Wwdc

1303133353639

Comments

  • Reply 641 of 770
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Leonis

    To me it was a disaster. That "Beyond rumor site" thing was totally over-exaggerated by Apple.



    If I may say so, I think the rumor-mongers over-exaggerated. Once Apple put that one out there, speculation just went from wild to preposterous. I suppose you could argue that it wasn't beyond, it was simply way over laterally, as we were all thinking new iMacs, just nothing like how they turned out.



    [added:]I still do not see any real purpose to buying SGI. Buying Roxio would make much more sense. Hell, buying Quark, as bad an idea as that would be, would be a better idea than buying SGI. Alias-Wavefront might be another matter, but that's out there. I don't know if Apple is ready to deal with a platform about 9 times more complex than FCP, and with so much baggage in the non-Mac world.
  • Reply 642 of 770
    ti fighterti fighter Posts: 863member
    sgi owns AW
  • Reply 643 of 770
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I know, but why buy the whole company? Buy the product or something, and that's a dubious idea anyway. SGI has little to add to Apple's war chest.
  • Reply 644 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    I know, but why buy the whole company? Buy the product or something, and that's a dubious idea anyway. SGI has little to add to Apple's war chest.



    SGI is only $250 million.



    That is small change for Apple.

    It includes Alias|Wavefront.

    Most importantly that price tag includes two very important brands: SGI (and A|W).



    Think of it as a marketing move.



    The SGI brand complements Apple very nicely at the high end.

    It's markets are similar. Customers are similar.



    Apple could try very hard (and have very decent products) but may not be able to penetrate the high end digital media markets becuase of the Apple brand.



    Can you see big iron branded with an Apple logo?

    More importantly can you see govt., research and higher ed buying into big iron with an Apple logo? I don't think so



    $250 million is small change to be able to allow Apple to extend into those markets.



    Be sure that it will allow for high end Mac OS X superclusters and superservers. Perhaps even high end workstations and visualization systems. Make those 8-16 way PPC970 Macs a reality.

    All SGI branded of course.



    Sun is spending $500 million on remarketing Java.



    Think of this as a $250 million Apple marketing campaign to penetrate the high end of its markets.



    Under Steve Jobs and Apple, i'm sure the SGI brand can be rejuvinated and used to Apple's great advantage. It's a perfect aquisition at bargain basement tag.



    Roxio is another rumor ala UMG.

    It owns PressPlay (or whatever) and that is sure to give it an overvalued inflated price tag. Steve Jobs may not be jewish, but he was certainly brought up in jewish tradition, so be sure he ain't gonna pay a dear price for anything. (Not meaning to be anti-semitic in anyway - i'm black and gay).
  • Reply 645 of 770
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    The most incredulous part for me is the rebranding aspect, not based on any rational thought, just a hunch that Jobs and Apple see Apple as a plenty good brand to develop an enterprise presence with. If not the Apple brand, I would think they lean on their NeXT client list and accomplishments in the enterprise arena. Would Apple need rebranding in the graphics/3D market via the SGI name? Like I said, this is just my gut feeling about Apple's attitude about buying SGI, kit and caboodle.
  • Reply 646 of 770
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rmendis



    More importantly can you see govt., research and higher ed buying into big iron with an Apple logo? I don't think so





    Los Alamos National Laboratories was, and might still be, the largest single installation of Macs anywhere. There are thousands in NASA, in the NSA, in the Pentagon, and in various other sectors of government where high-performance computing is essential. When iMacs came out, I remember reading that the FBI was seriously considering stocking up on them, because it had no writable media drive and so it would be that much more difficult to remove information from the computer clandestinely. I believe the NIH has a fairly substantial installation as well. http://www.army.mil is famously served on a Mac.



    Macs have all kinds of cred in Gov't research, and OS X is gaining lots of cred in higher education, mostly by being a quality, inexpensive UNIX-alike. Of course, they can always sell more into those areas, but for now there are other markets where they're scarce, such as nearly every market controlled by commercial IT.
  • Reply 647 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Macs have all kinds of cred in Gov't research, and OS X is gaining lots of cred in higher education...



