If this "small and useless" market that tend to buy expensive computers and upgrade them a lot comprise of say 1% of the PC market that is equal in volume to 30% of the Macintosh market. If even a small fraction of those would go to Macintosh it would be a very very big thing.
Listen, I know a ton of "l33t g4m3rz." They are NOT a part of the PC market. THEY DON'T BUY PCs.
They might buy motherboards, RAM, CPUs, sound cards, graphics cards, and power supplies, but they DO NOT BUY PCs. They have a huge investment in their hardware and software, and they are least likely to switch to Mac out of any major PC user market.
How could Apple accomodate them?
1)100% fullspeed compatibility with all existing Windows games. They wouldn't switch if they lost any of their old games, or even if one new game was Windows-only.
2)Full upgradability for PowerPC machines, including drivers for esoteric hardware, motherboards and CPUs available a la carte.
If both of either one of these came to pass, they would completely obliterate the Mac platform, leaving no one with a compelling reason to buy an Apple (besides aesthetics).
PC gamers are a fickle, whiny, and contentious lot. They spend a lot, sure, but they don't spend a lot on anything that Apple provides.
You may as well argue that Apple should start targeting baseball card collectors, because they spend a huge amount on their chosen hobby. It makes as much sense.
Forbes.com's "People Watch" online column re-iterates the rumor that Apple will adopt IBM's 970 processor in upcoming Macs.
Here's a quote of the relevant bit:
"And speaking of Steve Jobs, rumors are starting to build that Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL -news -people ) is closer than previously thought to releasing a computer with a new chip produced by IBM (nyse: IBM -news -people ), which we first reported here in October 2002. The chip in question is the IBM Power PC 970, and while IBM wouldn't come right out and say so, it has been clear for some time that the chip is being aimed squarely at making Apple a big customer of IBM chips."
Nothing new?
Although this snippet doesn't present any new information, it's heartening that this "rumor" is being repeated by a source known for a better grade of reportage. Also, I will posit that Forbes is repeating information it has gleaned from its professional sources and not the Mac rumor web.
As entertaining as the rumor mill can be, it's not a very good measure of what actually is going to happen in the Mac universe.
I don't think gaming is as inconsequetial as some pretend. The hardcore, which I don't understand, will buy the stuff first, when it costs the most, but a lot of other people buy the stuff later on, as it drops in price, and they use it to play games. The market is big enough that everyone in hollywood notices, your politicians notice, and market forcasters/analysts brokers notice when, for example, nVidia is set to release nv-35. That equates to making them a play of the day on the basis of gamer response to the product, and the inevitable trickle down. "Gaming" is more than just the hardcore, gotta have it first set, it's kind of a default performance branding that moves a lot of parts into consumers homes in the months that follow (whether they "game" or not) It actually has a very profound influence on the market. The only single aspect with a deeper influence on tech and communication, is porn. The unofficial "app" that trumps both, is of course, "sharing."
Although this snippet doesn't present any new information, it's heartening that this "rumor" is being repeated by a source known for a better grade of reportage.
All that means is that they'll honestly attribute the report to rumors if that's their source. And no, that doesn't mean rumors from professional contacts. That would be attributed to "undisclosed sources" not to rumor.
What I want to know is: which one of you MacRumors readers works for Forbes? C'mon, fess up!
I don't think gaming is as inconsequetial as some pretend. The hardcore, which I don't understand, will buy the stuff first, when it costs the most, but a lot of other people buy the stuff later on, as it drops in price, and they use it to play games. The market is big enough that everyone in hollywood notices, your politicians notice, and market forcasters/analysts brokers notice when, for example, nVidia is set to release nv-35. That equates to making them a play of the day on the basis of gamer response to the product, and the inevitable trickle down. "Gaming" is more than just the hardcore, gotta have it first set, it's kind of a default performance branding that moves a lot of parts into consumers homes in the months that follow (whether they "game" or not) It actually has a very profound influence on the market. The only single aspect with a deeper influence on tech and communication, is porn. The unofficial "app" that trumps both, is of course, "sharing."
Do you have any quantifiable evidence here? This sounds like the same kind of bull-AHEM-hot air that we used to hear about the "information superhighway" ten years ago.
Your "trickle down" argument is weak. You could say the same thing about any intensive computer task, 3D rendering, video editing, etc...
