This argument still seems a little weak to me. Why benefit does SGI get from a mainstream application portfolio? More apps. Why on earth would Apple give them away though? This is almost introducing a clone market again. At least it's another vendor competing with the same, or a subset of the same, applications as Apple.
I guess SGI's machines might be so far out of reach pricewise, that it wouldn't be real competition for Apple, but that leaves me wondering, if SGI gives Apple the 'Big Iron', then Apple moves into SGI's territory of 'Big Iron'. What competitive advantage does SGI keep in this situation?
Maybe for all of these reasons it IS a perfect fit, I don't know. Either it's a match, or they're mutually exclusive. I have yet to figure out which one it is....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge,
I think you've missed the overall point of the thread which is:
"What if AAPL purchased SGI for cash and paper, when SGI was on the verge of releasing kit based on G5 thus eliminating a potential competitor, acquiring a well-engineered professional product catalog and some great engineering talent?"
I know its a hoary old chestnut, but go back to P1 and P2 to see the - somewhat hallucogenic - reasoning.
Oh I spent the hour reading every thread, it just seems like something's missing.
Maybe it's my brain....
Seriously though, I'm just trying to figure out if the companies fit together perfectly like the Yin-Yang, or, if Apple is already going into the markets where SGI already is, would they be stepping on each other's toes.
Apple gets some credibility from buying SGI, but SGI doesn't seem to get much out of the deal if Apple moves into SGI's current markets.
Now, I conceed that this thing is cached up to the eyeballs and that the RAM options are generous (at a cost though): But if their idea of an entry-level server is something that costs the very thick end of $23K, my idea of a reasonable little runabout is Ferrari 360 Modena (without the F1 transmission).
If anyone wishes to buy me said runabout, my 40th birthday is fast approaching if you need an excuse.
Also, not wishing to use this whitepaper to support my own case, but can I quote this paragraph:
"Additionally, Sun's robust Sun Fire server line gives a business the flexibility to scale its server infrastructure from a one-way "edge-of-the-
network" server, to 4-way and 8-way entry servers for application servers, up to 24-way or 36-way midrange servers for scalable application workloads and large corporate databases, and then up to the high-end, 106-way, mission-critical Sun Fire 15K servers for high-end onlinetransaction processing (OLTP) applications, databases, and datacenter server consolidation. In today's market environment, where customers are trying to stretch every dollar as far as they can, Sun's reliable and scalable servers will provide many with the long-term TCO benefits that their businesses demand. Sun's ability to provide enterprise-class computing at PC server prices can be both a short-term benefit on acquisition and a long-term TCO win for many IT managers."
Thanks for providing some more wood for my bonfire
[quote] I perceive SGI as the Alpha male of high-end post-production, with hardware - even at a CPU level - that has been progressively evolved to very skilled at a) floating-point math and b) graphics I/O <hr></blockquote>
Still completely true at the high end.
Walk into any high cost (£600-£750 per hour) online finishing suite in soho, and you will be looking at either one of discreet's systems, flame, inferno, smoke, fire:
At this stage some PC based options are making themselves known, but they still lack interactive speed, though systems such as 5D's Cyborg that I previously mentioned use all manner of cacheing tricks to appear to be faster than they actually are. Clients pay the money to sit and direct the work being done on their commercial or promo, that doesn't happen if you have to sit and wait for the box to render every tiny change.
And if you wish to work at HDTV or film resolutions, few systems have the grunt of an Onyx 3200 or an Octane 2 V12
Walk into any high cost (£600-£750 per hour) online finishing suite in soho, and you will be looking at either one of discreet's systems, flame, inferno, smoke, fire:
At this stage some PC based options are making themselves known, but they still lack interactive speed, though systems such as 5D's Cyborg that I previously mentioned use all manner of cacheing tricks to appear to be faster than they actually are. Clients pay the money to sit and direct the work being done on their commercial or promo, that doesn't happen if you have to sit and wait for the box to render every tiny change.
And if you wish to work at HDTV or film resolutions, few systems have the grunt of an Onyx 3200 or an Octane 2 V12
<strong>Oh I spent the hour reading every thread, it just seems like something's missing.
Maybe it's my brain....
Seriously though, I'm just trying to figure out if the companies fit together perfectly like the Yin-Yang, or, if Apple is already going into the markets where SGI already is, would they be stepping on each other's toes.
Apple gets some credibility from buying SGI, but SGI doesn't seem to get much out of the deal if Apple moves into SGI's current markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so much a question of what SGI gets out of it, apart from job security for a significant percentage of staff and a degree of continuity for customers: More a question of what SGI's shareholders get out of it; some cash in their hand and some paper which should have some significant upside once the global economy gets out of the emergency room.
A significant improvement on watching the company's orbit decline into Chapter 11 within 5 years or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick (pick your preference).
