"If developers didn't have to write native X apps, they wouldn't."
...and why would they write for 'only 3%' of the market when most people can just as well buy a cheap PC? The economics of it...well...can't make sense, can it?
A dual boot, cheapo box for education? Or virtual pc like 'classic'? 'Limited' to just the edu' market, I can see it making sense.
No sales=no share at all. That's the prospect Apple are facing going from 30% market share to what? 20%? 15%? In just a couple of years?
Apple are going to have to do a whole lot better than they are doing now. Price is the bottom line in education. They may look and admire Macs but when children 'need' computers...any computer will do. And 'Xp' is good enough. 'X' is better. But I've tried arguing the 'less tangible' semantics against the 'bottom line'.
Maybe Apple will have to think the 'unthinkable'.
Dismiss it. Hate it. Okay. But it seems most people seem to think this is a black and white issue. I don't think it is. As Apple's 'overall' share of a growing market erodes or merely doesn't keep up, they will lose influence at this rate of going. Maybe not now. Maybe not next year or the year after.
But hey, just the fact we're hearing about 'Marklar' says to me something more than 'insurance policy'.
If Apple can go 'Trojan Horse', not unilaterally, but...but in an area they are finding it hard to compete, where people don't have a lot of money...and where, given a choice...a suite of Macs gets thrown out for a suite of Windows...at least 'dual boot' gives them a 'chance' to compete in the next round of edu' budgets. Okay, the whole suite of Macs might be thrown...but some cheap dual boots will maybe be bought to allow the Mac to at least share 'power' rather than surrender it entirely. And Edu budgets with PCs upto £300 pounds cheaper on a fleet of 15 computers? Adds up. Dual boot. A 'chance' to at least play to The Mac's multimedia strengths. To show what it can do. To remain price and educationally relevent. To play rather than not play at all.
One should note that Steve is embracing 'open standards'. What's the last sacred cow? Mac on x86...or rather...Mac sharing space with x86 rather than losing out to x86.
It at least lets people pick up a cheap box that does windows...and when Windows Xp fails them...or they see some of the 'intangible' benefits of 'Mac' then...then Apple get their chance.
No cheap box. No windows compatibility = no chance = no share = less influence and when they're a less than 1% bit player? Well, then on such low market share...Apple won't be able to make a buck.
There's a reason Apple are coming out fighting against M$. They have to. It's that or oblivion. Luckily for Apple, most of the pieces to fight them are in place.
Why no dual boot for Powerlite? They don't have to. A premium margin on a Power. Job done. What's Lemon Bon Bon going to buy? Another XP on XP? Or...a juicy G5? And I'll happily go on record as being delighted to pay for premium that goes with it. In the graphic artist market, we're (or I'm) okay with the premium and expect to pay for it (so long as it performs like the premium we're paying for.) So it's entirely different from the edu' market. So, no dual boot for the 'Power'Macs.
...eWeek just had a story up about 'OS 9' team members joining the 'Marklar' effort. Make of that what you will. With no OS 9 to support, maybe Apple will just devote all their energies to 'X'? Seems not...
Rather than wait for complete market erosion and collapse of a key market: education, I'd wager Steve Jobs with a little more 'vision' than that. So, we'll see if Apple get their retaliation in first against Dell.
As for the G5 as San Fran. It can't be rules out as can't the 'one more time' G4 (the mystical 7500 on Rio...)
The 'Yikes' G4 didn't hang around long at all. Maybe they have 'x' amount of G4s and they'll sell they at Xmas at the rate Moto' pops them out.
If no update at San Fran, my 'vibe' says Easter. The time for the blind to see. By then, the 'power'Macs will have been on the market about 8/9 months. And that's over long for machines which paper over the cracks.
You may not agree. I'm not sure I do either. But then, alot of people didn't agree with 'Mac' on 'Unix' or 'Apple Servers Reborn' or Maya on Mac or .Mac or full price 'X' upgrades. But their swallowing it.
