I can name 3 people who have swtiched to the mac from the wintel world because of OS X. They don't care that much about the speed of a high end Intel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A product like this would really help Apple fill the niches they need to achieve a much higher market share, and the more I think about it, the more I think it may happen.
When Apple was only focused on the 4 quadrants for computers, it was a time of rebuilding and retrenching. Now that they have resolidified their base, they must realise it is time to branch into new markets. This is made obvious by the Xserve.
The only way Apple can break their single digit share is to enter new markets. Apple had to retrench in their hold on their traditional markets, like edu and publishing. They obviously need to keep making advances here, but I think new markets are needed to break into double digit share. I think Apple should keep the PowerMac line squarely focused on their tradition customers. Publishing and graphics need exactly these types of machines, albeit with much more punch as we move forward.
Inertia drives sales in the computer market. Apple obviously wants highend video as it's next market, as well as highly computationally intensive scientific fields. Releasing a workstation class computer to fill their needs makes a lot of sense. If Apple can enter and somewhat dominate these markets, directly attributable unit and revenue growth probably wouldn't be huge. However, these same companies would then have an incentive to also use other Macs (PowerMacs, iMacs) throughout the rest of their business. Once established as the primary platform of the business, it often makes sense for the ancilliary machines of the business to integrate the same platform. While Apple has always promoted heterogenus environments, a homogenus environment would be advantageous for Apple here. Inertia is a strong factor in the computer industry. Windows sales promote Office sale which in turn promote Windows sales. I am suggesting a similar scenario here. Apple uses these new workstation Macs to gain a strong foot fold, to follow up with their other offerings. Apple goes from being a bit supplier to being a whole-solution provider. Apple breaks into being a tier-1 vendor.
For this to work in my mind, Apple must make these workstation Macs an addition to their line up and not a replacement for the PowerMacs. PowerMacs should continue to to offered as their primary platform for their traditional markets, and the workstations aimed and an entirely new market. Just like the Xserve, you get the specialized product in the door, to open it up for your volume offerings. This would not be a product marketed toward business users in general, or to traditional "power users", and especially not to individuals. It would be marketed as the hub of a whole-solution package.
In fact, in my thinking, the "G5" or whatever chip is used in the next gen PowerMacs is not the chip spoken of by Deep Mac. The PowerMac should advance to the G5, and use desktop standard features like memory architecture, system bus etc. The workstation Macs should be much more SGI-like. They should be clearly differentiated by more than just processor speed and basic specs. They should be based on far advanced architecture, relative to what would be standard in a PowerMac at the same time.
Anyway, that is my ramble for tonight. I must say, this has been a pretty good thread.
In addition, having a workstation like SGI or old Vax (as I have used in the '80's) that would run regular word, spreadsheet, games, etc programs is a real plus. The old VAX machines (and CDC 6000, 6400, 7600 and Crays) were great number crunchers/mathmatical modeling tools and even allowed for nice fly-over geologic renders of various exploration areas, but when it came to graphing data and writing reports they were a gigantic pain (which would cause numerous trips to technical illustrators and editors)
I'd love to go along with this, but a 10-post or less poster bearing secrets always makes me activate my Troll Shields and say "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah....whatever".
Anyway, we already had a discussion about somebody coming back as "Deep Mac" or "Mac Throat" over in General Discussion a week or so ago. That's still too fresh in my mind not to make me think somebody's having fun.
So, talk to the hand...sorry that I'm not willing to play along.
The problem with this workstation idea is that it might be an excuse to let Powermacs languish with lame specs.
What I see in all of this is Apple selling a $5000 workstation with performance comparable to that of a $1200 Wintel box. Powermacs would still get hammered in benchmarks, and iMacs would keep using 3 year old technology.
Apple needs to have Powermacs that have state of the art specs and performance. Once they nail down Powermac performance, THEN they can concentrate on a workstation with performance unequalled by any x86 computer in existence.
Otherwise, if Professionals are forced to spend $5000 on a Mac if they want superior performance, then they are going to opt for Wintels, no matter how great OS X is. Everyone has their limits, their "price", ,and Apple already is pushing it with their pricing scheme.
These would be the mid-range line. Then the new PowerMacs would be the bad-ass hypercooled things we have all been dreaming about, however, they'd be more expensive because of the raw power inside.
I don't see the workstation vs 'power'Mac line being a problem...as long as, JD, that Apple behave themselves with their spec/pricing.
If next year the line breaks into two:
Single and Dual 32-bit G5s making up the 'mid range'/standard 'power'Mac line...
