74.
post #2 of 41
There is certainly a dicotomy between the investment houses.

Two lowering their recommendations to hold because they think Aplle is fully priced, and two raising their estimates substantially.

Since I'm hoping my stock will continue to rise, I'm betting on the latter two.
post #3 of 41
There's no reason to wait for Merom. A dual core Yonah will excite sales and when Merom is shipping in volume you move to that chip in the high end.

Mac watchers need to get rid of the past. Apple no longer has the luxury to ship computers on a slow schedule. They now have the same processor and chipset as the typical PC. This means they have to be nimble an eschew waiting 8 months for updates like they are fond of today.

I expect to see speed bumps every 3-4 months now on Intel based Macs.
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 #4 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Mac watchers need to get rid of the past. Apple no longer has the luxury to ship computers on a slow schedule. They now have the same processor and chipset as the typical PC. This means they have to be nimble an eschew waiting 8 months for updates like they are fond of today.

I expect to see speed bumps every 3-4 months now on Intel based Macs.

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. its not the mac watchers, its Apple. And Apple is known to be cheap and cautious on putting out new tech. (Of course, then when they do, they screw their customers by just getting rid of the old tech. Take PCI-Express, for example. Takes them forever to support it, then they release a tower with it in there, and they then throw out all the PCI slots. WTF is apple thinking? Not even PC makers are stupid enough to do that, since they're only using PCI-Express for video at the moment.)
post #5 of 41
With the recent stories indicating that the PowerPC and Intel builds of Tiger 10.4.3 are esentially identical, I would have reason to believe the story.

A release of an Intel based Mac mini at Macworld 2006 would be a great headline story to kick and jump start the event.
post #6 of 41
"We also believe it is possible for the Yonah chipset to be included in an iBook, but we believe this option may be less likely for Apple right away since it could cause some performance disparities between the iBook and the PowerBook."

Are Yonah dual cores supposed to be that much better than G4's to make a the iBooks faster than Powerbooks?
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #7 of 41
Well, one of Intel's concerns with the new generation of chips for 2006 was boosting the Pentium's pedestrian floating point performance. If they can do that, you'd then be looking at a 32-bit dual core 1.67GHz Pentium-M (Yonah) that lacks Altivec and otherwise runs at 80 percent of PPC speed per core in Rosetta and has advantages in high bandwidth applications, and a single core 1.67GHz G4 that has Altivec and an established track record on floating point performance but is hobbled by its single core-ness and FSB.

You work it out, but to my eyes, it's a wash, with a significant advantage to the G4 on anything Altivec and a significant advantage to the 32-bit dual core Pentium-M on multiple application use with Office in particular and integer in general; or for that matter anything that is dual processor aware but not Altivec aware.

That says to me UBS's analysis makes some sense; not only from Apple's point of view but also end users. A Mac mini is a general purpose machine; people buying Powerbooks expect them not to suck on graphics.

But I leave it to people who know more about software development and microelectronics than I do to work out the details. Besides, that 80 percent number is something I seem to recall from a while ago; no doubt things are steadily improving for the Intel. But the developer kit did simply get mashed by the G4 on floating point and Altivec. Yonah solves one, but not the other.
post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it. its not the mac watchers, its Apple. And Apple is known to be cheap and cautious on putting out new tech. (Of course, then when they do, they screw their customers by just getting rid of the old tech. Take PCI-Express, for example. Takes them forever to support it, then they release a tower with it in there, and they then throw out all the PCI slots. WTF is apple thinking? Not even PC makers are stupid enough to do that, since they're only using PCI-Express for video at the moment.)

Agreed and this notion that they will put new machines out every 3-4 months would insult the base. Apple sells more expensive systems designed to maximize long-term use for the consumer and high margins for Apple. They are not about diluting the market every 3-4 months with a bump upgrade.

Apple dumping PCI is akin to Apple dropping the Floppy. They pick a specific part of the system to be out in front and then they remain conservative in other sections of the system.
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by photoeditor
Well, one of Intel's concerns with the new generation of chips for 2006 was boosting the Pentium's pedestrian floating point performance. If they can do that, you'd then be looking at a 32-bit dual core 1.67GHz Pentium-M (Yonah) that lacks Altivec and otherwise runs at 80 percent of PPC speed per core in Rosetta and has advantages in high bandwidth applications, and a single core 1.67GHz G4 that has Altivec and an established track record on floating point performance but is hobbled by its single core-ness and FSB.