Walk into any high cost (£600-£750 per hour) online finishing suite in soho, and you will be looking at either one of discreet's systems, flame, inferno, smoke, fire:
At this stage some PC based options are making themselves known, but they still lack interactive speed, though systems such as 5D's Cyborg that I previously mentioned use all manner of cacheing tricks to appear to be faster than they actually are. Clients pay the money to sit and direct the work being done on their commercial or promo, that doesn't happen if you have to sit and wait for the box to render every tiny change.
And if you wish to work at HDTV or film resolutions, few systems have the grunt of an Onyx 3200 or an Octane 2 V12
On a more serious note, the interesting point in shannyla's penultimate paragraph is the word "interactive", you are not going to get my definition of interactivity waiting for an unoptmised render farm to chug along.
I do admit that Apple's relationship with nVIDIA may yield something interesting, but will it yield something that interesting.
Interestingly, interactivity on a pc- based online video finishing system was one of the hallmarks of a system offered by Nothing Real, which was Tremor.
This used a Wildcat card for OpenGL processing and display, DVS ClipstationPRO for SD and HD Video I/O, a HP X series workstation running Windows 2000 for the host system and Linux based render racks for background processing connected over fibre gig-e. Dual-channel scsi storage and a Sony 24" 16:10 monitor completed the system.
Virtually identical hardware is also used in my personal favourite with potential, 5D Cyborg, and Sony's Socratto, reputedly used extensively on many pictures that passed through Sony Pictures visual effects division, whose name escapes me for the moment:
With the present level of hardware Apple offers, such a solution is simply not possible, and it seems Apple are no longer talking about Tremor. Once again, bandwidh is all. One noticable point about all these systems is the use of dual-chanel RDRam, with an achievable maximum bandwidth of 2.5Gb/sec, according to the bandwidth benchmark I just ran on the system I'm typing this on, versus the 750Mb/sec that can be acheived with SDRam, and a nice example of a big-iron style technology ending up on the desktop.
And to keep it on topic, the masters of bandwidth in a graphics context are still SGI.
TheRegister has an interesting article about SGI's new upcoming MIPS processors and how they have no plan to abandon them even though they will be supporting the Itanium2.
Here's my favourite quote from the article:
[quote]
"We're purposefully not getting into the megahertz race. It is not appropriate for the high performance computing market."
Of course it may be something else entirely. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] To which Jonathan replied:
ding ding ding... <hr></blockquote>
Jonathan knows something about Apple Pi, but he ain't saying...
Come on Jonathan, give us some clues!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya Unlimited for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>TheRegister has an interesting article about SGI's new upcoming MIPS processors and how they have no plan to abandon them even though they will be supporting the Itanium2.
I bought 500 shares of SGI with less than $300 of cash left over after a purchase of another 100 AAPL shares, with the thought that someone would swoop SGI up at that price point. I had hoped it would be Apple for all the reasons illustrated by you and others in this thread.
Needless to say that didn't happen at $.50 a share, and as Programmer pointed out, the Register piece brought your most compelling reason for an Apple purchase down a few notches. At even the current price point SGI is not nearly as attractive now as it was then.
But the topic you started brought many important things to light, and was (and continues to be) a great read! At the high end low heat production (for density) RISC blades along with advanced architecture (NUMA like) are the wave of the Future and Apple will be there SGI or not. Please check out my topic "Blade Runner" and ad your thoughts if you like.
Would you like ice cream with that? <hr></blockquote>
bletchley, how is life in the park? still the old machines next to the café? tell me something about the nails and the slices please. ice cream? <shudder>
Comments
<strong>
This argument still seems a little weak to me. Why benefit does SGI get from a mainstream application portfolio? More apps. Why on earth would Apple give them away though? This is almost introducing a clone market again. At least it's another vendor competing with the same, or a subset of the same, applications as Apple.
I guess SGI's machines might be so far out of reach pricewise, that it wouldn't be real competition for Apple, but that leaves me wondering, if SGI gives Apple the 'Big Iron', then Apple moves into SGI's territory of 'Big Iron'. What competitive advantage does SGI keep in this situation?
Maybe for all of these reasons it IS a perfect fit, I don't know. Either it's a match, or they're mutually exclusive. I have yet to figure out which one it is....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge,
I think you've missed the overall point of the thread which is:
"What if AAPL purchased SGI for cash and paper, when SGI was on the verge of releasing kit based on G5 thus eliminating a potential competitor, acquiring a well-engineered professional product catalog and some great engineering talent?"
I know its a hoary old chestnut, but go back to P1 and P2 to see the - somewhat hallucogenic - reasoning.
Maybe it's my brain....
Seriously though, I'm just trying to figure out if the companies fit together perfectly like the Yin-Yang, or, if Apple is already going into the markets where SGI already is, would they be stepping on each other's toes.