All this "cheap dual boot box for education" talk is,IMO, a little off base. There is no shortage, or even a perceived shortage, of Mac software in the k-12 market and especially k-6. Businesses can make that claim but not school districts. There is more Mac-only software available than there is PC-only software according to Apple. So, why produce a cheap dual boot system? Dual boot solves a problem that doesn't exist.
The real problem is how to prevent the migration of schools over to PCs. Is price the determining factor? I really don't know but, I can guarantee that if Apple must compete strictly on the price of hardware to prevent it then it is battle they probably won't choose to fight.
But, cheap single boot hardware coupled with a fee-based service offering may be the strategy they're moving toward.
Rhapsody never had PC/Windows emulation. There were only RUMORS of that, the infamous RED BOX strategy. Yellow Box for PC was killed, for various reasons, one of which was that developers should be encouraged to write native applications for Mac, rather than "lowest common denominator" stuff for both platforms.
The "cheap dual-boot Mac" phrase is an oxymoron - whether the dual OS support is hardware- or software based, it will cost Apple more to produce and/or develop. On top of that, the argument given above still applies. Furthermore, the dual-boot concept is not pedagogical - and we are talking schools here, right?
The cheap dual Boot idea is utter nonsense. Apple would never do this. First virtualPC already makes the software and apple would not want to hurt a good company. Second a dual boot doesn't solve any real problems. The education problem comes from apples costing to much. The only thing apple has going for it in the schools is that their OS is easier to use for kids. Why then would they put windows on their machines? This dual boot idea is crazy as hell. Steve would never opt for this.
AND WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IBM AND THE G5?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on guys lets get back on topic before they lock another thread!
\tI would like to know when you guys think this GPUL will be out in a Powermac. I am thinking MWNY...but...what do yo think...
I think some are missing the point or over thinking it. The dual boot may or may not be a last ditch effort to stay in business. Apple believes X is the future and that X will sell new machines. PC users like X but don't want to fully migrate to a new platform and buy new software. So, what do they get froma dual boot machine? Exactly what OS 9 users get, a machine that will run X and they will be able to run their classic (window) apps while slowly buying X apps. This ability may make switching seem easier. "Hey, I'll buy this mac, run OS X and windows and my old apps and then down the road transition over to X apps."
Also, the arguement that these dual boot boxes would put Apple out of buisness is just as ridiculous. X has 5 million users, leaving 20 million OS 9 users left to upgrade. Then throw in the swithcers, that's a lot of people for Adobe to stop developing for. "But if they can run windows..." So? They can run windows on their "OS X " based mac that happens to boot windows like VPC. I would buy one, does that mean I will only buy WINDOWS apps and not OS X apps? Dumb. The millions of current mac users that would buy these would only run windows and only buy window apps? Dumb. If so, they'd only have a windows box already. This is just like running VPC but more intergrated, faster and more stable then VPC could ever hope to be. Did VPC put Apple out of busines? Did VPC make software developers stop with mac apps? Do VPC users no longer buy mac apps? That's a very lame assumption. It's the ability to run 2 platform OS's it's not a cop out.
What would you buy- a dell or a powermac AMD based dual boot? MMm, that's a tuffy
Also, where are some of you getting that this dual boot machine would be a throw away cheap box to compete with Dell? HAHAHA, Apple put out a cheap box that boots windows and OS X?!!? HAHAHA. please, this is business and Apple we are talking about, think a little longer and harder next time.
Okay redkid if apple could make it so that OS 10 could run Windows applications as well as X applications it would cause software companies to stop producing mac software. (for what would be the point?) This in turn would slowly erode the OS into nothing more than a pretty GUI. Now windows XP is pretty enough for most PC users.
\tThe stability of X(its true power) would be destroyed by all the windows apps and the real point of buying an apple would dissipate slowly however, but it would.
\tThis dual boot idea would probable help in the short run, but after awhile it would all start to erode.