Later, 64 bit Dual G5, Quad G5 with advanced architecture and high end 'Quadro' style card making up the low end SGi territory workstation Mac.
The 'G5' roadmap had the 'G5' in two flavours, 32 and 64 bit.
Shake seems to offer a hint of what's to come.
It wasn't that long ago that Apple were charging almost £5K for 'POWER'Macs with all the trimmings on... A workstation product is not improbable now we've seen the Xserve.
And now that's he unemployed, he'll have plenty of time to get on here himself!
Sheesh, mon. Protect your sources!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I concur ... after reading you're description of your source; buddy's not just in danger of getting fired, but electrocuted after reading what you've spilled about him and instantly wetting himself ... bare metal prototypes aren't especially kind about that sort of thing ya know.
... Aside from that, the boxes themselves are indistinguishable from any other PC/Workstation/Server machine in his QA Lab. Deep Mac is unconvinced that 3rd party developers ever see new Apple industrial design concepts, and that leaks of pictures etc. of new Apple Industrial Design must come from Apple itself or a subsidiary.
<hr></blockquote>
CUPERTINO, CA -- (July 26, 2002) In technology news today, all software QA engineers, technicians, custodians and their dogs in North America were summarily executed.
In unrelated news, Apple iCEO Steve Jobs' collection of shrunken human heads has just been recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest.
Not flaming Aramas, I don't have enough knowledge/expertise to dispute any of his claims, BUT, usually when something sounds TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, it usually is.
On the other hand I'm looking forward to my DUAL IBM G4's at 100GHz by the end of the year.
That is amazingly exciting stuff - almost too amazing. Some stuff including the IBM 800GHz thing is simply unbelievable (meaning I can't see how it could be based in reality). But exciting none the less.
Now, if it some or all of it were(is?) true... simply awesome.
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
If what Armas says is true... all I can say is *WOW*!!!
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
There is someone poking holes in that post over there. And some of it is a little unbelievable. Just the part of 800Ghz IBM processors is a little strange. What type of processor is it? Does it only do one instruction... NOOP? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
<strong>
I can name 3 people who have swtiched to the mac from the wintel world because of OS X. They don't care that much about the speed of a high end Intel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read my sig.
And now that's he unemployed, he'll have plenty of time to get on here himself!
Sheesh, mon. Protect your sources!
When Apple was only focused on the 4 quadrants for computers, it was a time of rebuilding and retrenching. Now that they have resolidified their base, they must realise it is time to branch into new markets. This is made obvious by the Xserve.
The only way Apple can break their single digit share is to enter new markets. Apple had to retrench in their hold on their traditional markets, like edu and publishing. They obviously need to keep making advances here, but I think new markets are needed to break into double digit share. I think Apple should keep the PowerMac line squarely focused on their tradition customers. Publishing and graphics need exactly these types of machines, albeit with much more punch as we move forward.
Inertia drives sales in the computer market. Apple obviously wants highend video as it's next market, as well as highly computationally intensive scientific fields. Releasing a workstation class computer to fill their needs makes a lot of sense. If Apple can enter and somewhat dominate these markets, directly attributable unit and revenue growth probably wouldn't be huge. However, these same companies would then have an incentive to also use other Macs (PowerMacs, iMacs) throughout the rest of their business. Once established as the primary platform of the business, it often makes sense for the ancilliary machines of the business to integrate the same platform. While Apple has always promoted heterogenus environments, a homogenus environment would be advantageous for Apple here. Inertia is a strong factor in the computer industry. Windows sales promote Office sale which in turn promote Windows sales. I am suggesting a similar scenario here. Apple uses these new workstation Macs to gain a strong foot fold, to follow up with their other offerings. Apple goes from being a bit supplier to being a whole-solution provider. Apple breaks into being a tier-1 vendor.
For this to work in my mind, Apple must make these workstation Macs an addition to their line up and not a replacement for the PowerMacs. PowerMacs should continue to to offered as their primary platform for their traditional markets, and the workstations aimed and an entirely new market. Just like the Xserve, you get the specialized product in the door, to open it up for your volume offerings. This would not be a product marketed toward business users in general, or to traditional "power users", and especially not to individuals. It would be marketed as the hub of a whole-solution package.
In fact, in my thinking, the "G5" or whatever chip is used in the next gen PowerMacs is not the chip spoken of by Deep Mac. The PowerMac should advance to the G5, and use desktop standard features like memory architecture, system bus etc. The workstation Macs should be much more SGI-like. They should be clearly differentiated by more than just processor speed and basic specs. They should be based on far advanced architecture, relative to what would be standard in a PowerMac at the same time.