Gaming doesn't drive any market besides the gaming market. Which, in case you haven't noticed, is in a deep recession right now (especially PC gaming). And did you just say that porn has a "deep influence on tech and communication"? ("I'm just doing...research, I swear!" ) I *might* accept the converse, but outside of developing increasingly annoying web ads, porn has no influence on communication or tech companies.
Let's not dress things up here. Benchmarks (and gamers) have much less influence than most people on this board seem to think. Price differential and misconceptions about compatibility are the the two main things holding back the Mac.
The PPC970 is a great leap up for traditional Mac users and techie switchers who are looking for a powerful UNIX workstation, but it's not gonna cause any mass migrations from Windows and/or the x86 world...
In 1997, when Intel was shipping Ppro-200s to Apple's dual 604e-350s, you can bet there weren't any PC users burning up message boards saying that x86 was dead, and that they could never catch up. Relax, the CPU issue is not as big as everyone seems to think it is. And whether these benchmarks are true or not, it will be resolved soon
Let's not dress things up here. Benchmarks (and gamers) have much less influence than most people on this board seem to think. Price differential and misconceptions about compatibility are the the two main things holding back the Mac.
Gamers are important, if only for PR and bragging rights.
Interesting read. It seems those who are dreaming about a 2.3ghz 970 are well, dreaming. The pdf states that 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So, that will be the top end, 1.8ghz.
I for one will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz this year.
Interesting read. It seems those who are dreaming about a 2.3ghz 970 are well, dreaming. The pdf states that 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So, that will be the top end, 1.8ghz.
I for one will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz this year.
In 1997, when Intel was shipping Ppro-200s to Apple's dual 604e-350s...
AFAIK Apple never released a dual 604 350MHz. The fastest MP machine they released back then was 200MHz.
My 9600 350MHz was made in November 1997, during the same year Intel released the Pentium II up to 300MHz. So the speed differences were not as great as you make them out to be, not at all comparable to the differences between Motorola and Intel CPUs today.
Interesting read. It seems those who are dreaming about a 2.3ghz 970 are well, dreaming. The pdf states that 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So, that will be the top end, 1.8ghz.
I for one will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz this year.
Not saying your wrong or anything, but the date on that pdf is 10/28/02. That was written shortly after the Microprocessor Forum.
A lot can happen in 8 months. Like maybe the inadvertent press release by IBM Germany of up and coming 2.5ghz blades.
Oh, by the way, I also "will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz. this year".
opps, Programmer beat me by 3 minutes, I must learn to type faster
AH, yes, entertainment has done more to boost technologies than most any other form of promotion. VHS-Video? Porn. 1-900? Porn. The internet? HELLO! It took quite some time from the internet going "commercial" before any of the top ten money earning sites was anything other than porn. It is a killer app, and there's no disputing it.
Gaming may not be a killer, but it counts, the market for games is huge, the consquences of presence (or lack of it) are also profound.
If Gaming weren't high on the radar, it wouldn't be all over CNN or NBC's news channels whenever ATI and nVidia release a new product. We're talking main stream media here (as much as financial news can be considered main stream) Would anyone pay attention to Sony's PS2 fortunes or M$'s Xbox forays if gaming wasn't important?
And where exactly did all of nVidia's and ATI's embedded/OEM products originate? They trickled down from cards marketed directly at GAMING! The virtual dissapearance of Matrox can be traced in lock step with their failure to capture attention in the gaming community.
I'm not saying that Apple has to cater to gamers with a completely modular architecture, I'm saying you simply can't write off an area of the industry because "that's just games." There's no such thing. "Games" make more money than hollywood box-office in many parts, and they do drive technology. Does your average office PC have the latest GPU? Nope. Gaming rigs do.
In the end, the argument is not weak at all. You cannot say the same thing about any intensive computer task, 3D, A/V, modelling, yadda yadda. How many household computer users do those tasks? Not many. How many "share" files, play games, and surf pr0n? Just about every other one. Which one drive the market again? And since most consumers are more likely to play doom than they are to model anything, it is games that establish a consumer brand and give it market potential (as far as GPU's go). Those tend to end up business models, in schools, as well as, in homes.
Nowhere, you'll note, did I say that PPC970 would bring droves of gamers over to the mac. They'd be foolish to do that, Apple would be foolish to think it.
