Sources: Intel developing next-generation Power Mac for Apple - Page 4

Perhaps Apple agrees.

That would be sad, wouldn't it?

If anyone wants to look at design problems and such, you can go to Macintough here:

http://www.macintouch.com/

I can think of plenty of examples when they do use more than is necessary.

MightyMouse - two buttons and a scroll wheel would have done but no, Apple used touch sensitive areas and a wacky trackball, that incidentally gets gummed up far too easily and has no way of being cleaned. I'm on my third.

iMac sleep lights. In Rev A it's just a light that gets dimmer at night based on the clock and some firmware. In Rev B there's an ambient light sensor!


Apple really thinks about the small details on their designs and if it needs extra parts to fulfil, they add them where others would cut the design to get the reduced parts count or use something off the shelf.

I can't really say. In (traditional) Apple's philosophy, the user does not need to know how a computer works. It is friendly and there is (should be) no need to open it and fiddle with components to make it work. This may be in the root of the image Mac users have in PC land.

Since the consumer/pro distinction started in Apple, we saw no consumer level desktop that offered officially user accessibility to a reasonable extend. The Power mac though remained as it was, fully expandable and all.

It seems that Apple takes consumers for idiots who can easily break their computers, and pros for more serious people that can actually upgrade their machines without breaking them. Or that a consumer needs no upgrade (and that he should just buy a more powerful computer), while the pro indeed needs upgrades and expandability, which (the later) is true by the way.

However you see it, the consumer is the loser. Unless there is another interpretation I am missing now. Under this optic, yes, it is sad.

Or, perhaps more simply, Apple discovered that the user-serviceable part that was removed in the latest revision (HD) wasn't really such an important thing for the iMac customer.

I don't think we were talking about features. We were talking about designing a board with 20 chips when it only needed 16.

The wacky trackball is a design flaw. Something that I WAS talking about. Apple does make them!

I think there is...perhaps most people that buy iMacs (the example we're talking about) don't have much need at all to upgrade. What could you possibly upgrade? Memory? That's available. HD? Possibly. But with iMac it would have to be a replacement not addition which instantly complicates matters for the user.

The truth of the matter is that as computers have evolved...more and more key features have been integrated that used to require expansion slots (sound card, video card, storage, network card, mouse card!, additional ports).

Fact is...most of the expansion/upgrade that consumers (and probably most pros for that matter) need to do these days can be handled very easily through FireWire and/or USB.

Not true. Performers were consumer machines, and for years thay opened up just like the pro machines.

It's JOBS who thinks the consumer is an idiot. The original Mac was his design. When he left we got the 6 and 8 slot machines.

When he came back we got the iMacs.

We had 6 slot pro machines before him, and 3 and 4 slot machines after. Same thing with external bays. My 9500 had three, my 9600 had four!

Four HD's in my 9500, and 6 in my 9600.


It's so strange that every so often then that Jobs lets up on both the pro and consumer machines, and gives us some more of what we want. But then, he takes it away again. It's almost as though he can't stant it.

But then we're back to the problem of not having enough USB 2 ports on any of Apple's machines. On my PM's I can add boards, and I have, for that and Firewire as well. But I don't like to use a slot for that.

Why can't a $3,300 PM have the same 4 or 5 USB2 ports that a $500 PC does?

I think you have this wrong. I think they view their consumer line more like "appliances" that are quite unlikely to need/want upgrades. It is a valid philosophy, though one that you obviously disagree with.

As far as the USB question in the other post, I agree...I'd like a couple more. But I can also get a USB hub if I really need it (which, so far I don't).

You mean Performas... yes, I forgot about them.

If you want expandability, buy the Power product line.

The consumer level machines are designed exactly to create a tipping point, moving people who want better video, etc, to the Power line of computers.

I'm not saying I like it, just that it is a conscious decision on Apple's part. They do it on purpose and are not likely to change it unless there is a financial reason.

I knew the hub question would come up.

A hub is a poor substitute for an actual port. Many items won't work at all through a hub, so that excludes its use for many.

The bandwidth from a hub is compromised because of its very serial narure, and the fact that it is packet based, somewhat like Ethernet. This causes wait states. Anything that depends upon an even flow of data can be compromised going through a hub.

When a USB 1.1 device is connected to the same hub as anUSB 2 device, the USB 2 device is slowed down (if both are on at the same time).

A Freudian slip.

Not every knowledgable person wants to, or can, afford to buy a PowerMac. That doesn't mean that thety don't want an expandable, or at least a repairable, machine.

Two things:

1) USB hubs. Buy a quality hub, not a Belkin hub. Quality hubs can provide the power you need and some even let you use them so that USB 2 devices can run full speed. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users will never use all the ports they have.