Apple gets some credibility from buying SGI, but SGI doesn't seem to get much out of the deal if Apple moves into SGI's current markets.
Have just read part of the whitepaper you linked to and a jolly nice case of stating several truths which are self-evident it is as well.
However, I decided to go and have a look <a href="http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?catid=83174&parentId=48589a"; target="_blank">here</a> to get some more info about the box of which the whitepaper is extolling the virtues.
Now, I conceed that this thing is cached up to the eyeballs and that the RAM options are generous (at a cost though): But if their idea of an entry-level server is something that costs the very thick end of $23K, my idea of a reasonable little runabout is Ferrari 360 Modena (without the F1 transmission).
If anyone wishes to buy me said runabout, my 40th birthday is fast approaching if you need an excuse.
Also, not wishing to use this whitepaper to support my own case, but can I quote this paragraph:
"Additionally, Sun's robust Sun Fire server line gives a business the flexibility to scale its server infrastructure from a one-way "edge-of-the-
network" server, to 4-way and 8-way entry servers for application servers, up to 24-way or 36-way midrange servers for scalable application workloads and large corporate databases, and then up to the high-end, 106-way, mission-critical Sun Fire 15K servers for high-end onlinetransaction processing (OLTP) applications, databases, and datacenter server consolidation. In today's market environment, where customers are trying to stretch every dollar as far as they can, Sun's reliable and scalable servers will provide many with the long-term TCO benefits that their businesses demand. Sun's ability to provide enterprise-class computing at PC server prices can be both a short-term benefit on acquisition and a long-term TCO win for many IT managers."
Thanks for providing some more wood for my bonfire
Still completely true at the high end.
Walk into any high cost (£600-£750 per hour) online finishing suite in soho, and you will be looking at either one of discreet's systems, flame, inferno, smoke, fire:
<a href="http://www.discreet.com"; target="_blank">www.discreet.com</a>
or less often now, an older Quantel system, based around Quantel's proprietry Unix based black boxes, such as Henry, Infinity or Editbox.
<a href="http://www.quantel.com"; target="_blank">www.quantel.com</a>
At this stage some PC based options are making themselves known, but they still lack interactive speed, though systems such as 5D's Cyborg that I previously mentioned use all manner of cacheing tricks to appear to be faster than they actually are. Clients pay the money to sit and direct the work being done on their commercial or promo, that doesn't happen if you have to sit and wait for the box to render every tiny change.
And if you wish to work at HDTV or film resolutions, few systems have the grunt of an Onyx 3200 or an Octane 2 V12
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</p>
<strong>
Still completely true at the high end.
Walk into any high cost (£600-£750 per hour) online finishing suite in soho, and you will be looking at either one of discreet's systems, flame, inferno, smoke, fire:
<a href="http://www.discreet.com"; target="_blank">www.discreet.com</a>
or less often now, an older Quantel system, based around Quantel's proprietry Unix based black boxes, such as Henry, Infinity or Editbox.
<a href="http://www.quantel.com"; target="_blank">www.quantel.com</a>
At this stage some PC based options are making themselves known, but they still lack interactive speed, though systems such as 5D's Cyborg that I previously mentioned use all manner of cacheing tricks to appear to be faster than they actually are. Clients pay the money to sit and direct the work being done on their commercial or promo, that doesn't happen if you have to sit and wait for the box to render every tiny change.
And if you wish to work at HDTV or film resolutions, few systems have the grunt of an Onyx 3200 or an Octane 2 V12
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You obviously have a more interesting job than mine
<strong>Oh I spent the hour reading every thread, it just seems like something's missing.
Maybe it's my brain....
Seriously though, I'm just trying to figure out if the companies fit together perfectly like the Yin-Yang, or, if Apple is already going into the markets where SGI already is, would they be stepping on each other's toes.
Apple gets some credibility from buying SGI, but SGI doesn't seem to get much out of the deal if Apple moves into SGI's current markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not so much a question of what SGI gets out of it, apart from job security for a significant percentage of staff and a degree of continuity for customers: More a question of what SGI's shareholders get out of it; some cash in their hand and some paper which should have some significant upside once the global economy gets out of the emergency room.
A significant improvement on watching the company's orbit decline into Chapter 11 within 5 years or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick (pick your preference).
<strong>
Still completely true at the high end.
Walk into any high cost (£600-£750 per hour) online finishing suite in soho, and you will be looking at either one of discreet's systems, flame, inferno, smoke, fire:
<a href="http://www.discreet.com"; target="_blank">www.discreet.com</a>
or less often now, an older Quantel system, based around Quantel's proprietry Unix based black boxes, such as Henry, Infinity or Editbox.