    No i'm not talking about Macs not being in those markets.

    Of course they are...with DESKTOPS and WORKSTATIONS.



    Not as BIG IRON - mainframe class machines - superservers and superclusters. I think i said BIG IRON WITH AN APPLE LOGO.



    Apple underwent a soul searching mission in the late 80s early 90s Scully Era that almost destroyed Apple - he tried to turn the Apple brand into something it wasn't and something it could never be - a business brand.



    It wasn't until the late 90s when Apple acknowledged itself as a premium commodity brand in it's candy coloured 'coming out' era of Steve Jobs second tenure, that it finally realised its true nature and value of its brand. And that it is not worth trying to be something you are not.



    Similarly now Apple is unlikely to produce Apple branded high end servers. Those classed as big iron.



    It is remarkable that Apple produced the Xserve, especially given that Steve Jobs had stated in the past that Apple would "never" produce servers. The reason is the one i mention...Apple's brand is now firmly established in the hearts and minds of consumers around the world as a premium commodity brand. And one that sells Macs.



    This doesn't however Apple pursuing those markets under a differnt brand. SGI is perfect for Apple.

    It's markets are similar...and as you point out it has similar customers at the other end of the market.



    SGI will allow Apple to produce, sell and support Mac OS X super servers and super clusters into the HIGH END spectrum of its markets.



    So not only will it be able to sell to govt., research/edu and media companies desktops and workstations but ALSO high end super clusters and render farms as SGI.
  • Reply 648 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    The most incredulous part for me is the rebranding aspect



    This is not rebranding as much as an expansion.



    Apple will spend more than the $250 million price tag of SGI to penetrate the high end of its markets.



    And no i'm not talking about the enterprise market either. Just the high end digital media and 3D markets.



    Think about it.

    Already at NABB most of the special demonstrations of solutions are based on Apple and SGI machines working together.



    Alias|Wavefront would make an excellent addition to Apple's portfolio of brands (FileMaker, eMagic). Not to mention that Shake would probably be more at home at Alias|Wavefront than at Apple.



    As for NeXT, well, part of Apple's problem in selling into the high end - that is mainframe class machines - is it's support and sales channel. The arrogance that persists there is one of the main reasons large clients back are won over instead by the likes of IBM, HP, etc...

    NeXT was worse.



    And the NeXT brand was not really a fully established brand. Unlike Apple, i don't think that NeXT ever 'found itself'. So no. NeXT was successful in that it was an important lesson in technology and diplomacy for Steve Jobs as well as an opportunity to develop some very forward looking technology that evolved into Mac OS X, Sherlock, Mail, Apple's Dev tools - ProjectBuilder & Interface Builder, Cocoa, Quartz, Velocity Engine (formally DSP) and not to mention WebObjects.



    SGI is a very established and recognized brand, if only that it's image has eroded recently due to rebranding (Silicon Graphics -> SGI) which IMHO was a terrible move and the start of SGI's downturn, poor products due to diminishing of the MIPS architecture, stretching itself too thin (with the purchase and later sale of Cray Supercomputer), and now with competition from the low end - Mac OS X, Windows XP and Linux.



    I'm sure with Apple's technology (PPC, HyperTransport - which SGI belongs to, Mac OS X) SGI may be able to produce powerful and eye catching workstations akin to those of it's glory days - Silicon Graphics Indigo, Crimson, Iris.



    Remember them?
  • Reply 649 of 770
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Is the development on IRIX is going?
  • Reply 650 of 770
    In ADC News #354



    Quote:

    GNU Pascal 3.3d6 from Microbizz is the free 32/64-bit Pascal compiler of the GNU Compiler Collection. Version 3.3d6 can be used to build Mac OS X dynamically linked shared libraries, loadable bundles and frameworks. Also, all Apple PInterfaces have been ported to GNU Pascal



    Just wondering why someone bothers making 64-bit compiler...