You work it out, but to my eyes, it's a wash, with a significant advantage to the G4 on anything Altivec and a significant advantage to the 32-bit dual core Pentium-M on multiple application use with Office in particular and integer in general; or for that matter anything that is dual processor aware but not Altivec aware.

That says to me UBS's analysis makes some sense; not only from Apple's point of view but also end users. A Mac mini is a general purpose machine; people buying Powerbooks expect them not to suck on graphics.

But I leave it to people who know more about software development and microelectronics than I do to work out the details. Besides, that 80 percent number is something I seem to recall from a while ago; no doubt things are steadily improving for the Intel. But the developer kit did simply get mashed by the G4 on floating point and Altivec. Yonah solves one, but not the other.

The truth is that SSE 3 is every bit as good as Altivec. If you see the comparisons you will note that there are even areas of improvement and agreement with standards that Altivec doesn't have.

Dual core Yonahs will trample a single core G4. Whether Apple would use a dual core chip in an early iBook is a question though.
post #10 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Agreed and this notion that they will put new machines out every 3-4 months would insult the base. Apple sells more expensive systems designed to maximize long-term use for the consumer and high margins for Apple. They are not about diluting the market every 3-4 months with a bump upgrade.

Apple dumping PCI is akin to Apple dropping the Floppy. They pick a specific part of the system to be out in front and then they remain conservative in other sections of the system.

What people are forgetting here is that Apple DID update their machines every quarter or so.

We used to see a new machine in January. A speed bump in March. Another new machine (in a different line) in July, with another speedbump, video card and HD upgrades for the first machine(s).

September would be another round of speed bumps.

January would be new machines, speedbumps, video cards, HD's etc.

And around again in March with more speedbumps.

This stopped not because Apple wanted it to, but because the cpu speeds stopped coming every 3 months or so. Apple had little to offer. You might remember that this started in 2000, when the faster G4's didn't materialize.

Ever since then the cpu upgrades have come further and further apart.

One would think that Apple intended to put the 7448 in this newest PB. It's a drop-in replacement with a firmware update.

Does anyone here really doubt that Apple would rather have what they have now instead of dual core 5GHz G5's in the PM's, and dual core 3GHz low power G5's in the PB's?

Slow or nonexistant updates to the chips is the reason why they are moving to x86 after all.

The point is to keep up, and not to have to worry about cpu's.

Dropping PCI is not like dropping the floppy, it is like dropping the NuBus.
post #11 of 41
Quote:
Agreed and this notion that they will put new machines out every 3-4 months would insult the base. Apple sells more expensive systems designed to maximize long-term use for the consumer and high margins for Apple. They are not about diluting the market every 3-4 months with a bump upgrade.

I disagree. The base design stays the same but the processor and components are changed as fast as Intel etc...upgrades them. I would say that a change every quarter (3 or so months) is fair. The problem is Moto and IBM could not deliver this! Jobs said it himself. They could do really cool things if they could get the latest tech. Now the will, so I expect many more product lines in the future.

I bet you also said they'd never go to Intel.
post #12 of 41
Quote:
Dual core Yonahs will trample a single core G4. Whether Apple would use a dual core chip in an early iBook is a question though

That's an understatement. I'd LOVE a dual core Yonah in a PB. People tend to forget that Intel's Yonah will start from way down at 1.5Ghz and work its way up. Apple has a lot of flexibility with this lineup.

Quote:
I disagree. The base design stays the same but the processor and components are changed as fast as Intel etc...upgrades them.

Riversky nice to see you pop on over here! Welcome and glad to have you. Thanks for "understanding". A processor bump is simple and I have no doubt that Apple will indeed bump the procs every 3-4 months. Plus now Apple is a part of the Quarterly price reductions. Bump the proc and squeeze that last bit of margin from the previous units with price protection. They have to be lickin' their chops at the potential.
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 #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The point is to keep up, and not to have to worry about cpu's.

Nailed it.

But another big factor that held back Apple from quickly adopting new technologies: they had to engineer their own logic boards, system controllers, etc.

If they use stock Intel mobos or just follow their reference designs or whatever, that will save Apple huge amounts of engineering time and money and allow them to be much more nimble about getting new tech into their systems as quickly as possible.
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
[B]The truth is that SSE 3 is every bit as good as Altivec. If you see the comparisons you will note that there are even areas of improvement and agreement with standards that Altivec doesn't have.

I'm not so sure of it. I've read several times that altivec outperfoms SSE3 by a clear margin.
Here's a like I just found with google : http://www.win2osx.net/forum/archive...hp/t-1071.html
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by Silencio
Nailed it.