2) melgross: If one cannot afford a PowerMac, one cannot afford it. Apple is being perfectly clear here. Want the extra features? Pay for them. Apple is no more responsible for a user's budget constraints. Repairability is in there, but not like some would like it. Some might question the quality of knowledge (mine, yours, or Jobs') used to determine that the pro line is not worth the dollars or space or whatever makes one not like it. That's okay. It is a personal decision, and falls beyond mine and yours ability to evaluate for more than ourselves.

Apple is in the business of selling product. Consumer products, especially, have obsolescence built-in. Consumers can defeat that by buying higher-quality products.
*(Oh, and by obsolescence, I don't necessarily mean part failure, I mean features and abilities that will be insufficient at some future date -- such as combo drives instead of DVD-Rs (That is an example of the customer building in the obsolescence by choosing the cheaper option)).

Naturally, it's Apple's choice.

But is that choice a good one?

Apple wants to increase marketshare. That's not easy for them

There two problems. One, Apple has total control over. The other, only partial control.

They can make and price machines anyway they want. They could come out with a $750 machine with 3 slots, and standard PC goodies. That would sell a lot of machines. So. They don't want to.

The second is the OS. Changing OS's isn't something that most take lightly. Apple can make it easier, but not painless.

The most sucessful companies give their customers what they want, and more. Part of Apple's lack of sucess in computer marketshare is that they tend to tell us what we should want.

Sometimes thay are right. But marketshare tells us that often they are wrong.

I don't think Apple could market a $750 computer with 3 slots TODAY. Not with the PPC. Note I said "Market." Producing a machine at price is possible, but the costs of marketing might be unacceptable for AAPL.

Maybe, once they are using Intel chips, they can do this. Whether they will choose to do so is up to them.

Have a great night.

This is an interesting point. It's said that Intel's chips will cost more than the ones from IBM and Freescale. I can only suspect that if Apple will no longer have to design their own Northbridge chips and such, as well as not having to do so for some of their mobo's, their prices will be less in total than they are now.

They could have easily built a mini G5 tower with one chip, or now one dual core chip for $999. I did my own analysis of that based on my design and manufacturing experience gained from my work at my own company.

If they went to a less expensive case, they could have squeeked it for $750.

melgross:

The number of permutations that would give Apple a $999 G5 tower are almost limitless. It is not and never has been a question of could they build it. It is a question of whether they can have that unit as a part of their overall offerings and maximize their revenue/profits.

Could Apple sell this $999 G5? Yes. How would it's design, manufacture and distribution affect the production of Mac minis, iMac G5s and Full Tower G5s? Would the addition of the $999 G5 microtower make minis and iMac G5s economically infeasible due to production line costs, design costs, etc?

If Apple were selling 20 million computers a year, instead of 1-2 million, the answers to those questions might be different. But Apple does not have the economies of scale that it WILL have when it moves to the Intel platform. Apple will inherit those economies for some of their internals.

All of this allegedly-saved money will have almost nothing to do with the feature set and pricing of the Mactels they manufacture - that will be determined by the bean counters.

I don't agree. The people who but iMacs, for the most part are not the people who would buy seperates. It's like audio. There are people who will only buy tuners, pre-amps, and power amps. Then there are those who would only buy recievers. There is some crossover, but not as much as you would think.

I'm sure that Apple would rather sell a $999 machine than one for $699.

Apple has been selling more computers than they ever have before. That's good. Now that they are being recognized by a greater public than ever before as well.

Most of that public consists of Windows users. They don't think the way you seem to. Some will go for the all-in-one, and some for the Mini, but many won't. Many want a mini tower, and they won't, or can't, pay $2,000 for it. Even $1,500 seems to be too much.

Even many people here, on this very site, would buy a $999 mini tower, if offered.

There is a big hole in their product line. That's obvious. PM sales have sunk to very low levels, about 125,000 sold last quarter.

The people at Apple are human of course they make mistakes.


I think you are missing the philosophy of the iMac. Jobs' intention for the iMac is that the consumer does not need to deal with the computer. I know seven people who own the iMac G5. They dont know much about computers, dont have any desire or even care to know. All they want is for the thing to work.


As I think of the people I know with computers, 90% have little to no understanding of how their computer works. Probably at least 75% dont understand their computers full capability.


Because most people never figured out how to get their VCR to stop flashing 12:00.


I can agree with you on many of your complaints.

As expensive as the PowerMac we should have internal RAID at this point.

The start button on the keyboard. Who knows? I forgot it even used to be there.

From what I understand about the USB ports. In one sense yes it would be nice to have more. But on cheap commodity computers they are all on the same bus. So it becomes diminishing returns if you actually ever use all of them. I could see Apple making the argument thats a reason why not to have so many.


I agree Apple needs to develop a $999 mini tower. Im sure they will.

The large majority of PC owners I know dont know much difference between tower size. Several people I know who own PCs would love to have an all in one like the iMac for the simple fact it takes up less space. Whether the iMac is priced out of their range depends on the person.