I'm just saying that you can't underestimate games. It tends to be a familiar refrain around here, this idea that "games" should be dismissed because they're inconsequetial. They aren't, not in the least.
A lot can happen in 8 months. Like maybe the inadvertent press release by IBM Germany of up and coming 2.5ghz blades.
Ok, so we know that the 970 is eventually going to get faster than 1.8 ghz, but the 2.5 blades were supposedly prototype 0.09 parts that supposedly will be introduced later than the inital 0.13 ones (early next year?). So, was this something they said to save their german butts or is it possible that the 0.13 eventually scaled a lot better than IBM had initially hoped for. As you said, a lot can happen in 8 months. Heck, even the Power4 has reach 1.8 now, and as far as I know that is still at 0.18 (right) with a shorter pipe-line than the 970. Yeah, I understand that the Power4 has been in production for years now, and they probably have a good understanding of how to improve its speeds, but can it be possible that this knowledge in someway can be inherited by the 970. Just thinking out loud here
Nowhere, you'll note, did I say that PPC970 would bring droves of gamers over to the mac. They'd be foolish to do that, Apple would be foolish to think it.
I'm just saying that you can't underestimate games. It tends to be a familiar refrain around here, this idea that "games" should be dismissed because they're inconsequetial. They aren't, not in the least.
I don't think that's what people are arguing so much.
The 'PowerMac' won't qualify as a "gamer's machine". It will be _good_ at games, but it will be priced out of that league. And the niggling compatibility/tardiness/etc issues will mean it can _not_ be _great_ for games.
The "Gamer's box" would be headless-iMac-with-a-slot, or the return-of-the-pizzabox. Otherwise we're doomed to have the 'Consumer line insufficiantly upgradeable' and the 'Power' line priced too steep with features gamer's don't lust after.
That said, Ghost Recon (and other games) rocks on the latest duals w/ a cinema display (as demoed here at 'The Computer Store'). But there's no way that Apple can say with a straight face "We're targeting the gamer's market" with a setup that exceeds $6k. Likewise, on the pc side, the bulk of the 'gamer's market' isn't running around with dual Xeons in towers with 6 pci-x slots either.
If Apple really wants to get enthusiastic gamer support, it would be through an entirely new product line.
Comments
Originally posted by DrBoar
If this "small and useless" market that tend to buy expensive computers and upgrade them a lot comprise of say 1% of the PC market that is equal in volume to 30% of the Macintosh market. If even a small fraction of those would go to Macintosh it would be a very very big thing.
Listen, I know a ton of "l33t g4m3rz." They are NOT a part of the PC market. THEY DON'T BUY PCs.
They might buy motherboards, RAM, CPUs, sound cards, graphics cards, and power supplies, but they DO NOT BUY PCs. They have a huge investment in their hardware and software, and they are least likely to switch to Mac out of any major PC user market.
How could Apple accomodate them?
1)100% fullspeed compatibility with all existing Windows games. They wouldn't switch if they lost any of their old games, or even if one new game was Windows-only.
2)Full upgradability for PowerPC machines, including drivers for esoteric hardware, motherboards and CPUs available a la carte.
If both of either one of these came to pass, they would completely obliterate the Mac platform, leaving no one with a compelling reason to buy an Apple (besides aesthetics).
PC gamers are a fickle, whiny, and contentious lot. They spend a lot, sure, but they don't spend a lot on anything that Apple provides.
You may as well argue that Apple should start targeting baseball card collectors, because they spend a huge amount on their chosen hobby. It makes as much sense.
PPC 970 'closer than previously thought'
Forbes.com's "People Watch" online column re-iterates the rumor that Apple will adopt IBM's 970 processor in upcoming Macs.
Here's a quote of the relevant bit:
"And speaking of Steve Jobs, rumors are starting to build that Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL -news -people ) is closer than previously thought to releasing a computer with a new chip produced by IBM (nyse: IBM -news -people ), which we first reported here in October 2002. The chip in question is the IBM Power PC 970, and while IBM wouldn't come right out and say so, it has been clear for some time that the chip is being aimed squarely at making Apple a big customer of IBM chips."
Nothing new?
Although this snippet doesn't present any new information, it's heartening that this "rumor" is being repeated by a source known for a better grade of reportage. Also, I will posit that Forbes is repeating information it has gleaned from its professional sources and not the Mac rumor web.