<a href="http://www.quantel.com"; target="_blank">www.quantel.com</a>
At this stage some PC based options are making themselves known, but they still lack interactive speed, though systems such as 5D's Cyborg that I previously mentioned use all manner of cacheing tricks to appear to be faster than they actually are. Clients pay the money to sit and direct the work being done on their commercial or promo, that doesn't happen if you have to sit and wait for the box to render every tiny change.
And if you wish to work at HDTV or film resolutions, few systems have the grunt of an Onyx 3200 or an Octane 2 V12
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: shannyla ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
On a more serious note, the interesting point in shannyla's penultimate paragraph is the word "interactive", you are not going to get my definition of interactivity waiting for an unoptmised render farm to chug along.
I do admit that Apple's relationship with nVIDIA may yield something interesting, but will it yield something that interesting.
This used a Wildcat card for OpenGL processing and display, DVS ClipstationPRO for SD and HD Video I/O, a HP X series workstation running Windows 2000 for the host system and Linux based render racks for background processing connected over fibre gig-e. Dual-channel scsi storage and a Sony 24" 16:10 monitor completed the system.
Virtually identical hardware is also used in my personal favourite with potential, 5D Cyborg, and Sony's Socratto, reputedly used extensively on many pictures that passed through Sony Pictures visual effects division, whose name escapes me for the moment:
<a href="http://www.nucoda.com"; target="_blank">www.nucoda.com</a>
being the Soho based developers.
With the present level of hardware Apple offers, such a solution is simply not possible, and it seems Apple are no longer talking about Tremor. Once again, bandwidh is all. One noticable point about all these systems is the use of dual-chanel RDRam, with an achievable maximum bandwidth of 2.5Gb/sec, according to the bandwidth benchmark I just ran on the system I'm typing this on, versus the 750Mb/sec that can be acheived with SDRam, and a nice example of a big-iron style technology ending up on the desktop.
And to keep it on topic, the masters of bandwidth in a graphics context are still SGI.
<strong>Does anyone else think it is very quiet for being only 2 weeks away from the MacWorld.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is quiet, too quiet, hey is there something rustling in the bushes behind you?
<strong>Sony Pictures visual effects division, whose name escapes me for the moment:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Imageworks according to my copy of What Lies Beneath
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist ]</p>
Here's my favourite quote from the article:
[quote]
"We're purposefully not getting into the megahertz race. It is not appropriate for the high performance computing market."
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/25984.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/25984.html</a>;
<strong>Of course it may be something else entirely.]</strong><hr></blockquote>
ding ding ding...
[quote] Originally posted by Crusader:
Of course it may be something else entirely. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] To which Jonathan replied:
ding ding ding... <hr></blockquote>
Jonathan knows something about Apple Pi, but he ain't saying...
Come on Jonathan, give us some clues!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya Unlimited for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: MacRonin ]</p>
How many slices in a pie?
Would you like ice cream with that?
<strong>TheRegister has an interesting article about SGI's new upcoming MIPS processors and how they have no plan to abandon them even though they will be supporting the Itanium2.
Here's my favourite quote from the article:
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/25984.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/25984.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Good spot, Programmer - and a very interesting article to boot.
Kind of totally pisses on my firework.
At this point, I have to say I fold on this - it was nice whilst it lasted.
But- but- but... We were really getting somewhere!
Oh well, I guess I'm just too slow on the draw.
It sure was fun, though.
I guess I'll have to poke at another anthill elsewhere... maybe start a thread on future Apple audio hardware in light of Emagic...
-HOS
<strong>
But- but- but... We were really getting somewhere!
Oh well, I guess I'm just too slow on the draw.
It sure was fun, though.
I guess I'll have to poke at another anthill elsewhere... maybe start a thread on future Apple audio hardware in light of Emagic...
-HOS</strong><hr></blockquote>
We may have been getting somewhere - the only problem seems to be no one else would have turned up!
I bought 500 shares of SGI with less than $300 of cash left over after a purchase of another 100 AAPL shares, with the thought that someone would swoop SGI up at that price point. I had hoped it would be Apple for all the reasons illustrated by you and others in this thread.
Needless to say that didn't happen at $.50 a share, and as Programmer pointed out, the Register piece brought your most compelling reason for an Apple purchase down a few notches. At even the current price point SGI is not nearly as attractive now as it was then.
But the topic you started brought many important things to light, and was (and continues to be) a great read! At the high end low heat production (for density) RISC blades along with advanced architecture (NUMA like) are the wave of the Future and Apple will be there SGI or not. Please check out my topic "Blade Runner" and ad your thoughts if you like.
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001955"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001955</a>;
As for me ... After SGI (the stock) rallied to $4.33 I bailed and bought an Apple 17" TFT for my Cube as well as another 100 shares of AAPL
How many slices in a pie?
Would you like ice cream with that? <hr></blockquote>
bletchley, how is life in the park? still the old machines next to the café? tell me something about the nails and the slices please. ice cream? <shudder>