But another big factor that held back Apple from quickly adopting new technologies: they had to engineer their own logic boards, system controllers, etc.

If they use stock Intel mobos or just follow their reference designs or whatever, that will save Apple huge amounts of engineering time and money and allow them to be much more nimble about getting new tech into their systems as quickly as possible.

The question is; Will they do that?
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by french macuser
I'm not so sure of it. I've read several times that altivec outperfoms SSE3 by a clear margin.
Here's a like I just found with google : http://www.win2osx.net/forum/archive...hp/t-1071.html

Well, that's just a forum. Like this one.

Go to the page below. It's Apple's developer site. I'n not going to link to a page because it's best if you go there directly. There are several pieces to read about SSE. you'll see what I'm saying, minus the hype. Go to the bottom where the subhead says Optimization.

http://developer.apple.com/transition/index.html?ht
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Dual core Yonahs will trample a single core G4. Whether Apple would use a dual core chip in an early iBook is a question though.

To put some distance between the iBook (consumer) and PowerBook (professional) lines, Apple will put the single core Yonah in the iBooks and dual core in the PowerBooks. To keep the distance, the iBooks will get the dual core Yonah after the PowerBooks get the Merom. Hopefully, Apple will continue to have dedicated VRAM and not stick us with shared VRAM.
post #18 of 41
Deleted
post #19 of 41
Knowing squat about programming, what I see as a layman is that the way Apple has handled Xcode and vector instructions, a properly written (or is it compiled?) universal binary should do quite well with both PPC Altivec and Intel SSE given the alleged "60 to 70 percent" commonality between the two; so the only remaining difference will be the obvious one that two cores (Yonah) beat one (G4). But for people with PPC software who haven't yet migrated to universal binary, Intel means they lose their vector acceleration, so I stand by my expectation that it will be a slowish switch for anyone who has an application on PPC Altivec and with no dual processor awareness until they get the universal binary upgrade for their particular application.

Very interesting that SSE2 supports double-precision floating point. That is a huge gain for vector processing in scientific applications. The lack of accuracy of Altivec (single-precision) floating point has always been a reason Stata has used not to make their statistics software Altivec-optimized, on the grounds that the software runs in double-precision. So Intel-optimized Mac OS X Stata on dual core is going to fly at light speed.
post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by troberts
To put some distance between the iBook (consumer) and PowerBook (professional) lines, Apple will put the single core Yonah in the iBooks and dual core in the PowerBooks. To keep the distance, the iBooks will get the dual core Yonah after the PowerBooks get the Merom. Hopefully, Apple will continue to have dedicated VRAM and not stick us with shared VRAM.

I think that it might be done that way, unless Apple decides to wait for Merom.

Industry opinion on this is mixed. Some think Apple will jump into Yonah on the PB's first half of 2006. Some think Apple will wait until the later part of the 2nd half of 2006 and use Merom straight off.

We can guess here, but we really know nothing. Our logic is not necessarily Apple's logic. They see what we do not.
post #21 of 41
Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once

And many folks seem to think Apple will wait for the new Merom chips for the PBooks.

BUT, what if they put Intel in the mini first?

Yes, the laptops would look sad. But they'd be equally sad, so there's no imbalance. A mini probably has less cooling/power consumption issues than a laptop so engineering-wise it may be an easier first machine.

The mini serves a different market than the laptops, and if it holds the $500 price point, people won't be as upset when there is a (much?) better version available in the summer when the laptops FINALLY get Intel.

The mini would make a great v1.0 machine. Pro folks might pick one up to play with. Small time developers could pick one up to work on porting to Intel. The Windows crowd would gobble them up once the l33t hackers get Windows running on it. The "masses" wouldn't know the difference, anyway.

How's this sound?:
mini first - in January;
iBook & PBook in the Spring along with a mini speed bump;
iMac goes Intel by Fall of '06, speed bumps in all the other machines

You may now shoot holes in my speculation.

- Jasen.
post #22 of 41
The old chicken or the egg question arises. What will come first?

What actually came first? The Mac mini or the Intel Mac mini?

Hmmmmm....looky here. Anyone remember this?



That was shown at the Computex Trade Show in Taiwain back at the end of May.

Wired Article

What a rip-off, or is it? The plot thickens...
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by jasenj1
Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once

And many folks seem to think Apple will wait for the new Merom chips for the PBooks.

BUT, what if they put Intel in the mini first?

Yes, the laptops would look sad. But they'd be equally sad, so there's no imbalance. A mini probably has less cooling/power consumption issues than a laptop so engineering-wise it may be an easier first machine.