\tThe only real way Apple can survive is to set themselves apart from the PC world. They have to run better, look better, have better support, be faster or at least as fast, Be able to do things PC's can't, and be enjoyable to use. Currently apple has all of these things besides being faster. At the moment this is really hurting apple because PC users can not justify the money for an apple that is slower than a PC. But once apple is even or ahead in the speed game they will experience a slow but steady adoption of the Mac OS X by the PC masses. Many people are sick of their crapy PCs crashing all of the time. They hear all the great stuff about apple but they are afraid to spend the money for a more expensive computer that gives you less in terms of hardware.
\tAll the people I know admit that the Mac is better. When they come over they a wowed by our Apples and some of them even make the change over. But a majority want the speed of those 2.4Ghz P4's and 500Mhz busses ect and they can have it for less with a PC.
\tThis is why apple is in great need of this rumored IBM G5. Apple needs something solid to push their software on. Once they have this chunks of the PC world will become switchers. I know over 10 people my self that would buy an Apple if this were to happen. Apple has a great OS, Great software, and great looks. They only lack competitive hardware and that is what the real problem is. The last thing that apple needs is to be able to run windows...For god sakes that is what everyone doesn't want to do.
\t Steve knows what the last step is and I'm sure we will see this IBM chip or a similar solution soon. Although the IBM GPUL looks as if it is the most obvious answer. And then the equation will be set up and the solution will be close at hand. Just a matter of time for it to be worked out.
Kid Red, best post I've seen you make. Blistering retort. All common sense too! Nice one.
"Apple's Mac sales and marketshare have dropped substantially from what they were two years ago. At that time Apple was selling over 1 million Macs a fiscal quarter and since then, Mac sales have not gone over 850 thousand in any three months period of time.
Apple has kept sales dollar volume steady in the last two years by mainly adding more products. A new OS last year and iPod pumped up sales dollars last year. If it wasn't for adding the flat panel iMac, overall Mac sales would have fallen substantially in the first six months of this year.
Both iBook and PowerBook sales fell 11% year-to-year, in Apple's last reported fiscal quarter results. Yet, worldwide PC notebook sales rose 9% in the same period.
Power Mac sales were down 26% in Apple's last reported fiscal quarter, compared to the same three months from the previous year and they have been falling in seven of the last nine fiscal quarters.
The addition of Xserve and the eMac will probably keep overall Mac sales fairly steady for the July-September quarter and high gross margins from Jaguar sales are certain to boost Apple's profits substantially.
With the average PC desktop price at $800 now, Apple will probably have to cut prices considerably to gain marketshare. But, there has been very little opportunity for Apple to lower prices recently due to low sales volume. Several fiscal quarters in the last two years Apple lost money on product sales, but they showed a profit from interest off of savings. The sales spark by way of a new PowerPC design from Motorola or IBM in Macs next year would give Apple a prime opportunity to substantially lower prices for a boost in marketshare. Since at a given price, Apple's gross margins rise with sales volume, Apple would be able to maintain current gross margins while at the same time cutting prices. The risk in lowering prices is what will the sales be like when the initial demand for the new processors is satisfied? Will the sales volume be sufficient to obtain a profit after that initial sales rush has passed?
One way for Apple to lower the risk of insufficient prices to cover expenses is to use only one processor in Power Macs when a substantially faster processor is included next year. The main reason Apple uses two processors for Power Macs now is from trying to keep up with the performance of the Pentium 4. Motorola gave a list price of $295 for the 1 GHz G4 in January. So, eliminating a processor and its L3 cache, Apple could potentially reduce Power Mac prices by $300 and yet still maintain profit margins, even at the same sales volume."
Beg yer pardon for posting this here as well as that other interesting thread 'AMD etc'
The point? 'power'Mac sales have been on the slide for sometime.
Apple needs the G5 to get their workstation sales back on track. Economy or not.
The lack of G5 is holding the whole Apple line and specs' back. iMacs that are frightened to use 1 gig G4s because the 'power'Macs are limping along etc. Apple need far more spread in the cpu and motherboard internal specs.
Sales figures don't lie.
