Ahh, some are still missing my point, I see. Well, good. Anyone who can't see that more money for 970's from Apple customers leads to better ROI for Fishkill hence more interest and funding in Fishkill deserves whatever deluded world they live in.
Improvements to the 970 are NOT automatic. They will require more money, money that IBM could take away if it feels like the ROI sucks. Furthermore, they could continue to support profitable, high volume businesses and not as much for less-so. Is the 970 going away? No. Will IBM spend what it takes to move the 970 up and beyond where it is now? Only if demand is strong enough. Is demand strong enough? Well.....more demand would nice, I'm sure. Now, anything Apple can do to increase deamnd for 970's? You all say no, but some of us say yes. Guess who will be right?
Yeah, right they built the whole DeadFish plant just for Apple.
IBM and Apple do not spend years developing a processor just for IBM to back out when initial G5 orders are not exactly what was projected.
For heaven's sake, lets me clear about this: the demand for the Apple G5, or even specifically for the PPC970, has nothing to do with the shortfall that IBM is complaining about!! The complaint centers around completely unrelated chips that were supposed to be (according to IBM's estimates) ordered by other companies who are desperate for high quality fab capacity.
This also has very little to do with Apple's rollout plan for their 970-based computers. These things have to be planned considerably in advance and Apple and IBM simply cannot react right now to the production shortfall. They might be adjusting their 6-8 month plan right now based on how Apple's machines are selling, how much capacity they expect to have, how the 0.09 micron version is coming along, and how the designs of the other Apple machines are shaping up... but they are doing nothing about the number of orders for this quarter. Next quarter's order they might be tweaking, but it will be pretty much set.
There is no argument that more orders to Fishkill from Apple is a good thing, but that's not the problem at hand. It is a very big fab and keeping it busy is something outside of the scope of Apple (plus IBM's server division).
Apple's CFO said that they are quite pleased with pre-orders for the G5 and that it looks to be on track to grow pro line sales. When asked if analysts could expect pro unit sales to return to levels of 300K+ a quarter, Anderson hedged, saying I don't know about that, but certainly "north of 200K" a quarter.
So, if you assume that 25% of the units are duals, that would amount to about 1M CPUs a year, assuming a constant level of unit sales at 200K a quarter. That's no small chunk of change, even to IBM.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Is demand strong enough? Well.....more demand would nice, I'm sure. Now, anything Apple can do to increase deamnd for 970's? You all say no, but some of us say yes. Guess who will be right?
Fred, how can you say demand is low when they aren't even shipping yet??? What evidence do you have that G5 sales are less than predicted? Demand will pick up from current levels (whatever they are) when people can plonk down their dosh and get one shipped to them in days. Apple will do better with these than the G4 machines and rebuild market share.
Hang tight and wait until October or later to bash slow sales...
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess #7 in top sales at the online Apple Store means nothing. Ahhh, demand for a machine with two 970s is really disappointing.
It does mean nothing for chip vendors..
Come on folks, while we all love the new G5s and are gonna buy lots of them, we still represent something like two percent of the total CPUs in the world...
I mean, how come apple has had to push SO hard to get out the the megahertz slump when Intel has built in fierce competition (AMD)
"Come on folks, while we all love the new G5s and are gonna buy lots of them, we still represent something like two percent of the total CPUs in the world..."
Makes you wonder why IBM made this deal with Apple in the first place..
IBM knows what they are doing. This is the processor line of the future in the fab plant of the future.
Wasn't the shortfall they alluded to in that conference $50M? That is 1.6% of the $3B they spent on the plant. And it sounds like it had nothing to do with the 970.
Yeah, but if they borrowed $3 Billion for 5-years at 5% the $50 Million loss means they missed one monthly payment. For Shame, for shame...this may mean the downfall of IBM.
Yeah, but if they borrowed $3 Billion for 5-years at 5% the $50 Million loss means they missed one monthly payment. For Shame, for shame...this may mean the downfall of IBM.
No problem, just renegotiation at current rates and save that money right back again. Or ask Apple for the $3 billion at a good rate on the assurance that they'll keep developing new PowerPCs. Then again IBM has ~$6 billion in cash-on-hand, so I don't think this will break their bank account...
Merely funning. The point being is that if there payments are $50 million a month they definitely didn't design the DeadFish plant under the ass_umption that Apple's CPU purchases would fund the expenses. At $200 per chip and a 10% profit Apple would have to buy 2,500,000 chips per month, which points out the whole fallacy of this ignorant thread anyway.
At $200 per chip and a 10% profit Apple would have to buy 2,500,000 chips per month, which points out the whole fallacy of this ignorant thread anyway.
Well, if the plans to boost market share really, really, really take off...
.....and maybe you should enroll in remedial math.
whip out your calculator and multiply 200 x 2.5M
compare the result to $50M
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
.....and maybe you should enroll in remedial math.
whip out your calculator and multiply 200 x 2.5M
compare the result to $50M
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
i have only one concern for the G5 tower : will they ship in time. I have no doubt that it would be a best seller.
The G5 imac is already scheduled, and Apple engineers certainly work on few projects for the new i macs.
LIke the programmer, i think that we will have to wait for 90 nm process to see them. Apple never gave roadmaps of his future products, but that doesnt mean they haven't ones.
I am ready to predict that at the end of 2004, all the powerbooks, the towers and the imacs will have a G5.
.....and maybe you should enroll in remedial math.
whip out your calculator and multiply 200 x 2.5M
compare the result to $50M
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
....and note that IBM only makes 10% per chip, what's math anyway, got me, must not be a part of this thread. This is the whole reason we need the G5.
i have only one concern for the G5 tower : will they ship in time. I have no doubt that it would be a best seller.
The G5 imac is already scheduled, and Apple engineers certainly work on few projects for the new i macs.
LIke the programmer, i think that we will have to wait for 90 nm process to see them. Apple never gave roadmaps of his future products, but that doesnt mean they haven't ones.
I am ready to predict that at the end of 2004, all the powerbooks, the towers and the imacs will have a G5.
I agree with the shipping time, I'm not buying until you can get them off the shelf overnight (or 2-days). Not ordering anything that takes 2-months to get. Alot can happen in 2-months when you're a consulting engineer. Hope they are making lots of G5's for the shelves too.
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from).
You started this idiotic thing, why not cite where you're getting your infallible evidence that this has something to do with the 970? I've read all I could Google, and nowhere did I see any blame placed specifically on the 970.
But you must have found something I did not. Please share.
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
You are the one criticizing our polyannaish views. Either break out some evidence or put on your aluminim foil hat and get back inside your New Mexico fallout shelter. Do you have any evidence outside of your own mind? Fishkill exists for things other then the G5. It is a new FAB. Tying Fishkill slowness to slower G5 upgrades is nonsense. Are you saying that IBM is also willing to string out Nvidia as well? All their other partners as well? You are spouting nonsense.
Comments
Originally posted by I, Fred
Ahh, some are still missing my point, I see. Well, good. Anyone who can't see that more money for 970's from Apple customers leads to better ROI for Fishkill hence more interest and funding in Fishkill deserves whatever deluded world they live in.
Improvements to the 970 are NOT automatic. They will require more money, money that IBM could take away if it feels like the ROI sucks. Furthermore, they could continue to support profitable, high volume businesses and not as much for less-so. Is the 970 going away? No. Will IBM spend what it takes to move the 970 up and beyond where it is now? Only if demand is strong enough. Is demand strong enough? Well.....more demand would nice, I'm sure. Now, anything Apple can do to increase deamnd for 970's? You all say no, but some of us say yes. Guess who will be right?
Yeah, right they built the whole DeadFish plant just for Apple.
Originally posted by Bodhi
IBM and Apple do not spend years developing a processor just for IBM to back out when initial G5 orders are not exactly what was projected.
For heaven's sake, lets me clear about this: the demand for the Apple G5, or even specifically for the PPC970, has nothing to do with the shortfall that IBM is complaining about!! The complaint centers around completely unrelated chips that were supposed to be (according to IBM's estimates) ordered by other companies who are desperate for high quality fab capacity.
This also has very little to do with Apple's rollout plan for their 970-based computers. These things have to be planned considerably in advance and Apple and IBM simply cannot react right now to the production shortfall. They might be adjusting their 6-8 month plan right now based on how Apple's machines are selling, how much capacity they expect to have, how the 0.09 micron version is coming along, and how the designs of the other Apple machines are shaping up... but they are doing nothing about the number of orders for this quarter. Next quarter's order they might be tweaking, but it will be pretty much set.
There is no argument that more orders to Fishkill from Apple is a good thing, but that's not the problem at hand. It is a very big fab and keeping it busy is something outside of the scope of Apple (plus IBM's server division).
So, if you assume that 25% of the units are duals, that would amount to about 1M CPUs a year, assuming a constant level of unit sales at 200K a quarter. That's no small chunk of change, even to IBM.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by I, Fred
Is demand strong enough? Well.....more demand would nice, I'm sure. Now, anything Apple can do to increase deamnd for 970's? You all say no, but some of us say yes. Guess who will be right?
Fred, how can you say demand is low when they aren't even shipping yet??? What evidence do you have that G5 sales are less than predicted? Demand will pick up from current levels (whatever they are) when people can plonk down their dosh and get one shipped to them in
Hang tight and wait until October or later to bash slow sales...
MM
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess #7 in top sales at the online Apple Store means nothing. Ahhh, demand for a machine with two 970s is really disappointing.
It does mean nothing for chip vendors..
Come on folks, while we all love the new G5s and are gonna buy lots of them, we still represent something like two percent of the total CPUs in the world...
I mean, how come apple has had to push SO hard to get out the the megahertz slump when Intel has built in fierce competition (AMD)
"Come on folks, while we all love the new G5s and are gonna buy lots of them, we still represent something like two percent of the total CPUs in the world..."
Makes you wonder why IBM made this deal with Apple in the first place..
IBM knows what they are doing. This is the processor line of the future in the fab plant of the future.
Wasn't the shortfall they alluded to in that conference $50M? That is 1.6% of the $3B they spent on the plant. And it sounds like it had nothing to do with the 970.
Originally posted by Bigc
Yeah, but if they borrowed $3 Billion for 5-years at 5% the $50 Million loss means they missed one monthly payment. For Shame, for shame...this may mean the downfall of IBM.
No problem, just renegotiation at current rates and save that money right back again. Or ask Apple for the $3 billion at a good rate on the assurance that they'll keep developing new PowerPCs.
Originally posted by Bigc
......Apple would have to buy 2,500,000 chips per month, ...
Maybe Steve Job's RDF is greater than anyone suspects.
Originally posted by Bigc
At $200 per chip and a 10% profit Apple would have to buy 2,500,000 chips per month, which points out the whole fallacy of this ignorant thread anyway.
Well, if the plans to boost market share really, really, really take off...
whip out your calculator and multiply 200 x 2.5M
compare the result to $50M
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
Originally posted by I, Fred
.....and maybe you should enroll in remedial math.
whip out your calculator and multiply 200 x 2.5M
compare the result to $50M
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
i have only one concern for the G5 tower : will they ship in time. I have no doubt that it would be a best seller.
The G5 imac is already scheduled, and Apple engineers certainly work on few projects for the new i macs.
LIke the programmer, i think that we will have to wait for 90 nm process to see them. Apple never gave roadmaps of his future products, but that doesnt mean they haven't ones.
I am ready to predict that at the end of 2004, all the powerbooks, the towers and the imacs will have a G5.
Originally posted by I, Fred
.....and maybe you should enroll in remedial math.
whip out your calculator and multiply 200 x 2.5M
compare the result to $50M
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
....and note that IBM only makes 10% per chip, what's math anyway, got me, must not be a part of this thread. This is the whole reason we need the G5.
(i.e., 200 * $2.5M * 10% = G5)
Originally posted by Powerdoc
i have only one concern for the G5 tower : will they ship in time. I have no doubt that it would be a best seller.
The G5 imac is already scheduled, and Apple engineers certainly work on few projects for the new i macs.
LIke the programmer, i think that we will have to wait for 90 nm process to see them. Apple never gave roadmaps of his future products, but that doesnt mean they haven't ones.
I am ready to predict that at the end of 2004, all the powerbooks, the towers and the imacs will have a G5.
I agree with the shipping time, I'm not buying until you can get them off the shelf overnight (or 2-days). Not ordering anything that takes 2-months to get. Alot can happen in 2-months when you're a consulting engineer. Hope they are making lots of G5's for the shelves too.
Originally posted by I, Fred
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from).
You started this idiotic thing, why not cite where you're getting your infallible evidence that this has something to do with the 970? I've read all I could Google, and nowhere did I see any blame placed specifically on the 970.
But you must have found something I did not. Please share.
Originally posted by I, Fred
And everyone who seems so sure that these fab issues have nothing to do with 970 issues, please cite (I'm genuinely curious where your absolute conviction comes from). And CFO Freddie-boy doesn't count, and he went sideways on his answer anyway.
You are the one criticizing our polyannaish views. Either break out some evidence or put on your aluminim foil hat and get back inside your New Mexico fallout shelter. Do you have any evidence outside of your own mind? Fishkill exists for things other then the G5. It is a new FAB. Tying Fishkill slowness to slower G5 upgrades is nonsense. Are you saying that IBM is also willing to string out Nvidia as well? All their other partners as well? You are spouting nonsense.