    Teppo
  • Reply 651 of 770
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rmendis

    No i'm not talking about Macs not being in those markets.

    Of course they are...with DESKTOPS and WORKSTATIONS.



    Not as BIG IRON - mainframe class machines - superservers and superclusters. I think i said BIG IRON WITH AN APPLE LOGO.





    Well, there is that little (*cough*) cluster at UCLA...



    My point was that Apple already has a presence in those markets because of their utility to science. They're not used frivolously or lightly now. The fact that Apple doesn't make big iron is actually a point in their favor, because big science is moving away from big iron, and toward Beowulf clusters and the like - except that those are a pain to set up and maintain. Enter Apple, a company known for reliable machines with tremendous ease of setup and transparent networking. They have all the credibility they need in all the right areas right now.



    SGI, on the other hand, is dying. I don't know how valuable a name associated with $20,000 workstations and commercial-van-sized supercomputers is to a market that's more interested in clustering racks full of, say, Xserves. Look at the cluster named Green Destiny: It doesn't eat lots of electricity, doesn't require pulling special cabling in or any sort of environmental control beyond a stout air conditioner, it was cheap to build with out of off-the-shelf parts, etc. That's the future of high-end computing. Now, imagine the same basic idea, but with Apple's plug-and-play.



    Quote:

    Apple underwent a soul searching mission in the late 80s early 90s Scully Era that almost destroyed Apple - he tried to turn the Apple brand into something it wasn't and something it could never be - a business brand.



    Yup. I had a "Professional Macintosh" once. The 8600/200. Solidly built (and how!) but bland. That's the wrong tangent, I agree. The Xserve is much closer to the right idea: Make the function attractive to your customer, and keep the style and flair pure Apple.



    Quote:

    It is remarkable that Apple produced the Xserve, especially given that Steve Jobs had stated in the past that Apple would "never" produce servers. The reason is the one i mention...Apple's brand is now firmly established in the hearts and minds of consumers around the world as a premium commodity brand. And one that sells Macs.



    Also, servers just aren't what they used to be - in a good way. They used to be more remote, before networking got as fast as it is. They used to be headless, or command-line-oriented; or alternately, they required expensive clients (we spent $10K on an Xterm, back in the day), and they ran a different class of operating system.



    Now, because of the shift in technology, servers are easy and cheap and convenient and common, and because of OS X, an iBook is a credible server. The whole landscape has changed. Clustering is crowding out big iron at the high end, and all this plays directly to Apple's long-cultivated strengths. (I remember a network in college that was a bunch of toaster Macs linked up via serial Appletalk to a Mac II running a client/server version of Word. It was slow, but it worked and it worked well. And this was, oh, 1988-89, I think?).



    Quote:

    So not only will it be able to sell to govt., research/edu and media companies desktops and workstations but ALSO high end super clusters and render farms as SGI.



    Ah, but desktops are fast becoming workstations - heck, some laptops are credible workstations - and they're also being recruited for server farms and clusters, scaling as high as you please. Big iron will still be useful for other things (a cluster of Macs or Linux boxes can't hope to replace the AS/400 in the basement of an insurance company) but those markets are of much less interest to Apple.
  • Reply 652 of 770
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fred_lj

    M$ already has their talons on that one, buddy.



    No, they are just trying to get id to release Doom III for Xbox at the same time as the Windows, Linux and Mac versions.
  • Reply 653 of 770
    kurtkurt Posts: 225member




    1995 John Atanasoff dies



    John Atanasoff developed a precursor of the digital computer in the late 1930s. Atanasoff, working with Clifford Berry, developed the Atanasoff Berry Computer (ABC), which could solve differential equations with binary math. The computer used vacuum tubes and other key components of later electronic computers, although it did not have a CPU.

    In 1941, Atanasoff invited John Mauchly, a University of Pennsylvania physicist with an interest in automatic calculators, to see the ABC machine in Iowa. The visit and later correspondence about computers sparked controversy many years later over who had really invented the computer. In 1973, a judge overturned Mauchly's (and his associate, Presper Eckert's) patent claims to the computer in favor of Atanasoff. Atanasoff, who later headed two engineering firms, received the Computer Pioneer Medal in 1981 and the National Medal of Technology in 1990.



    _
  • Reply 654 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    The fact that Apple doesn't make big iron is actually a point in their favor...



    I'm not saying that APPLE produce big iron...i'm saying SGI produce Mac OS X super servers and super clusters.



    I don't see IBM, HP or Sun going out of business?



    Quote:

    Ah, but desktops are fast becoming workstations...



    Indeed they are



    But does that mean that you would rather be content with dual PPC970 boxes when say you could have Mac OS X running on 8-16 PPC970 SGI boxes?



    PowerMacs are pretty inexpensive these days...there is gap opening up at the high end. I think it would be in Apple's interest to play in that market...it's lucrative after all.



    Apple could go it alone and produce it's own machines to compete with Sun, HP and IBM workstations. Or it could just aquire SGI and brand, market and sell them that way.



    It's all about brands and labels...
  • Reply 655 of 770
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Quote:

    More importantly can you see govt., research and higher ed buying into big iron with an Apple logo? I don't think so



    I do think. Or rather, I think Apple CAN do anything it sets its mind to. Given the current strong leadership, anything is possible.



    Quarter of a billion is alot of money for a brand. Hmmm. 65% of workstation people are going or 'intend' going Apple this year. That's without the 'SGI' brand ('Silcon Graphics' sounded better in my opinion...)



    Apple have got 'X-Raid', 'X-Serve' and soon a Tower line that is Schizo split(?) into consumer and uber-Pro lines (see 'Desperate Dan' thread...) by Sept...why...why would Apple want SGI?



    Maya. I could see Shake and Maya becoming a very potent team. But, a quarter of a billion for it?



    Personally, I'd love to see Apple buy Maya and Quark. Virtual guaranteed Apple existence for the next 20 years..?



    Considering Apple can't buy Adobe and the 'muted' 'insolence' coming from Adobe then Quark would be a cheaper retort to the growing threat of Adobe ever pulling the plug. Much in the way eMagic was bought to prevent Apple's music market being threatened Apple could buy Quark (in a way it could never buy the 4 billion Adobe?), pull the plug on PC Quark and Apple will bloom.



    Apple could buy a big chunk of the game developer and workstation market by aquiring Maya. But I've got the sneaky feeling SGI won't let Alias Wavefront go without them being included?



    'BIG IRON'? Let IBM keep it. Apple can do just as well without doing what SGI did to aquire Cray. Apple may encroach alittle but only with a view to the creative markets, I think. X-serves/X-grid/970 uber box strategy. An X-Station and an X-Grid? I dunno. I think Apple have got something cookin'. They're eying the 3D space like that eyed the video space...



    ...how are they going to 'cut the legs' off the workstation opposition?



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 656 of 770
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Quote:

    It's all about brands and labels...



    Yeah. I wouldn't discount your theory altogether.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 657 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    I do think. Or rather, I think Apple CAN do anything it sets its mind to. Given the current strong leadership, anything is possible. [QUOTE]



    Very patriotic indeed.



    This is more a relection of Steve Jobs' leadership than the boy scout loyalty or blind faith of mac addicts worldwide.



    However, believe me Apple is developing its brand in the right direction with the iMac, the iPod and now with applemusic.com (iTunes Music Store).



    A digital lifestyle brand:

    a premium consumer brand.



    Quote:

    Tower line that is Schizo split(?) into consumer and uber-Pro lines (see 'Desperate Dan' thread...) by Sept...



    This is a good idea and something methinks that will happen too.



    First it was the iBook with two 'sizes'.

    Then the PowerBook G4 with three.



    It makes sense to visually differentiate single and dual processor PowerMacs. A mid range and a high end box.



    But beyond 4 processors and say the $10,000 mark and one would certainly be in workstation territory. I'm sure there's a market for 4-8 or 8-16 PPC970 Mac OS X boxes...and that would be best served by a different brand. (SGI).
  • Reply 658 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Look at the cluster named Green Destiny: It doesn't eat lots of electricity, doesn't require pulling special cabling in or any sort of environmental control beyond a stout air conditioner, it was cheap to build with out of off-the-shelf parts, etc. That's the future of high-end computing.



    I appreciate that the future of high end computing is changing.

    But that is not the point.



    It's about sales & support: brand & marketing.



    Apple is not established as a brand that sells high performance servers. Nor is it very good at selling into those markets. Xserve is a great product and appears to be doing promisingly. However...



    As a brand Apple is moving in the other direction (as a digital lifestyle brand) and that is far more strategic and important.



    That doesn't mean it should ignore the high end computing space. I'm saying that it would be simpler to employ a brand and a sales & marketing team (SGI) that is already in that space and is probably a very good if not perfect match/fit for Apple.



    Apple and Steve Jobs will most likely direct product R&D and strategy at SGI anyway once aquired, so be sure that it will take SGI to the 'future of high end computing', be it inexpensive, easy to use Xserve class renderfarms.



    Just imagine the kind of products Apple would be able to produce with the SGI logo?
  • Reply 659 of 770
    johnsonwaxjohnsonwax Posts: 462member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rmendis

    I appreciate that the future of high end computing is changing.

    But that is not the point.



    It's about sales & support: brand & marketing.




    No, it used to be about that. Now it's about cost and performance. You're seeing more and more computing clusters being built out of off-the-shelf hardware and linux. Penguing Computing 1U racks and linux is a cheap setup, and people are less and less willing to pay for marketing and support these days - becuase it's not good value for the money in this arena.



    Apple and IBM might be able to compete in this arena provided that they can provide more performance for less cost than comparable Intel setups.
  • Reply 660 of 770
    rmendisrmendis Posts: 71member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnsonwax

    No, it used to be about that. Now it's about cost and performance.



    What i mean by marketing and sales is:

    Can you see Apple servers putting IBM, HP or Sun out of business?



    Indeed blade and cluster computing may be the future, but be sure that Apple is not going to dethrone either IBM, HP or Sun anytime soon because of...brand recognition (i.e marketing), sales and support of IBM, Sun and HP.



    Apple sales channel don't know how to sell to premium customers...unlike other vendors Apple has not had a tradition of real competition. IBM, HP and Sun compete with each other...but Mac users either buy a Mac from Apple or not at all...so this is the reason for arrogance in Apple sales force. I believe this is changing for the better now, but large sales require a much greater level of customer service...Apple sales force doesn't know what it means to obige a customer, or humility or humbleness.



    This is one reason Apple fails in the enterprise.

    It's also the main reason NeXT failed in the enterprise.



    Coming from the NeXT/WebObjects arena and having worked on several large projects, i've witnessed this first hand. This is the main reason NeXT (and WebObjects) loose its big customers.



    Unfortunately, i don't see Apple changing it's sales force or corporate culture in order to 'fit in'.

    It doesn't have to.

    It's found that it's attitude towards customers and it's sales channel is fine or tolerated int he consumer space. Apple's found itself as it were.



    But just because Apple can PRODUCE server hardware doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be successful selling them...they are completely different things.



    Yes, perhaps Apple will find a niche in the growing economy/low-end server with Xserve, but larger sales will continue to be difficult for Apple. I'm sure Apple acknowledges this...it is where having SGI under its belt would be beneficial.



    Apple could produce the hardware that SGI brands, markets and sells.



    No image or brand recognition problems.

    No sales and support problems.



    SGI already has a sales structure that manages large accounts and has a history and tradition of selling big iron and managing customer relationships.



    Apple is not going to repeat the Scully mistake...however tempting it may be. Either it will stay out of the 'big iron' market altogether or it will partner with one of IBM, HP, Sun or SGI...i'm betting/hoping that it will be SGI (via aquistion).
Sign In or Register to comment.