There seems to a pregnant pause in Macland. Just waiting for a decent next gen' leap in Mac performance that has been missing since about 1999. When that something special arrives, I'm sure moi and many other Mac users will put the 'smile' back into Fred Anderson's 'smiley Mac' sales figures.
"I would like to know when you guys think this GPUL will be out in a Powermac."
April. At the latest if no San Fran 'last G4 update'.
Much rides on the G5. If Apple don't bring out significant performance upgrades then their 'power'Mac sales will continue to erode. Being 'perceived' or otherwise to be behind the competition at premium prices is a recipe for bad sales. For everyguy like me who, at heart is an Apple believer, there are a few who think, 'Sod this, I'm off...' Price and performance are issues the G5 may allow Apple to address across their range. Directly and indirectly.
Dual boot, G5, education. I think they're inextricably linked.
Despite all the good things Apple are doing right now, and they're doing plenty of good things..., Apple's sales figures show something isn't right.
A question about IBM using this "GP-UL" for its own Linux boxes?
Does Linux even take advantage of vector (altivec) processing? If not why would anyone even think of IBM using it in their own boxes? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>A question about IBM using this "GP-UL" for its own Linux boxes?
Does Linux even take advantage of vector (altivec) processing? If not why would anyone even think of IBM using it in their own boxes? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Now think about the economies of scale IBM can achieve by shipping SIMD capable Linux and OSX. I welcome this because the more processors IBM can make and sell the cheaper they will be for Apple if conventional wisdom holds true.
Lemon Bon Bon- thanks, normally I don't have much to say as I'm not some geek programmer with an inmense knowledge of computers, so my opinion is usally pretty blunt. However, I have what little info was tossed my way and want to make sure at least that is heard.
One thing tho, you believe the power4 core mac to be here by April, I will have to disagree with that assumption. In Jan or early Feb like last year, Moto will (should) release thier last G4 and it should be on a new mobo (that wasn't ready this past bump because of heat issues) The IBM power4 core would make it for the next update which like this last bump was in August/Sept. So, i've been told to expect it by this time next year.
I was also told about the dual boot and a straight up AMD box which may be the same machine or 2 seperate boxes. Either way I believe AMD was making the chips.
To retort the arguement against dual booting machines that it would erode Apple's software library, ask yourself, if you were a PC user and had to chose between a Dell and windows or a powermac (same relative AMD type speed) that runs windows AND that rad new OS X everyone is talking about, what would you buy?
That's why Apple wouldn't loose any ground. People want OS X but the emulation of windows makes the transition easier. Plus the main reason for this idea was (from what i was told) is that some big major corporations won't touch Apple because it doesn't run windows. So if you can now get a Mac that runs windows as well, Apple will have a nice future if it makes all the right moves. I'd rather the AMD boxes that run OS X only.
<strong>was this covered? but do other people think that the UL part of GP-UL means that it will eventaully fit into laptops?
for the most part their power4 chips have been strictly aimed at their "heavy iron"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe someday... but I think the UL part means it'll finally fit into a desktop sized (and priced) system. The Power4 as it is now requires quite a bit of hardware (size and price) to install it 'into'.
<strong>To retort the arguement against dual booting machines that it would erode Apple's software library, ask yourself, if you were a PC user and had to chose between a Dell and windows or a powermac (same relative AMD type speed) that runs windows AND that rad new OS X everyone is talking about, what would you buy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't retort it. Every such sale, whether to Dell or to Apple, expands the Windows codebase.
Now, put yourself in a developer's shoes: You can target OS X, which is pretty spiffy, but which has a necessarily smaller market share (it doesn't run on Dells, or on any of the white box machines that make up the majority of the market). Or you can have one codebase, with the attendant reductions in cost, trouble, documentation and personnel, and target Windows exclusively, in which case - for the first time ever - your product will run on both PCs and Macs. In other words, while the hybrid boxes might expand OS X's market share by some number of machines, it will expand Windows' by the same number of machines. This probably wouldn't affect hardcore Mac developers like Bare Bones, since they have one codebase already on the Mac side. But all the cross-platform apps? Sure, OS X is prettier from a technical standpoint, but computer science is littered with the corpses of things that were prettier from a technical standpoint. Sadly, that buys you very little.