Anyway, that is my ramble for tonight. I must say, this has been a pretty good thread.
In addition, having a workstation like SGI or old Vax (as I have used in the '80's) that would run regular word, spreadsheet, games, etc programs is a real plus. The old VAX machines (and CDC 6000, 6400, 7600 and Crays) were great number crunchers/mathmatical modeling tools and even allowed for nice fly-over geologic renders of various exploration areas, but when it came to graphing data and writing reports they were a gigantic pain (which would cause numerous trips to technical illustrators and editors)
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>
Anyway, we already had a discussion about somebody coming back as "Deep Mac" or "Mac Throat" over in General Discussion a week or so ago. That's still too fresh in my mind not to make me think somebody's having fun.
So, talk to the hand...sorry that I'm not willing to play along.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
D
What I see in all of this is Apple selling a $5000 workstation with performance comparable to that of a $1200 Wintel box. Powermacs would still get hammered in benchmarks, and iMacs would keep using 3 year old technology.
Apple needs to have Powermacs that have state of the art specs and performance. Once they nail down Powermac performance, THEN they can concentrate on a workstation with performance unequalled by any x86 computer in existence.
Otherwise, if Professionals are forced to spend $5000 on a Mac if they want superior performance, then they are going to opt for Wintels, no matter how great OS X is. Everyone has their limits, their "price", ,and Apple already is pushing it with their pricing scheme.
Deskmacs:
<a href="http://www.deskmac.com"; target="_blank">http://www.deskmac.com</a>;
(this was just registered on the 22nd by the way)
These would be the mid-range line. Then the new PowerMacs would be the bad-ass hypercooled things we have all been dreaming about, however, they'd be more expensive because of the raw power inside.
Just a thought.......
If next year the line breaks into two:
Single and Dual 32-bit G5s making up the 'mid range'/standard 'power'Mac line...
Later, 64 bit Dual G5, Quad G5 with advanced architecture and high end 'Quadro' style card making up the low end SGi territory workstation Mac.
The 'G5' roadmap had the 'G5' in two flavours, 32 and 64 bit.
Shake seems to offer a hint of what's to come.
It wasn't that long ago that Apple were charging almost £5K for 'POWER'Macs with all the trimmings on... A workstation product is not improbable now we've seen the Xserve.
Lemon Bon Bon
<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=901091507 4&p=2" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=901091507 4&p=2</a>
<strong>
And now that's he unemployed, he'll have plenty of time to get on here himself!
Sheesh, mon. Protect your sources!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I concur ... after reading you're description of your source; buddy's not just in danger of getting fired, but electrocuted after reading what you've spilled about him and instantly wetting himself ... bare metal prototypes aren't especially kind about that sort of thing ya know.
<strong>I suggest you read some interesting comments by Armas
<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=901091507 4&p=2" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=901091507 4&p=2</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
If what Armas says is true... all I can say is *WOW*!!!
:eek:
I'd hope even a grain of it comes true in the next year...
Makes my wait for a POWERMac system even more excruciating.
Der-rool, der-rool.
Has Programmer read that link yet?
I'd be interesting in reading what he thinks...
Great link.
Lemon Bon Bon
as you said, if even a little bit of this comes true its going to be a good few years! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
... Aside from that, the boxes themselves are indistinguishable from any other PC/Workstation/Server machine in his QA Lab. Deep Mac is unconvinced that 3rd party developers ever see new Apple industrial design concepts, and that leaks of pictures etc. of new Apple Industrial Design must come from Apple itself or a subsidiary.
<hr></blockquote>
CUPERTINO, CA -- (July 26, 2002) In technology news today, all software QA engineers, technicians, custodians and their dogs in North America were summarily executed.
In unrelated news, Apple iCEO Steve Jobs' collection of shrunken human heads has just been recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest.
Not flaming Aramas, I don't have enough knowledge/expertise to dispute any of his claims, BUT, usually when something sounds TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, it usually is.
On the other hand I'm looking forward to my DUAL IBM G4's at 100GHz by the end of the year.
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
That is amazingly exciting stuff - almost too amazing. Some stuff including the IBM 800GHz thing is simply unbelievable (meaning I can't see how it could be based in reality). But exciting none the less.
Now, if it some or all of it were(is?) true... simply awesome.
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]
[ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
<strong>
If what Armas says is true... all I can say is *WOW*!!!
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
There is someone poking holes in that post over there. And some of it is a little unbelievable. Just the part of 800Ghz IBM processors is a little strange. What type of processor is it? Does it only do one instruction... NOOP? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />