The Consumer machines just have to get cheaper, Apple needs to take advantage of plummeting Drive/LCD/RAM prices to make iMacs as cheap as possible,.... now is the time to strike at the heart of the issue, PRICE, and not chase some vain geek dream of supercomputer performance in an AIO/consumer notebook. [/B]
I completely agree with you, Matsu. I was quite disappointed when I heard the pricing for the PowerMac G5. I thought Apple was really shooting itself in the foot by moving prices UP when everyone else is moving prices DOWN. My dream, albeit an ultimately unrealistic and foolish one, was to hope for G5 prices starting at or around $1,200. However, the massive number of posts about the G5 over at /. really drove an important point home to me: the G5 isn't meant to compete with $800 Dells, it's meant to compete with $8,000 Unix workstations. This is Apple's PROFESSIONAL machine; they're taking the PowerMac upscale, not downscale. And a $3,000 dual-970 64-bit Unix workstation with the G5's incredible specs and architecture is, comparatively, an absolutely kick-ass deal.
This is all fine, of course, and makes the pros quite happy. But it still leaves us with overpriced, underpowered consumer machines. Consumers, which are, let's face it, a big part of Apple's strategy, are very, very price conscious thanks to the commoditization of the computer market. In fact, although it's hard for geeks like us to understand, consumers are motivated more by price than specs. I lost a Mac sale recently to my father because I couldn't get a new Mac anywhere close to the $600 that he wanted to spend. My dad couldn't tell you the specs of the Compaq he ended up with, but he can easily tell you what he paid for it.
I'm all for keeping the G4 in the Apple family. In the end, it's still a great chip for a lot of uses. I'm on a PowerBook G4 800 right now and it's easily the finest computer I've ever owned. But now that there's some differentiation in the lineup, let's take advantage of it. Keep the G4 in the consumer line, but let's move those prices down! Let's see some $500 eMacs with some real features; an $800 eMac with a 40GB hard drive and no CD-burner is an insult!
Or, as I've said before, get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k. Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
Sorry for getting slightly off-topic there, but I get on my high horse about this stuff. YMMV, of course.
This is all fine, of course, and makes the pros quite happy. But it still leaves us with overpriced, underpowered consumer machines. Consumers, which are, let's face it, a big part of Apple's strategy, are very, very price conscious thanks to the commoditization of the computer market.
On the other hand, having the PowerMac drop down into the iMac's price range constrained what Apple could offer consumers in the first place. Or, to put it another way, the Cube's reincarnation as a low-end headless machine just got a little more likely. Apple has a little more room to play with the iMac, too.
And, amazingly enough, it's starting to look like the next 12-24 months should see an ample harvest of compelling PPCs from both IBM and Motorola. The more options Apple has, the happier they'll be, and the better products they'll be able to offer us.
Or, as I've said before, get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k. Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
Having seen the first sub K Apple Tower in the UK (inc VAT!) I'm convinced something is afoot!
The G5s have moved the towers upscale...slightly in terms of the low/middle end. Almost as if making way for something else?
For now? The G4 'consumer' (heh) Towers.
So. All those saying Apple couldn't or wouldn't sell an expandable machine for the same price or cheaper than an iMac2. Wrong!
Apparently there is loads more hardware to come from Apple this year! That's according to Macrumors...
...so, maybe there is some truth to a headless low-end market share builder coming from Apple.
I hope so. I like the Cube...
Looks like Apple is going after the desktop in the same way they've sewn up the laptop market. Things are looking up.
I'm tentatively happy that Apple's desktop strategy is now heading in the right direction...with more good things on the way...
Heh. As far as I'm concerned, the new Tower is the mini-version, since it has about as much expandability as one. Wait until Apple releases the workstation tower.....
[B]On the other hand, having the PowerMac drop down into the iMac's price range constrained what Apple could offer consumers in the first place. Or, to put it another way, the Cube's reincarnation as a low-end headless machine just got a little more likely. Apple has a little more room to play with the iMac, too.
That's an excellent point, Amorph, and one that wouldn't have occurred to me until it was bashed into my head that the POWERMac (as LBB would call it) is worth the higher price. I think Steve would LOVE to have the Cube form factor back. He's obviously drawn to it (think NeXT), it's an appealing form, and the whole idea just screams low-priced market share builder. With the power of Jaguar/Panther and its Unix underpinnings, I could just see $500 G4 Cube v.2's flying off the shelves. Hell, perhaps it could get enterprise businesses to even CONSIDER the Mac platform. Lower initial price, decent performance (let's say 1GHz G4 minimum), plays well with Windows/Linux/Unix, industry-standard tools (Office, Photoshop, Quark, etc.) AND lower TCO? Sounds like a winning game-plan to me.