As entertaining as the rumor mill can be, it's not a very good measure of what actually is going to happen in the Mac universe.
Also, I will posit that Forbes is repeating information it has gleaned from its professional sources and not the Mac rumor web.
Hmm, I wouldn't bet on it
Originally posted by NETROMac
From IGM
Although this snippet doesn't present any new information, it's heartening that this "rumor" is being repeated by a source known for a better grade of reportage.
All that means is that they'll honestly attribute the report to rumors if that's their source. And no, that doesn't mean rumors from professional contacts. That would be attributed to "undisclosed sources" not to rumor.
What I want to know is: which one of you MacRumors readers works for Forbes? C'mon, fess up!
"rumor" is being repeated by a source known for a better grade of reportage
a rumor reported by a more respected online magazine is still a rumor.
Is it June 23rd yet?
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't think gaming is as inconsequetial as some pretend. The hardcore, which I don't understand, will buy the stuff first, when it costs the most, but a lot of other people buy the stuff later on, as it drops in price, and they use it to play games. The market is big enough that everyone in hollywood notices, your politicians notice, and market forcasters/analysts brokers notice when, for example, nVidia is set to release nv-35. That equates to making them a play of the day on the basis of gamer response to the product, and the inevitable trickle down. "Gaming" is more than just the hardcore, gotta have it first set, it's kind of a default performance branding that moves a lot of parts into consumers homes in the months that follow (whether they "game" or not) It actually has a very profound influence on the market. The only single aspect with a deeper influence on tech and communication, is porn. The unofficial "app" that trumps both, is of course, "sharing."
Do you have any quantifiable evidence here? This sounds like the same kind of bull-AHEM-hot air that we used to hear about the "information superhighway" ten years ago.
Your "trickle down" argument is weak. You could say the same thing about any intensive computer task, 3D rendering, video editing, etc...
Gaming doesn't drive any market besides the gaming market. Which, in case you haven't noticed, is in a deep recession right now (especially PC gaming). And did you just say that porn has a "deep influence on tech and communication"? ("I'm just doing...research, I swear!"
Let's not dress things up here. Benchmarks (and gamers) have much less influence than most people on this board seem to think. Price differential and misconceptions about compatibility are the the two main things holding back the Mac.
The PPC970 is a great leap up for traditional Mac users and techie switchers who are looking for a powerful UNIX workstation, but it's not gonna cause any mass migrations from Windows and/or the x86 world...
In 1997, when Intel was shipping Ppro-200s to Apple's dual 604e-350s, you can bet there weren't any PC users burning up message boards saying that x86 was dead, and that they could never catch up. Relax, the CPU issue is not as big as everyone seems to think it is. And whether these benchmarks are true or not, it will be resolved soon
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Let's not dress things up here. Benchmarks (and gamers) have much less influence than most people on this board seem to think. Price differential and misconceptions about compatibility are the the two main things holding back the Mac.
Gamers are important, if only for PR and bragging rights.
link
"But it's a good bet the 970 will also end up in a Mac-unless Apple's thinking is even more different that advertised."
Originally posted by sc_markt
In case anyone is interested, here is another pdf file from IBM on the ppc970.
link
Interesting read. It seems those who are dreaming about a 2.3ghz 970 are well, dreaming. The pdf states that 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So, that will be the top end, 1.8ghz.
I for one will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz this year.
Originally posted by KidRed
Interesting read. It seems those who are dreaming about a 2.3ghz 970 are well, dreaming. The pdf states that 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So, that will be the top end, 1.8ghz.
I for one will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz this year.
Note that it was written in October 2002.
In 1997, when Intel was shipping Ppro-200s to Apple's dual 604e-350s...
AFAIK Apple never released a dual 604 350MHz. The fastest MP machine they released back then was 200MHz.
My 9600 350MHz was made in November 1997, during the same year Intel released the Pentium II up to 300MHz. So the speed differences were not as great as you make them out to be, not at all comparable to the differences between Motorola and Intel CPUs today.
Originally posted by KidRed
Interesting read. It seems those who are dreaming about a 2.3ghz 970 are well, dreaming. The pdf states that 970 max speed is 1.8ghz. So, that will be the top end, 1.8ghz.
I for one will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz this year.
Not saying your wrong or anything, but the date on that pdf is 10/28/02. That was written shortly after the Microprocessor Forum.
