[quote] Jobs needs to get on stage and run the baddest photoshop/video/3-d bake off you've ever seen <hr></blockquote>
This is one of the best statements i have ever read in my life. A statement like this rises my hopes up. To see the title on the newspapers "The Mac Still lives" would be cool.
Apple will release the fastest possible processor that is reliable and that they have in sufficient quantity to meet projected demand. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]
Originally posted by Kurt:
I couldn't agree more. To me it is very troll like behavior to suggest that Apple would hold back the fastest processor they can offer. Do that many people really buy a new machine after every price bump? I find it hard to believe that would make anymore money holding back.
[quote] The premise that there is no competition is too flawed for words. If there was no competition for OSX, Apple's market share would be steadily climbing despite whatever insane price tag they put on their machines. Since they have actually lost more marketshare since Jobs' return, it must be the case (as it was before) that for the overwhelming majority of people windows offerings are not only competitive, they are superior.
People buy a machine (not an OS), this is a balance of PRICE, PERFORMANCE, and EXPERIENCE. Mebbe Apple provides a better experience, but it gets so soundly thrashed in the areas of price and performance, that it's still losing quarterly sales (especially in the pro line). The iBook has been one of their best selling machines. Why? because it's the closest they come to providing a cheap machine with relatively competitive performance. That means that OSX has LOTS of COMPETITION whether or not Apple chooses to recognize it or stick their faces in the sand for another 4 years.
This is the last chance Apple will see to make any serious inroads in their market-share -- which absolutely MUST INCREASE if Apple wants to remain a viable platform for another decade -- with the wintelon world's 64 bit path far from clear, and easily 18-24 months from offering the kind of reach a PPC970 might offer, this is the time to strike.
Not only do the machines need to be the fastest they can possibly be, they also need to, at a minimum, begin to drive their entire desktop line (consumer and pro) from 200-500USD cheaper on each and ever model.
If they choose to eek out the speed gains, people will hold off, the machines need to be basically irresistable. Jobs needs to get on stage and run the baddest photoshop/video/3-d bake off you've ever seen, something against a top shelf PC, not a carefully hobbled one, and when he does it, the mac has to win by at least half, but more like two thirds or three quarters. What takes 2 minutes on the mac, has to take 5 or more on the PC. Apple won't get there by holding back. Take stock of just how many pro customers they've lost, PM sales are a joke, and those customers aren't coming back unless they see dramatic performance increases. Remember they're now on a different platform, getting them to switch back after they've shelled out for PC systems and software won't be easy for the same reasons that many stuck with the mac for so long in the first place, switching platforms costs money and simply isn't worth it just to be a bit faster, you've gotta be 200-400% faster at the prices Apple is looking to charge. Or you gotta be a much more competitively priced! simple.
When I saw that the Powermac line was the failure of last quarter, I was scared that Apple would drop the Powermac line and become a consumer-only company. But then I saw the first update that intoduced the 20" cinema display, and I realized, with elation and extreme happiness, that the opposite would happen. The Powermac line would be furthered into a Pentium killing weapon, and the Apple marketshare will soar as more and more people, and companies, make the switch after being pissed off by the "subscription" style windows software licencing.
Right, they're going to switch straight from Windows to linux, they're used to paying an IT dept anyway, might aswell keep the cheap boxes, get an even cheaper OS/applications/licences, and save a bundle. Ain't no corporation gonna shell out for macs at the current prices.
You guys have veered off the road and entered your own persona Reality Distortion Field.
Apple will eventually close the speed gap.
They will polish OSX into one hell of an OS
but they will not EVER have anything close to a 200-400% speed advantage and nor with they hack their prices down too low.
You can huff and puff but it will do no good. Apple has a Culture that is defines that Tech and Art can and will be given equal consideration. This is Apple. Even in their darkest moments they refused to deliver the shoddy work seen in your typical PC as far as casing, design etc.
I realize that businesses will never use Macs on a large scale and I'm fine with that. Why use a Mercedes for a Taxi Cab when the Ford is much cheaper.
Yes Marketshare has dropped since Jobs took over but the market is much larger at the same time.
Never underestimate good looks and what that does to people. Erase the speed deficit and keep the Art and the consumers will be lined up with Credit Cards in hand. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>I realize that businesses will never use Macs on a large scale and I'm fine with that. Why use a Mercedes for a Taxi Cab when the Ford is much cheaper. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...they will not EVER have anything close to a 200-400% speed advantage and nor with they hack their prices down too low.
You can huff and puff but it will do no good. Apple has a Culture that is defines that Tech and Art can and will be given equal consideration. This is Apple. Even in their darkest moments they refused to deliver the shoddy work seen in your typical PC as far as casing, design etc.
I realize that businesses will never use Macs on a large scale and I'm fine with that. Why use a Mercedes for a Taxi Cab when the Ford is much cheaper.
Yes Marketshare has dropped since Jobs took over but the market is much larger at the same time.
Never underestimate good looks and what that does to people. Erase the speed deficit and keep the Art and the consumers will be lined up with Credit Cards in hand. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
NO, they won't. Apple was still in bad shape when they had clearly faster machines. PRICE must also come down as performance goes up. They are far far out of sync with the general desktop performance of the industry.
Let's forget the percentages for a second and deal with multiples since I always cock-up perccentages. 2-4X, There are quite a few tasks now where a powermac is 2X or more slower than an equivalently priced PC, so why is it so odd to expect macs to reverse that at the VERY HIGH desktop pricepoints they've set. No one is asking an iMac to anihilate an X86 workstation, but a powermac is supposed to do that. Or if that is indeed an impossibility, and performance is in the relative ballpark, THEN PRICES SHOULD ALSO BE COMPETITIVE, which they clearly are not.