There's no analogy to VPC, because VPC is not standard equipment, it's expensive, it's sluggish, and its compatibility and (especially) its capabilities are limited - it can't run games or 3D apps in any satisfactory way. I'd be surprised if a significant percentage of PC or Mac users knew it existed at all.
Comments
...and why would they write for 'only 3%' of the market when most people can just as well buy a cheap PC? The economics of it...well...can't make sense, can it?
A dual boot, cheapo box for education? Or virtual pc like 'classic'? 'Limited' to just the edu' market, I can see it making sense.
No sales=no share at all. That's the prospect Apple are facing going from 30% market share to what? 20%? 15%? In just a couple of years?
Apple are going to have to do a whole lot better than they are doing now. Price is the bottom line in education. They may look and admire Macs but when children 'need' computers...any computer will do. And 'Xp' is good enough. 'X' is better. But I've tried arguing the 'less tangible' semantics against the 'bottom line'.
Maybe Apple will have to think the 'unthinkable'.
Dismiss it. Hate it. Okay. But it seems most people seem to think this is a black and white issue. I don't think it is. As Apple's 'overall' share of a growing market erodes or merely doesn't keep up, they will lose influence at this rate of going. Maybe not now. Maybe not next year or the year after.
But hey, just the fact we're hearing about 'Marklar' says to me something more than 'insurance policy'.
If Apple can go 'Trojan Horse', not unilaterally, but...but in an area they are finding it hard to compete, where people don't have a lot of money...and where, given a choice...a suite of Macs gets thrown out for a suite of Windows...at least 'dual boot' gives them a 'chance' to compete in the next round of edu' budgets. Okay, the whole suite of Macs might be thrown...but some cheap dual boots will maybe be bought to allow the Mac to at least share 'power' rather than surrender it entirely. And Edu budgets with PCs upto £300 pounds cheaper on a fleet of 15 computers? Adds up. Dual boot. A 'chance' to at least play to The Mac's multimedia strengths. To show what it can do. To remain price and educationally relevent. To play rather than not play at all.
One should note that Steve is embracing 'open standards'. What's the last sacred cow? Mac on x86...or rather...Mac sharing space with x86 rather than losing out to x86.
It at least lets people pick up a cheap box that does windows...and when Windows Xp fails them...or they see some of the 'intangible' benefits of 'Mac' then...then Apple get their chance.
No cheap box. No windows compatibility = no chance = no share = less influence and when they're a less than 1% bit player? Well, then on such low market share...Apple won't be able to make a buck.
There's a reason Apple are coming out fighting against M$. They have to. It's that or oblivion. Luckily for Apple, most of the pieces to fight them are in place.
Why no dual boot for Powerlite? They don't have to. A premium margin on a Power. Job done. What's Lemon Bon Bon going to buy? Another XP on XP? Or...a juicy G5? And I'll happily go on record as being delighted to pay for premium that goes with it. In the graphic artist market, we're (or I'm) okay with the premium and expect to pay for it (so long as it performs like the premium we're paying for.) So it's entirely different from the edu' market. So, no dual boot for the 'Power'Macs.
...eWeek just had a story up about 'OS 9' team members joining the 'Marklar' effort. Make of that what you will. With no OS 9 to support, maybe Apple will just devote all their energies to 'X'? Seems not...
Rather than wait for complete market erosion and collapse of a key market: education, I'd wager Steve Jobs with a little more 'vision' than that. So, we'll see if Apple get their retaliation in first against Dell.
As for the G5 as San Fran. It can't be rules out as can't the 'one more time' G4 (the mystical 7500 on Rio...)
The 'Yikes' G4 didn't hang around long at all. Maybe they have 'x' amount of G4s and they'll sell they at Xmas at the rate Moto' pops them out.
If no update at San Fran, my 'vibe' says Easter. The time for the blind to see. By then, the 'power'Macs will have been on the market about 8/9 months. And that's over long for machines which paper over the cracks.
You may not agree. I'm not sure I do either. But then, alot of people didn't agree with 'Mac' on 'Unix' or 'Apple Servers Reborn' or Maya on Mac or .Mac or full price 'X' upgrades. But their swallowing it.
If they didn't. Apple would die. Eventually.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
The real problem is how to prevent the migration of schools over to PCs. Is price the determining factor? I really don't know but, I can guarantee that if Apple must compete strictly on the price of hardware to prevent it then it is battle they probably won't choose to fight.
But, cheap single boot hardware coupled with a fee-based service offering may be the strategy they're moving toward.
The "cheap dual-boot Mac" phrase is an oxymoron - whether the dual OS support is hardware- or software based, it will cost Apple more to produce and/or develop. On top of that, the argument given above still applies. Furthermore, the dual-boot concept is not pedagogical - and we are talking schools here, right?
engpjp
AND WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IBM AND THE G5?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on guys lets get back on topic before they lock another thread!
\tI would like to know when you guys think this GPUL will be out in a Powermac. I am thinking MWNY...but...what do yo think...
Also, the arguement that these dual boot boxes would put Apple out of buisness is just as ridiculous. X has 5 million users, leaving 20 million OS 9 users left to upgrade. Then throw in the swithcers, that's a lot of people for Adobe to stop developing for. "But if they can run windows..." So? They can run windows on their "OS X " based mac that happens to boot windows like VPC. I would buy one, does that mean I will only buy WINDOWS apps and not OS X apps? Dumb. The millions of current mac users that would buy these would only run windows and only buy window apps? Dumb. If so, they'd only have a windows box already. This is just like running VPC but more intergrated, faster and more stable then VPC could ever hope to be. Did VPC put Apple out of busines? Did VPC make software developers stop with mac apps? Do VPC users no longer buy mac apps? That's a very lame assumption. It's the ability to run 2 platform OS's it's not a cop out.
What would you buy- a dell or a powermac AMD based dual boot? MMm, that's a tuffy
Also, where are some of you getting that this dual boot machine would be a throw away cheap box to compete with Dell? HAHAHA, Apple put out a cheap box that boots windows and OS X?!!? HAHAHA. please, this is business and Apple we are talking about, think a little longer and harder next time.
<strong>Maybe X-serve shows they maybe.</strong>
[Emphasis mine.]<hr></blockquote>
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
\tThe stability of X(its true power) would be destroyed by all the windows apps and the real point of buying an apple would dissipate slowly however, but it would.
\tThis dual boot idea would probable help in the short run, but after awhile it would all start to erode.
\tThe only real way Apple can survive is to set themselves apart from the PC world. They have to run better, look better, have better support, be faster or at least as fast, Be able to do things PC's can't, and be enjoyable to use. Currently apple has all of these things besides being faster. At the moment this is really hurting apple because PC users can not justify the money for an apple that is slower than a PC. But once apple is even or ahead in the speed game they will experience a slow but steady adoption of the Mac OS X by the PC masses. Many people are sick of their crapy PCs crashing all of the time. They hear all the great stuff about apple but they are afraid to spend the money for a more expensive computer that gives you less in terms of hardware.
\tAll the people I know admit that the Mac is better. When they come over they a wowed by our Apples and some of them even make the change over. But a majority want the speed of those 2.4Ghz P4's and 500Mhz busses ect and they can have it for less with a PC.
\tThis is why apple is in great need of this rumored IBM G5. Apple needs something solid to push their software on. Once they have this chunks of the PC world will become switchers. I know over 10 people my self that would buy an Apple if this were to happen. Apple has a great OS, Great software, and great looks. They only lack competitive hardware and that is what the real problem is. The last thing that apple needs is to be able to run windows...For god sakes that is what everyone doesn't want to do.