The mini serves a different market than the laptops, and if it holds the $500 price point, people won't be as upset when there is a (much?) better version available in the summer when the laptops FINALLY get Intel.

The mini would make a great v1.0 machine. Pro folks might pick one up to play with. Small time developers could pick one up to work on porting to Intel. The Windows crowd would gobble them up once the l33t hackers get Windows running on it. The "masses" wouldn't know the difference, anyway.

How's this sound?:
mini first - in January;
iBook & PBook in the Spring along with a mini speed bump;
iMac goes Intel by Fall of '06, speed bumps in all the other machines

You may now shoot holes in my speculation.

- Jasen.

I agree with you! I already said the same thing. The mini seems a logical choice.
post #24 of 41
The years bring different perspectives. In 1992, earnings per share was 4.33$. That was a high point. In 1993, earnings per share was .73$ per share, and it was one of the declining years for Apple, less gross margins. This according to Owen Linzmayer's book, that good book.

Now Apple's stock is at a high point again, in valuation. .
post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Dropping PCI is not like dropping the floppy, it is like dropping the NuBus.

And dropping the internal modem seems like dropping the internal floppy.
post #26 of 41
As macbidouille.com says, the introduction of a single macintel mini would hurt the PPC Macs sales very badly, since people will think these machines are a dead end. The mac mini is cheap, offers a low margin and is clearly not the most popular mac (compared to the iMac or the iBook).
Apple will most likely put pentiums in its laptops first, maybe in the Powerbooks and iBooks (and mac minis?) at the same time, or in the powerbook first since people who can't afford such a high end laptop will always have to buy a less expensive PPC iBook (or wait). The first portable intel Macs will be a huge success, that can compensate a decrease in the other mac sales. I'm not sure a Mactel mini can achieve that.
It would indeed be a major "switch machine", but don't forget that apple has to sell other macs.
post #27 of 41
They do have to sell all of their other macs, but they wouldnt want them all to be faulty. So test it with the macmini.
Would it really be worth living in a world without television - Krusty the Klown
Reply
Would it really be worth living in a world without television - Krusty the Klown
Reply
post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by jasenj1
Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once

I don't see the problem with the PBooks outperforming the iBooks. And the recent upgrades to the PowerMacs mean that they'll still have the performance advantage.
Quote:
Originally posted by photoeditor
... looking at a 32-bit dual core 1.67GHz Pentium-M (Yonah) that lacks Altivec and otherwise runs at 80 percent of PPC speed per core in Rosetta and has advantages in high bandwidth applications, and a single core 1.67GHz G4 that has Altivec and an established track record on floating point performance but is hobbled by its single core-ness and FSB.

While this sounds feasible, you're still talking about 80% per core IN ROSETTA... so the native Intel apps would FLY right? as would preloaded OSX, iTunes, Safari, etc.....
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by french macuser
As macbidouille.com says, the introduction of a single macintel mini would hurt the PPC Macs sales very badly, since people will think these machines are a dead end. The mac mini is cheap, offers a low margin and is clearly not the most popular mac (compared to the iMac or the iBook).
Apple will most likely put pentiums in its laptops first, maybe in the Powerbooks and iBooks (and mac minis?) at the same time, or in the powerbook first since people who can't afford such a high end laptop will always have to buy a less expensive PPC iBook (or wait). The first portable intel Macs will be a huge success, that can compensate a decrease in the other mac sales. I'm not sure a Mactel mini can achieve that.
It would indeed be a major "switch machine", but don't forget that apple has to sell other macs.

As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.

I am not convicend that Apple will release intelmac has soons the Yonah chip will be ready. Apple have to deal with software issue, like recompiling all the I apps and others for the X86 OS X.
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.

I agree.
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.

I am not convicend that Apple will release intelmac has soons the Yonah chip will be ready. Apple have to deal with software issue, like recompiling all the I apps and others for the X86 OS X.

Some people here have argued that Apple is already prepared with its OS and iApps.

You think no, they are not ready yet?
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by NordicMan
Some people here have argued that Apple is already prepared with its OS and iApps.

You think no, they are not ready yet?

Most likely it's not most of Apple's apps, but third parties apps.

For example, Adobe said that x86 compatibility will NOT come in CS2, but rather in CS3, when it's ready.

It's also likely that Apple's pro apps aren't ready now either, though they could be fairly well on their way.
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's also likely that Apple's pro apps aren't ready now either, though they could be fairly well on their way.