Of course, Apple would have to abandon their need for super-high margins on every single product, but I, personally, believe it would be well worth it in order to attempt to capture some of that coveted marketshare. Besides, I would imagine that they would be able to keep their margins suitably high on the pro models (please don't absolutely ream me on this if I'm incorrect; accounting ain't my bag). Come on, Apple, let's get to 10% !
Quote:
And, amazingly enough, it's starting to look like the next 12-24 months should see an ample harvest of compelling PPCs from both IBM and Motorola. The more options Apple has, the happier they'll be, and the better products they'll be able to offer us.
That is amazing, isn't it? I've been looking forward to the G5 for so long that it just feels unreal that it's actually here now (well, almost). Now that we're not beholden to Motorola for our top-end chips, I think that we'll end up being much more satisfied with them. If they actually can up the FSB/add RapidIO/increase clock speeds even by moderate levels, the G4 will continue to be a usable, reliable, even powerful consumer-level chip. Considering that I'm still getting damn good use out of a Beige G3 333 on Jaguar, I'd be willing to bet that MOST consumers (re: not heavy gamers, geeks, or powerusers, but ma and pa) will be quite happy with the performance of a 1+GHz G4.
A 1 GHz 970 is at least as fast as a 2 GHz G4, is there any reason why Apple would have to pay more for a 1 GHz 970 than a 2 Ghz G4??
There is a good reason the IBM 970 was only compared to pentium 4 and dual Xeon computers and that the dual G4 was excluded. The result for the dual G4 would be to embarrasing and also show how far behind single G4 is. The top of the line home computer Apple sell for 2348 dollar will struggle with things like popular games like UT2003. A slow 1 GHz CPU on a slow bus and no L3 cache... The argument that 1 GHz is plenty for most applications is in a way true but problematic. A soon 5 year old B&W G3 is fast enough for Office, email and web browsing but then why buy a new computer?
As for "compelling PPC from Motorola" dream on Just to get on par with a run of the mill Intel P4 it has to reach the mid 2 Ghz range and I would be surprised to see a 2.5 GHz G4 this year, or ever in fact.
The biggest money source for Apple is current mac users that really want to buy a new mac. For that end Apple have to make the kind of macs that you really really want to have. Long time ago I had a 7200/90, then a friend got a 7300/200. Tried it out faster but really just more of the same. Later someone bought a G3/233 and that was also more of the same. Then I tested a G3/300 and it was like entering a totaly new level, I wanted one so badly
Now I have switch between a G4/400 and a dual 1.25. And the dual 1.25 is just more of the same, not at all that feeeling entering a new era at all.
Every 1 GHz 970 that Apple buy is a reason for IBM to improve the 9x0 CPUs, every 2GHz G4 they buy is money on a dead end CPU.
Apple has to say Motorola and G4 is very important to us. If they say "Motorola is a hopless company and the G4 is a pice of overpriced crap that we have to get out of ASAP", it would be bad advertising for all their current hardware. My guess is that we will se not ony servers but also iMacs within the next 6 months, and perhaps even a PB.
I can hardly believe I'm sying this, but... How much performance does an i/eMac/iBook need? I think a far more critical issue is to get the prices of these things DOWN, way DOWN, to a level where they nearly sell themselves.
Couldn't agree more. Actually, I fear that Apple is going to overhype the speed part a bit now that they are back in the game. I can see a huge slide in PC prices below the 399,- EUR we have as the base config right now. And a lot of users could care less about Ghz now that they get them. For most uses, the performance of a stock PC is more than enough (hey, I have been waiting for well over 10 years to write that sentence *g*). The next war will be on price - and Apple has traditionally never even tried to compete here.
Somehow, they should make it possible to push a 12"-iBook for 599.- with 128MB RAM and a G4-Tower for 399.- if they do not want to be eaten alive by the PC manufacturers.
This only brings to mind watching cartoons on Saturday morning when I was a kid, and the big bulldog would have Sylvester the cat by the neck, with Sylvester head bulging to extremes, eyes popping out. Talk about at bottleneck - no blood making it from the heart to the head.
Also, Motorola touted their BALANCED future designs(pg 34) Motorola pdf
I say,"Show Me the Money, Motorola" The current G4 and especially a G4 on a 0.09µm process ain't balanced.
I said surprised. The '57 would be a drop in replacement for the '55, making it cheaper, faster and cooler, than the '55. The .09u part to follow would have RIO for FSB, and basically solve the FSB issue. I'm willing to bet that even the current G4, without the hobbled FSB would put up some pretty respectable numbers next to the Wintelon competition and even the PPC970 "clock for clock" depending on the application. From the numerous discussions about the G4 over the years, I've gathered that the G4 is quite a decent design, just that it never really gets to stretch its legs under a 100-166Mhz FSB. If moto ships a real FSB, even on the same basic G4, they're back, mebbe never in the pro machines, but they're back.
As for 1Ghz G5's, where's the evidence that such a chip even exists? Originally IBM wanted to make 970's from 1.2-1.8, but who knows what they really could make back when they announced that? In all likelihood they were making samples and testing them at different speeds and they estimated or modelled the heat/power characteristics, in other words they extrapolated a feasible range of chips and their respective numbers based on a reasonable survey of samples. It would be safe to argue that 1.6 IS the low end, any 1Ghz G5 would have to be a down clocked 1.6, and would NOt be any cheaper to make. What's more, even though the PM is designed to keep things quiet, it's a pretty safe bet that certain characteristics of the chip (HEAT and power drain) are NOT as favorable as IBM may have guessed they would be. Better than anything from the desktop 32 and 64 bit X86 bins, but not exactly low-power, cheap or neccessarily laptop grade stuff just yet. I've no doubt there will be G5 Powerbooks, but you'll have to wait, longer than AI-chatter would lead you to expect.
A 1.6 GHz G4 with a modern FSB would be a pretty good laptop chip (at least it would be respectable). Personally, I wouldn't buy it, but I would certainly recommend it to other people who are looking to buy a laptop within the next yearr.
highfalutintodd: The margins on the first LCD iMac were right about 10%. Apple's done it before. They go for an average margin of 27% or so; less at the low end, more at the high end.
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
As for "compelling PPC from Motorola" dream on Just to get on par with a run of the mill Intel P4 it has to reach the mid 2 Ghz range and I would be surprised to see a 2.5 GHz G4 this year, or ever in fact.
It doesn't have to beat a P4 on the P4's turf. That's what the 970's for. It just has to outperform a 10W P4 (or, more relevantly, a Pentium M) in order to justify itself. The 7455 G4 has an excellent power/watt ratio, the 7457 will have a considerably better ratio, and that's crucial to notebook performance.
I said surprised. The '57 would be a drop in replacement for the '55, making it cheaper, faster and cooler, than the '55. The .09u part to follow would have RIO for FSB, and basically solve the FSB issue. . .
Ah, but will Motorola actually fix the FSB to be competitive in the desktop market? That is the question. Another possibility is a much faster G4 from IBM, with fast bus and FPU. This is the 750 VX 'Mojave,' which may run at 2 GHz or higher.
highfalutintodd: The margins on the first LCD iMac were right about 10%. Apple's done it before. They go for an average margin of 27% or so; less at the low end, more at the high end.
Actually, I didn't have a damn clue what Apple's margins were, so thanks for the info! When I said let's get to 10%, what I meant to imply was 10% marketshare. Sorry for the confusion. I just re-read my post and saw that it wasn't exactly clear on that point. ;-)
Ah, but will Motorola actually fix the FSB to be competitive in the desktop market? That is the question. Another possibility is a much faster G4 from IBM, with fast bus and FPU. This is the 750 VX 'Mojave,' which may run at 2 GHz or higher.
Mmmm.... decent G4s from IBM AND Motorola AND the G5. 2003 might not be too shabby of a year for Apple after all. :-)
Mmmm.... decent G4s from IBM AND Motorola AND the G5. 2003 might not be too shabby of a year for Apple after all.
Don't get your hopes up too high. Mojave will probably get here in 2004, and it is anybody's guess whether Motorola will ever put a fast bus and better FPU in the G4. It would be nice if Motorola surprised us, however. Speed bumps with faster, lower power G4's will be here sooner. These will be pin for pin replacements, so the upgrade should require no board changes. Same bus and FPU.
Don't get your hopes up too high. Mojave will probably get here in 2004, and it is anybody's guess whether Motorola will ever put a fast bus and better FPU in the G4. It would be nice if Motorola surprised us, however. Speed bumps with faster, lower power G4's will be here sooner. These will be pin for pin replacements, so the upgrade should require no board changes. Same bus and FPU.
Note, however, that the die shrink should allow the MaxBus to run at 200MHz, so Apple has that option.
The Consumer machines just have to get cheaper, Apple needs to take advantage of plummeting Drive/LCD/RAM prices to make iMacs as cheap as possible, and not add the new expense of a new architecture just when the possibility to make a real impact has FINALLY presented itself. With G4 based drop in replacements at .13u and .09u getting cheaper, cooler, and faster, now is the time to strike at the heart of the issue, PRICE, and not chase some vain geek dream of supercomputer performance in an AIO/consumer notebook.
Yep. Though a cheap mini-tower is also needed for enterprise, so this isn't just a consumer consideration. I need cheap systems and the current iMacs are plenty fast for my needs. $799 eMac would be perfect if not for an AIO design.
If I haven't yet mentioned it, I want the cubes back...
Yep. Though a cheap mini-tower is also needed for enterprise, so this isn't just a consumer consideration. I need cheap systems and the current iMacs are plenty fast for my needs. $799 eMac would be perfect if not for an AIO design.
If I haven't yet mentioned it, I want the cubes back...
I think that Cubes are one of the most "Loved" failed products that hit the market. Its a chame, becouse I think that if they would have continued with the platform for another 6 months it would have taken off, especially if Apple knocked another 200 off the low end price tag. Its always fun to watch the looks on PC owners faces when I pull the core out of my cube.
I think that Cubes are one of the most "Loved" failed products that hit the market.
Yup, but there are those. The key to making a successful product - and this has to be something that grates on Steve - is to make something that a lot of people kinda like. The usual logic is that anything that's beloved by one person will be hated by another, so there is a pressure toward blandness, toward playing songs on the radio that are merely good enough to keep people from turning the dial - and hey, maybe they'll hear something that they like enough to buy.
Apple's original price structure not only ruled out people who were not in love with the design, it also ruled out a fair number of people who were. If the Cube or any spiritual descendent of the Cube is to work as a mainstream product, it has to appeal to other reactions than love.
Apple now has the entire price range up to $2500 to play with (PM + LCD) so there's plenty of room for a rethought, compact, headless Mac desktop should Apple choose to introduce one. They might be waiting for the die-shrunk 970, though, or this "PowerPC" Motorola has started talking about all of a sudden, since a debut with a G4 would mean that they'd have to design a motherboard that wouldn't even last a year in production.
You know, it feels so good to be talking about a seemingly open-ended list of options for Apple without even leaving the PowerPC camp, and it feels almost weird to be newly optimistic about Motorola. It's too early to say for sure, but the Crolles gamble really does seem to be paying off.
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
The Consumer machines just have to get cheaper, Apple needs to take advantage of plummeting Drive/LCD/RAM prices to make iMacs as cheap as possible,.... now is the time to strike at the heart of the issue, PRICE, and not chase some vain geek dream of supercomputer performance in an AIO/consumer notebook. [/B]
I completely agree with you, Matsu. I was quite disappointed when I heard the pricing for the PowerMac G5. I thought Apple was really shooting itself in the foot by moving prices UP when everyone else is moving prices DOWN. My dream, albeit an ultimately unrealistic and foolish one, was to hope for G5 prices starting at or around $1,200. However, the massive number of posts about the G5 over at /. really drove an important point home to me: the G5 isn't meant to compete with $800 Dells, it's meant to compete with $8,000 Unix workstations. This is Apple's PROFESSIONAL machine; they're taking the PowerMac upscale, not downscale. And a $3,000 dual-970 64-bit Unix workstation with the G5's incredible specs and architecture is, comparatively, an absolutely kick-ass deal.
This is all fine, of course, and makes the pros quite happy. But it still leaves us with overpriced, underpowered consumer machines. Consumers, which are, let's face it, a big part of Apple's strategy, are very, very price conscious thanks to the commoditization of the computer market. In fact, although it's hard for geeks like us to understand, consumers are motivated more by price than specs. I lost a Mac sale recently to my father because I couldn't get a new Mac anywhere close to the $600 that he wanted to spend. My dad couldn't tell you the specs of the Compaq he ended up with, but he can easily tell you what he paid for it.
I'm all for keeping the G4 in the Apple family. In the end, it's still a great chip for a lot of uses. I'm on a PowerBook G4 800 right now and it's easily the finest computer I've ever owned. But now that there's some differentiation in the lineup, let's take advantage of it. Keep the G4 in the consumer line, but let's move those prices down! Let's see some $500 eMacs with some real features; an $800 eMac with a 40GB hard drive and no CD-burner is an insult!
Or, as I've said before, get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k. Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
Sorry for getting slightly off-topic there, but I get on my high horse about this stuff. YMMV, of course.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
This is all fine, of course, and makes the pros quite happy. But it still leaves us with overpriced, underpowered consumer machines. Consumers, which are, let's face it, a big part of Apple's strategy, are very, very price conscious thanks to the commoditization of the computer market.
On the other hand, having the PowerMac drop down into the iMac's price range constrained what Apple could offer consumers in the first place. Or, to put it another way, the Cube's reincarnation as a low-end headless machine just got a little more likely.
And, amazingly enough, it's starting to look like the next 12-24 months should see an ample harvest of compelling PPCs from both IBM and Motorola. The more options Apple has, the happier they'll be, and the better products they'll be able to offer us.
Or, as I've said before, get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k. Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
Having seen the first sub K Apple Tower in the UK (inc VAT!) I'm convinced something is afoot!
The G5s have moved the towers upscale...slightly in terms of the low/middle end. Almost as if making way for something else?
For now? The G4 'consumer' (heh) Towers.
So. All those saying Apple couldn't or wouldn't sell an expandable machine for the same price or cheaper than an iMac2. Wrong!
Apparently there is loads more hardware to come from Apple this year! That's according to Macrumors...
...so, maybe there is some truth to a headless low-end market share builder coming from Apple.
I hope so. I like the Cube...
Looks like Apple is going after the desktop in the same way they've sewn up the laptop market. Things are looking up.
I'm tentatively happy that Apple's desktop strategy is now heading in the right direction...with more good things on the way...
...but what?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Amorph
[B]On the other hand, having the PowerMac drop down into the iMac's price range constrained what Apple could offer consumers in the first place. Or, to put it another way, the Cube's reincarnation as a low-end headless machine just got a little more likely.
That's an excellent point, Amorph, and one that wouldn't have occurred to me until it was bashed into my head that the POWERMac (as LBB would call it) is worth the higher price. I think Steve would LOVE to have the Cube form factor back. He's obviously drawn to it (think NeXT), it's an appealing form, and the whole idea just screams low-priced market share builder. With the power of Jaguar/Panther and its Unix underpinnings, I could just see $500 G4 Cube v.2's flying off the shelves. Hell, perhaps it could get enterprise businesses to even CONSIDER the Mac platform. Lower initial price, decent performance (let's say 1GHz G4 minimum), plays well with Windows/Linux/Unix, industry-standard tools (Office, Photoshop, Quark, etc.) AND lower TCO? Sounds like a winning game-plan to me.
Of course, Apple would have to abandon their need for super-high margins on every single product, but I, personally, believe it would be well worth it in order to attempt to capture some of that coveted marketshare. Besides, I would imagine that they would be able to keep their margins suitably high on the pro models (please don't absolutely ream me on this if I'm incorrect; accounting ain't my bag). Come on, Apple, let's get to 10% !
And, amazingly enough, it's starting to look like the next 12-24 months should see an ample harvest of compelling PPCs from both IBM and Motorola. The more options Apple has, the happier they'll be, and the better products they'll be able to offer us.
That is amazing, isn't it? I've been looking forward to the G5 for so long that it just feels unreal that it's actually here now (well, almost). Now that we're not beholden to Motorola for our top-end chips, I think that we'll end up being much more satisfied with them. If they actually can up the FSB/add RapidIO/increase clock speeds even by moderate levels, the G4 will continue to be a usable, reliable, even powerful consumer-level chip. Considering that I'm still getting damn good use out of a Beige G3 333 on Jaguar, I'd be willing to bet that MOST consumers (re: not heavy gamers, geeks, or powerusers, but ma and pa) will be quite happy with the performance of a 1+GHz G4.
My 2¢. :-)
There is a good reason the IBM 970 was only compared to pentium 4 and dual Xeon computers and that the dual G4 was excluded. The result for the dual G4 would be to embarrasing and also show how far behind single G4 is. The top of the line home computer Apple sell for 2348 dollar will struggle with things like popular games like UT2003. A slow 1 GHz CPU on a slow bus and no L3 cache... The argument that 1 GHz is plenty for most applications is in a way true but problematic. A soon 5 year old B&W G3 is fast enough for Office, email and web browsing but then why buy a new computer?
As for "compelling PPC from Motorola" dream on
The biggest money source for Apple is current mac users that really want to buy a new mac. For that end Apple have to make the kind of macs that you really really want to have. Long time ago I had a 7200/90, then a friend got a 7300/200. Tried it out faster but really just more of the same. Later someone bought a G3/233 and that was also more of the same. Then I tested a G3/300 and it was like entering a totaly new level, I wanted one so badly
Now I have switch between a G4/400 and a dual 1.25. And the dual 1.25 is just more of the same, not at all that feeeling entering a new era at all.
Every 1 GHz 970 that Apple buy is a reason for IBM to improve the 9x0 CPUs, every 2GHz G4 they buy is money on a dead end CPU.
Apple has to say Motorola and G4 is very important to us. If they say "Motorola is a hopless company and the G4 is a pice of overpriced crap that we have to get out of ASAP", it would be bad advertising for all their current hardware. My guess is that we will se not ony servers but also iMacs within the next 6 months, and perhaps even a PB.
Originally posted by Matsu
I can hardly believe I'm sying this, but... How much performance does an i/eMac/iBook need? I think a far more critical issue is to get the prices of these things DOWN, way DOWN, to a level where they nearly sell themselves.
Couldn't agree more. Actually, I fear that Apple is going to overhype the speed part a bit now that they are back in the game. I can see a huge slide in PC prices below the 399,- EUR we have as the base config right now. And a lot of users could care less about Ghz now that they get them. For most uses, the performance of a stock PC is more than enough (hey, I have been waiting for well over 10 years to write that sentence *g*). The next war will be on price - and Apple has traditionally never even tried to compete here.
Somehow, they should make it possible to push a 12"-iBook for 599.- with 128MB RAM and a G4-Tower for 399.- if they do not want to be eaten alive by the PC manufacturers.
This only brings to mind watching cartoons on Saturday morning when I was a kid, and the big bulldog would have Sylvester the cat by the neck, with Sylvester head bulging to extremes, eyes popping out. Talk about at bottleneck - no blood making it from the heart to the head.
Also, Motorola touted their BALANCED future designs(pg 34) Motorola pdf
I say,"Show Me the Money, Motorola" The current G4 and especially a G4 on a 0.09µm process ain't balanced.
a real proof that anything can be put on a roadmap
As for 1Ghz G5's, where's the evidence that such a chip even exists? Originally IBM wanted to make 970's from 1.2-1.8, but who knows what they really could make back when they announced that? In all likelihood they were making samples and testing them at different speeds and they estimated or modelled the heat/power characteristics, in other words they extrapolated a feasible range of chips and their respective numbers based on a reasonable survey of samples. It would be safe to argue that 1.6 IS the low end, any 1Ghz G5 would have to be a down clocked 1.6, and would NOt be any cheaper to make. What's more, even though the PM is designed to keep things quiet, it's a pretty safe bet that certain characteristics of the chip (HEAT and power drain) are NOT as favorable as IBM may have guessed they would be. Better than anything from the desktop 32 and 64 bit X86 bins, but not exactly low-power, cheap or neccessarily laptop grade stuff just yet. I've no doubt there will be G5 Powerbooks, but you'll have to wait, longer than AI-chatter would lead you to expect.
Originally posted by DrBoar
As for "compelling PPC from Motorola" dream on
It doesn't have to beat a P4 on the P4's turf. That's what the 970's for. It just has to outperform a 10W P4 (or, more relevantly, a Pentium M) in order to justify itself. The 7455 G4 has an excellent power/watt ratio, the 7457 will have a considerably better ratio, and that's crucial to notebook performance.
Originally posted by Matsu
I said surprised. The '57 would be a drop in replacement for the '55, making it cheaper, faster and cooler, than the '55. The .09u part to follow would have RIO for FSB, and basically solve the FSB issue. . .
Ah, but will Motorola actually fix the FSB to be competitive in the desktop market? That is the question. Another possibility is a much faster G4 from IBM, with fast bus and FPU. This is the 750 VX 'Mojave,' which may run at 2 GHz or higher.