\t Steve knows what the last step is and I'm sure we will see this IBM chip or a similar solution soon. Although the IBM GPUL looks as if it is the most obvious answer. And then the equation will be set up and the solution will be close at hand. Just a matter of time for it to be worked out.
"Apple's Mac sales and marketshare have dropped substantially from what they were two years ago. At that time Apple was selling over 1 million Macs a fiscal quarter and since then, Mac sales have not gone over 850 thousand in any three months period of time.
Apple has kept sales dollar volume steady in the last two years by mainly adding more products. A new OS last year and iPod pumped up sales dollars last year. If it wasn't for adding the flat panel iMac, overall Mac sales would have fallen substantially in the first six months of this year.
Both iBook and PowerBook sales fell 11% year-to-year, in Apple's last reported fiscal quarter results. Yet, worldwide PC notebook sales rose 9% in the same period.
Power Mac sales were down 26% in Apple's last reported fiscal quarter, compared to the same three months from the previous year and they have been falling in seven of the last nine fiscal quarters.
The addition of Xserve and the eMac will probably keep overall Mac sales fairly steady for the July-September quarter and high gross margins from Jaguar sales are certain to boost Apple's profits substantially.
With the average PC desktop price at $800 now, Apple will probably have to cut prices considerably to gain marketshare. But, there has been very little opportunity for Apple to lower prices recently due to low sales volume. Several fiscal quarters in the last two years Apple lost money on product sales, but they showed a profit from interest off of savings. The sales spark by way of a new PowerPC design from Motorola or IBM in Macs next year would give Apple a prime opportunity to substantially lower prices for a boost in marketshare. Since at a given price, Apple's gross margins rise with sales volume, Apple would be able to maintain current gross margins while at the same time cutting prices. The risk in lowering prices is what will the sales be like when the initial demand for the new processors is satisfied? Will the sales volume be sufficient to obtain a profit after that initial sales rush has passed?
One way for Apple to lower the risk of insufficient prices to cover expenses is to use only one processor in Power Macs when a substantially faster processor is included next year. The main reason Apple uses two processors for Power Macs now is from trying to keep up with the performance of the Pentium 4. Motorola gave a list price of $295 for the 1 GHz G4 in January. So, eliminating a processor and its L3 cache, Apple could potentially reduce Power Mac prices by $300 and yet still maintain profit margins, even at the same sales volume."
Beg yer pardon for posting this here as well as that other interesting thread 'AMD etc'
The point? 'power'Mac sales have been on the slide for sometime.
Apple needs the G5 to get their workstation sales back on track. Economy or not.
The lack of G5 is holding the whole Apple line and specs' back. iMacs that are frightened to use 1 gig G4s because the 'power'Macs are limping along etc. Apple need far more spread in the cpu and motherboard internal specs.
Sales figures don't lie.
There seems to a pregnant pause in Macland. Just waiting for a decent next gen' leap in Mac performance that has been missing since about 1999. When that something special arrives, I'm sure moi and many other Mac users will put the 'smile' back into Fred Anderson's 'smiley Mac' sales figures.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
April. At the latest if no San Fran 'last G4 update'.
Much rides on the G5. If Apple don't bring out significant performance upgrades then their 'power'Mac sales will continue to erode. Being 'perceived' or otherwise to be behind the competition at premium prices is a recipe for bad sales. For everyguy like me who, at heart is an Apple believer, there are a few who think, 'Sod this, I'm off...' Price and performance are issues the G5 may allow Apple to address across their range. Directly and indirectly.
Dual boot, G5, education. I think they're inextricably linked.
Despite all the good things Apple are doing right now, and they're doing plenty of good things..., Apple's sales figures show something isn't right.
I wonder what that 'something' is?
Lemon Bon Bon
nah.. couldn't have to do with this near recession we are going thru?
nah. nor the fact the computers are reaching a certain level of saturation?
nor the fact that today's computer do what most people need (internet, email word proc) so there is no need to upgrade...
nahhhhhh. it can _only_ be because of the price...<cough>
Does Linux even take advantage of vector (altivec) processing? If not why would anyone even think of IBM using it in their own boxes? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>A question about IBM using this "GP-UL" for its own Linux boxes?