A lot can happen in 8 months. Like maybe the inadvertent press release by IBM Germany of up and coming 2.5ghz blades.
Oh, by the way, I also "will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz. this year".
opps, Programmer beat me by 3 minutes, I must learn to type faster
Gaming may not be a killer, but it counts, the market for games is huge, the consquences of presence (or lack of it) are also profound.
If Gaming weren't high on the radar, it wouldn't be all over CNN or NBC's news channels whenever ATI and nVidia release a new product. We're talking main stream media here (as much as financial news can be considered main stream) Would anyone pay attention to Sony's PS2 fortunes or M$'s Xbox forays if gaming wasn't important?
And where exactly did all of nVidia's and ATI's embedded/OEM products originate? They trickled down from cards marketed directly at GAMING! The virtual dissapearance of Matrox can be traced in lock step with their failure to capture attention in the gaming community.
I'm not saying that Apple has to cater to gamers with a completely modular architecture, I'm saying you simply can't write off an area of the industry because "that's just games." There's no such thing. "Games" make more money than hollywood box-office in many parts, and they do drive technology. Does your average office PC have the latest GPU? Nope. Gaming rigs do.
In the end, the argument is not weak at all. You cannot say the same thing about any intensive computer task, 3D, A/V, modelling, yadda yadda. How many household computer users do those tasks? Not many. How many "share" files, play games, and surf pr0n? Just about every other one. Which one drive the market again? And since most consumers are more likely to play doom than they are to model anything, it is games that establish a consumer brand and give it market potential (as far as GPU's go). Those tend to end up business models, in schools, as well as, in homes.
Nowhere, you'll note, did I say that PPC970 would bring droves of gamers over to the mac. They'd be foolish to do that, Apple would be foolish to think it.
I'm just saying that you can't underestimate games. It tends to be a familiar refrain around here, this idea that "games" should be dismissed because they're inconsequetial. They aren't, not in the least.
Originally posted by rickag
Oh, by the way, I also "will still be giddy with a 1.8ghz. this year".
And I will be Ultra Hyper Giddy? with my dual 2.5 970
Originally posted by Programmer
Note that it was written in October 2002.
Also says a lot can change before the chip comes out and chip-sampling 2Q 2003.
Originally posted by rickag
A lot can happen in 8 months. Like maybe the inadvertent press release by IBM Germany of up and coming 2.5ghz blades.
Ok, so we know that the 970 is eventually going to get faster than 1.8 ghz, but the 2.5 blades were supposedly prototype 0.09 parts that supposedly will be introduced later than the inital 0.13 ones (early next year?). So, was this something they said to save their german butts or is it possible that the 0.13 eventually scaled a lot better than IBM had initially hoped for. As you said, a lot can happen in 8 months. Heck, even the Power4 has reach 1.8 now, and as far as I know that is still at 0.18 (right) with a shorter pipe-line than the 970. Yeah, I understand that the Power4 has been in production for years now, and they probably have a good understanding of how to improve its speeds, but can it be possible that this knowledge in someway can be inherited by the 970. Just thinking out loud here
Originally posted by Matsu
Nowhere, you'll note, did I say that PPC970 would bring droves of gamers over to the mac. They'd be foolish to do that, Apple would be foolish to think it.
I'm just saying that you can't underestimate games. It tends to be a familiar refrain around here, this idea that "games" should be dismissed because they're inconsequetial. They aren't, not in the least.
I don't think that's what people are arguing so much.
The 'PowerMac' won't qualify as a "gamer's machine". It will be _good_ at games, but it will be priced out of that league. And the niggling compatibility/tardiness/etc issues will mean it can _not_ be _great_ for games.
The "Gamer's box" would be headless-iMac-with-a-slot, or the return-of-the-pizzabox. Otherwise we're doomed to have the 'Consumer line insufficiantly upgradeable' and the 'Power' line priced too steep with features gamer's don't lust after.
That said, Ghost Recon (and other games) rocks on the latest duals w/ a cinema display (as demoed here at 'The Computer Store'). But there's no way that Apple can say with a straight face "We're targeting the gamer's market" with a setup that exceeds $6k. Likewise, on the pc side, the bulk of the 'gamer's market' isn't running around with dual Xeons in towers with 6 pci-x slots either.
If Apple really wants to get enthusiastic gamer support, it would be through an entirely new product line.