Originally posted by Amorph
highfalutintodd: The margins on the first LCD iMac were right about 10%. Apple's done it before. They go for an average margin of 27% or so; less at the low end, more at the high end.
Actually, I didn't have a damn clue what Apple's margins were, so thanks for the info! When I said let's get to 10%, what I meant to imply was 10% marketshare. Sorry for the confusion. I just re-read my post and saw that it wasn't exactly clear on that point. ;-)
Originally posted by snoopy
Ah, but will Motorola actually fix the FSB to be competitive in the desktop market? That is the question. Another possibility is a much faster G4 from IBM, with fast bus and FPU. This is the 750 VX 'Mojave,' which may run at 2 GHz or higher.
Mmmm.... decent G4s from IBM AND Motorola AND the G5. 2003 might not be too shabby of a year for Apple after all. :-)
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
Mmmm.... decent G4s from IBM AND Motorola AND the G5. 2003 might not be too shabby of a year for Apple after all.
Don't get your hopes up too high. Mojave will probably get here in 2004, and it is anybody's guess whether Motorola will ever put a fast bus and better FPU in the G4. It would be nice if Motorola surprised us, however. Speed bumps with faster, lower power G4's will be here sooner. These will be pin for pin replacements, so the upgrade should require no board changes. Same bus and FPU.
Originally posted by snoopy
Don't get your hopes up too high. Mojave will probably get here in 2004, and it is anybody's guess whether Motorola will ever put a fast bus and better FPU in the G4. It would be nice if Motorola surprised us, however. Speed bumps with faster, lower power G4's will be here sooner. These will be pin for pin replacements, so the upgrade should require no board changes. Same bus and FPU.
Note, however, that the die shrink should allow the MaxBus to run at 200MHz, so Apple has that option.
Originally posted by Matsu
The Consumer machines just have to get cheaper, Apple needs to take advantage of plummeting Drive/LCD/RAM prices to make iMacs as cheap as possible, and not add the new expense of a new architecture just when the possibility to make a real impact has FINALLY presented itself. With G4 based drop in replacements at .13u and .09u getting cheaper, cooler, and faster, now is the time to strike at the heart of the issue, PRICE, and not chase some vain geek dream of supercomputer performance in an AIO/consumer notebook.
Yep. Though a cheap mini-tower is also needed for enterprise, so this isn't just a consumer consideration. I need cheap systems and the current iMacs are plenty fast for my needs. $799 eMac would be perfect if not for an AIO design.
If I haven't yet mentioned it, I want the cubes back...
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Yep. Though a cheap mini-tower is also needed for enterprise, so this isn't just a consumer consideration. I need cheap systems and the current iMacs are plenty fast for my needs. $799 eMac would be perfect if not for an AIO design.
If I haven't yet mentioned it, I want the cubes back...
I think that Cubes are one of the most "Loved" failed products that hit the market. Its a chame, becouse I think that if they would have continued with the platform for another 6 months it would have taken off, especially if Apple knocked another 200 off the low end price tag. Its always fun to watch the looks on PC owners faces when I pull the core out of my cube.
Originally posted by @homenow
I think that Cubes are one of the most "Loved" failed products that hit the market.
Yup, but there are those. The key to making a successful product - and this has to be something that grates on Steve - is to make something that a lot of people kinda like. The usual logic is that anything that's beloved by one person will be hated by another, so there is a pressure toward blandness, toward playing songs on the radio that are merely good enough to keep people from turning the dial - and hey, maybe they'll hear something that they like enough to buy.
Apple's original price structure not only ruled out people who were not in love with the design, it also ruled out a fair number of people who were. If the Cube or any spiritual descendent of the Cube is to work as a mainstream product, it has to appeal to other reactions than love.
Apple now has the entire price range up to $2500 to play with (PM + LCD) so there's plenty of room for a rethought, compact, headless Mac desktop should Apple choose to introduce one. They might be waiting for the die-shrunk 970, though, or this "PowerPC" Motorola has started talking about all of a sudden, since a debut with a G4 would mean that they'd have to design a motherboard that wouldn't even last a year in production.
You know, it feels so good to be talking about a seemingly open-ended list of options for Apple without even leaving the PowerPC camp, and it feels almost weird to be newly optimistic about Motorola. It's too early to say for sure, but the Crolles gamble really does seem to be paying off.