Does Linux even take advantage of vector (altivec) processing? If not why would anyone even think of IBM using it in their own boxes?
Bingo! if the rumors are correct.
<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-09/2002a1-0903-64ppc-altvec.phtml"; target="_blank">http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-09/2002a1-0903-64ppc-altvec.phtml</a>;
Now think about the economies of scale IBM can achieve by shipping SIMD capable Linux and OSX. I welcome this because the more processors IBM can make and sell the cheaper they will be for Apple if conventional wisdom holds true.
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
One thing tho, you believe the power4 core mac to be here by April, I will have to disagree with that assumption. In Jan or early Feb like last year, Moto will (should) release thier last G4 and it should be on a new mobo (that wasn't ready this past bump because of heat issues) The IBM power4 core would make it for the next update which like this last bump was in August/Sept. So, i've been told to expect it by this time next year.
I was also told about the dual boot and a straight up AMD box which may be the same machine or 2 seperate boxes. Either way I believe AMD was making the chips.
To retort the arguement against dual booting machines that it would erode Apple's software library, ask yourself, if you were a PC user and had to chose between a Dell and windows or a powermac (same relative AMD type speed) that runs windows AND that rad new OS X everyone is talking about, what would you buy?
That's why Apple wouldn't loose any ground. People want OS X but the emulation of windows makes the transition easier. Plus the main reason for this idea was (from what i was told) is that some big major corporations won't touch Apple because it doesn't run windows. So if you can now get a Mac that runs windows as well, Apple will have a nice future if it makes all the right moves. I'd rather the AMD boxes that run OS X only.
<strong>"I would like to know when you guys think this GPUL will be out in a Powermac."
April. At the latest if no San Fran 'last G4 update'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That sounds a bit optimistic to me...
<strong>
That sounds a bit optimistic to me...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, there you have it... from the man who seems to know something. Summer or fall, then. Let's say fall and be surprised next summer!
I think OSX 10.3 will coincide with the release of this machine
Allowing Apple to really market this machine with new Processor and updated OS to run.
I think GP-UL hits at 90nm
for the most part their power4 chips have been strictly aimed at their "heavy iron"
<strong>was this covered? but do other people think that the UL part of GP-UL means that it will eventaully fit into laptops?
for the most part their power4 chips have been strictly aimed at their "heavy iron"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe someday... but I think the UL part means it'll finally fit into a desktop sized (and priced) system. The Power4 as it is now requires quite a bit of hardware (size and price) to install it 'into'.
Dave
<strong>To retort the arguement against dual booting machines that it would erode Apple's software library, ask yourself, if you were a PC user and had to chose between a Dell and windows or a powermac (same relative AMD type speed) that runs windows AND that rad new OS X everyone is talking about, what would you buy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't retort it. Every such sale, whether to Dell or to Apple, expands the Windows codebase.
Now, put yourself in a developer's shoes: You can target OS X, which is pretty spiffy, but which has a necessarily smaller market share (it doesn't run on Dells, or on any of the white box machines that make up the majority of the market). Or you can have one codebase, with the attendant reductions in cost, trouble, documentation and personnel, and target Windows exclusively, in which case - for the first time ever - your product will run on both PCs and Macs. In other words, while the hybrid boxes might expand OS X's market share by some number of machines, it will expand Windows' by the same number of machines. This probably wouldn't affect hardcore Mac developers like Bare Bones, since they have one codebase already on the Mac side. But all the cross-platform apps? Sure, OS X is prettier from a technical standpoint, but computer science is littered with the corpses of things that were prettier from a technical standpoint. Sadly, that buys you very little.
There's no analogy to VPC, because VPC is not standard equipment, it's expensive, it's sluggish, and its compatibility and (especially) its capabilities are limited - it can't run games or 3D apps in any satisfactory way. I'd be surprised if a significant percentage of PC or Mac users knew it existed at all.