Thats a big assumption.
Im not sure that it is true. It is certainly true that you and I want Apple's marketshare to increase. But the reality is that it is easier to transition a smaller market to a new product. Apple is now on its second transition since Job's return, and they may yet have more instore.

Thinking back to the comments that have been made by Apple over the last few years I think they were striving to push marketshare, but when they decided to go intel they dropped that plan. That was before the mini was released.

We can all sit and complain about Apple's design mistakes, but those decisions are certainly made with aims in mind, and we are not in a position to know what those aims are. It is unfortunate that for many of us Apple's aims do not coincide with our own. We use our machines in a kind of purgatory, hoping that one day we will wake up to _OUR_ Apple, and not Job's.

USB ports for the consumer... let me see: keyboard, printer, camera, oops, none left for my iPod now that it doesn't support FW. A consumer needs a minimum of 4 USB ports, but yes, a hub will often do the trick. However, that is another 30 dollars the consumer is out.

Pros need a higher number of USB ports, and they need to be onboard the computer. I have four USB devices that will simply not work with any USB hub, and hhaving toswitch them would be a pain. Fortunately, I have an expandable G5 so I can get everything purring sweetly.

Your average laptop needs at least 3 USB ports: mouse, camera, printer. Many people use laptops as their only computers, so they tend to connect them as if they were desktops.

Simply put, like with onboard memory for many years, Apple has crippled its computers with poor connnectivity for a part that would not add much to the cost of the computer but would make a better device all around, and many happier customers.

It's too bad they don't allow you to adjust the sleep light in powerbooks. I have a brand new one, and while i think it's slightly darker, is it just me or does having a powerbook in the same room you are trying to sleep in suck? I always have to throw a shirt over it because of the horrible pulsing lights. I wish it would get really, really dim, I mean it's not like I'm gonna miss the sleep light.

I agree but not anytime soon. Drivers, that is what makes this work and it takes time to write high quality drivers, so that you can put another high quality app around it. I know that Apple focused long and hard about how would software makers and Apple write drivers, and this is maybe the biggest headache for MS, drivers and hardware abstraction, very difficult, throw in compatibility and security and you have a nightmare. The great benefit of Unix is that it was written solely to make HW work, not for GUIs, mainly to keep the phones ringing. Apple has great HW because they have control. If Dell were to make a Mac they would have to follow strict instructions. Apple would have control over the chip set and would have final say after testing / certification. Basically Intel would provide chip sets and designs and maybe even prototypes to the others. But trust me widely varied HW is the boon and bane of MS, a company with much greater resources than Apple. I am sure that what Apple was waiting for was the OS, and an opportunity. Timing is everything, an opportune moment. Tiger is an OS of that quality, Leopard will be even more so.

Originally posted by aegisdesign
.......USB 1.1 on a keyboard is fine for most flash drives I've used which seem to be pretty slow anyway. Maybe not for iPods and such though I guess if I used one a lot I'd have a dock...

USB1.1 on any of the iPods would be utterly horrible it is really really slow - check out the reviews for the USB1.1maxcapable KRAPR (oops i mean ROKR) motorola phone

Every time I hear the word "Mactel" it feels like someone pooped in my mouth. Mac-Tel...sounds like a bankrupt telecom.

Why not Maintel? It sounds like Macintosh.

As for the firmware, one thing I don't like about it is how it uses a hard drive partition. Why is it so complicated? Pity they didn't stick with Open Firmware.

I think Apple is trying to trademark "Mactel".

I think Apple is trying to trademark "Mactel".

I agree with you, etch and put the logo on the inside of the case.

heh.

Why should they? On regular PCs Intel has to show it's name to compete with AMD, but if all Macs use Intel chips, there is no need to advertise it.

Intel will design and manufacture the motherboard (according to Apple's wishes) - not the computer case, fans, GPUs and so on.

And iMac sales are higher than ever. See a pattern yet?

Most people just don't need big box computers.

Apple, then, needs to tradmark "Hot Carl."

I think Apple is trying to trademark "Mactel".

Microsoft has its eye on both Google and Sony. Apple, like Sun, is one of those "enemys you know". Even at 2-3x Apple's current share its not a potential threat to MS dominance like Google or perhaps Linux could be.

Nor is it really standing in the way like Sony for the transition to the set top. A potential competitor but smaller than Sony and without a game platform. Still Apple is a potential player and MS is more likely looking far more closely at any set top convergence scenarios over desk top share scenarios. The ipod/itunes combo could be the entry ticket that overcomes the PS3/XBox 360/BR/HD-DVD advantage.

If OSX can take mindshare away from Linux and Vista equally, I doubt Bill will be losing any sleep. An enemy that you know and beaten often before on a familiar field.

Vinea

Help me out here what are the best examples of Linux currently shipping, and what is its compatability issues or non-issues on Intel HW? I keep hearing about the Linux threat, and I would like to know what that is and I would suppose that something like that would be made even more potent when Intel really gets the "standard" chipset going.

Ty