The thing that surprises me most about Rosetta is that you can't have a PPC binary running in emulation with some branching done to Intel code. If that was possible they could find the bits that were slow in the PPC version and just recompile those sections (same as with the 680x0 to PPC switch).

I guess Apple may have written version of Pro apps that ONLY work on 10.4 - taking advantage of the hardware-abstracted vector commands and coreVideo etc, so emulation of any "10.4-only" apps may be rather fast...
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by GregAlexander
The thing that surprises me most about Rosetta is that you can't have a PPC binary running in emulation with some branching done to Intel code. If that was possible they could find the bits that were slow in the PPC version and just recompile those sections (same as with the 680x0 to PPC switch).

I guess Apple may have written version of Pro apps that ONLY work on 10.4 - taking advantage of the hardware-abstracted vector commands and coreVideo etc, so emulation of any "10.4-only" apps may be rather fast...

Yeah, you see that all the time. FCP 4.5 won't even run on the Express Macs. You need 5
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, you see that all the time. FCP 4.5 won't even run on the Express Macs. You need 5

What's an Express Mac?
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by GregAlexander
What's an Express Mac?

The new PM's with the Express bus.
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by GregAlexander
What's an Express Mac?

It's the new, more emotive Mac. It laughs! It cries! It sings! It wets itself!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #38 of 41
Incidentally...

SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC., the top U.S. maker of cable television set-top boxes, has been for sale since early spring and has drawn interest from a range of technology companies including CISCO SYSTEMS INC., SONY CORP. and APPLE COMPUTER INC., according to tech research firm Gartner Inc. Scientific-Atlanta approached Cisco and ALCATEL last spring about whether they were interested in buying the company, Gartner analyst Patti Reali said in a Tuesday research note. While Alcatel has "apparently passed" on a deal, Cisco is still in the running, along with Sony, SAMSUNG CORP., Panasonic and Apple, which has held recent talks with Scientific-Atlanta, Gartner said, citing industry insiders. Cisco already has a strong foothold in the cable television market, and a takeover of Scientific-Atlanta would give it access to the cable set-top business and more expertise in video systems and software, Reali said. Consumer electronics companies Sony, Samsung and Panasonic may be anxious to bolster their cable technology business as well. But Gartner warned that cable industry customers, who are already critical of the control over the cable market held by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, might oppose any type of deal. (Reuters 12:23 PM ET 11/09/2005)

...You may soon have "Apple Inside" your set top box!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Incidentally...

SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC., the top U.S. maker of cable television set-top boxes, has been for sale since early spring and has drawn interest from a range of technology companies including CISCO SYSTEMS INC., SONY CORP. and APPLE COMPUTER INC., according to tech research firm Gartner Inc. Scientific-Atlanta approached Cisco and ALCATEL last spring about whether they were interested in buying the company, Gartner analyst Patti Reali said in a Tuesday research note. While Alcatel has "apparently passed" on a deal, Cisco is still in the running, along with Sony, SAMSUNG CORP., Panasonic and Apple, which has held recent talks with Scientific-Atlanta, Gartner said, citing industry insiders. Cisco already has a strong foothold in the cable television market, and a takeover of Scientific-Atlanta would give it access to the cable set-top business and more expertise in video systems and software, Reali said. Consumer electronics companies Sony, Samsung and Panasonic may be anxious to bolster their cable technology business as well. But Gartner warned that cable industry customers, who are already critical of the control over the cable market held by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, might oppose any type of deal. (Reuters 12:23 PM ET 11/09/2005)

...You may soon have "Apple Inside" your set top box!

Yeah, that's interesting. Apple hasn't been interested in biting off that large a company. Their market cap is over $5.8 billion.

If Apple did want to spend more than $6 billion (they would have to buy at a premium), what exactly would they do with them? I have the 8300. What service could Apple add that the cable companies would want?
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If Apple did want to spend more than $6 billion (they would have to buy at a premium), what exactly would they do with them? I have the 8300. What service could Apple add that the cable companies would want?

An interesting question. I imagine there are a few options Apple could have. I mean cable is doing lots of stuff - HDTV, IPTV, cable internet. Apple could make a simple set top box that was also a wireless airport connection to the internet (and allow iTunes or video to be played from the Mac to the TV)

These guys also do DVD recorders that record off cable programs, and they do a lot of head end video management (H264 compression, program distribution etc)... take a look at http://www.sciatl.com/products/customers/index.htm for starters.

Anyway, who knows if it's worth Apple's while...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UBS raises Apple estimates, says Intel Macs may come early