If they want to actually gain marketshare, they're going to have to find a way to offer performance and price even when they're ahead on performance.
Furthermore, computers are not like cars. Apple's marketshare is absolutely critical because they represent the entire mac platform, if anyone of the PC makers suffers, even the largest, that's not more than 15% of all PC's sold, Windows would be fine if Dell bit the dust. As the market grows, marketshare (of a platform) becomes even more critical, not less. Why? if the market tripled and Apple still sold the same number of computers, they'd have slightly less the 1% of the market. For ever one million macs, there'd be 99 million PC's sold that year. AS a developer you have to seriously think about whether the mac is even worth your time, even if you reach only 1 out of a hundred PC users, you've already sold as much as you could sell if your product made on to each and every single mac users desk that year.
If you must think about cars, imagine there were only two makes of car in the whole market (many models, but only two makes). 99% of all cars are PC, use the same gas and parts. 1% are Macs, use different gas and require a completely different service training and equipment. Outfitting your shop to service both makes will cost twice as much as servicing PC's only. I think you know what to do. There may be mac specialty shops for enthusiasts, but they'll be few and far between and expensive. Cool maybe, but impractical. You're going to buy a car, which make will you buy? I suspect your car buying decision woiuld be nothing like your computer buying answer. Cars != computers. Apple simply cannot continue to lose marketshare, it doesn't matter how big the market gets, they threaten to make themselves insignificant with any more market share loss.
Apple, to me...are at the point where they can't afford to get much smaller. How many times can you downsize your company before your purchasing volume on parts leaves you with such a massive disparity with Dell that your products will look ridiculously priced. ie you can, theoretically, get to a point where Apple can't compete on hardware prices and will, logically, throw in the towel and be a software only company.
They need to start heading in the 5% range first and quickly build on any momentum to 10% and a little on. And keep building on that.
Freddy Anderson says Apple are looking to 5%. They're going to have to get alittle more competitive on price, I'm afraid. They doing this with the laptops, but I question their desktop range. It's underpowered and wayyyyy over priced.....not to mention inflexible and hard to buy on an average high street. Especially here in the UK. Maybe Apple stores will become international over the next couple of years. An Apple Store in the major UK cities would be a start.
Advertising. Gotta raise that profile. Say why you should use 'X' and a Mac and show people. Show people using IT!
What does this mean for the 970 Towers?
I hope Apple keep the current prices while boosting to G5 level of performances. I'd settle for that.
Though, I do think if they could trim another 100-200 off tower prices while increasing the standard and build to order options...with optional and further discounts if you buy with Apple displays...then Apple may provide a compelling tower switcher argument.
And yes. Apple SHOULD release the fastest CPUs they can. If they have 1.8-2.5 to go. Let's have them.
It's funny, I was reading through my old Macworld mags just now. And there's a clear quote by Jobs saying he intended to close the speed gap in 2001. That's two years ago folks.
Simon Jary saying in his editorial that don't expect G5/Rapid Io style products until 2003/2004. Well folks. 2003 first half is rapidly on its way.
in my opinion -- the fact, that the 970 has such a superior bus-technology compared to the G4-MaxBus, is the reason why it is so important that apple goes all dual again. at least the mid-range PowerMac must be a dualie... with os x AND the 970 it would be the worst decision ever to switch back to single-cpu-systems.
b)
if IBM is able to deliver high quantities of 2.5Ghz 970s then apple would be foolish not to sell these beasts. the question is not if they can milk their PowerMac-customers with lower-speed-970s but if Apple can open new markets with absolutely high-end-machines... with the 2.5Ghz 970s and the option to bring out quad-970s at 2.5Ghz each cpu(!!!!) apple has the chance to get into the high-end graphics/video/movie-production market and eat other alternatives (wintel/linux/siliconGraphix or whatever) with it's own killer-machines... price rates could be:
PowerMac
(entry) 1.4Ghz single - 1499$
(mid) 1.6Ghz dual - 1999$
(high) 1.8Ghz dual - 2499$
PowerMac "Extreme/RenderMac"
(entry) 1.8Ghz quad - 3499$
(mid) 2.2Ghz quad - 4099$
(high) 2.5Ghz quad - 4899$
how about this? all about options... apple could milk the market and all will be happy... every customer has the chance to buy what he'll need...
in my opinion -- the fact, that the 970 has such a superior bus-technology compared to the G4-MaxBus, is the reason why it is so important that apple goes all dual again. at least the mid-range PowerMac must be a dualie... with os x AND the 970 it would be the worst decision ever to switch back to single-cpu-systems.
b)
if IBM is able to deliver high quantities of 2.5Ghz 970s then apple would be foolish not to sell these beasts. the question is not if they can milk their PowerMac-customers with lower-speed-970s but if Apple can open new markets with absolutely high-end-machines... with the 2.5Ghz 970s and the option to bring out quad-970s at 2.5Ghz each cpu(!!!!) apple has the chance to get into the high-end graphics/video/movie-production market and eat other alternatives (wintel/linux/siliconGraphix or whatever) with it's own killer-machines... price rates could be:
PowerMac
(entry) 1.4Ghz single - 1499$
(mid) 1.6Ghz dual - 1999$
(high) 1.8Ghz dual - 2499$
PowerMac "Extreme/RenderMac"
(entry) 1.8Ghz quad - 3499$
(mid) 2.2Ghz quad - 4099$
(high) 2.5Ghz quad - 4899$
how about this? all about options... apple could milk the market and all will be happy... every customer has the chance to buy what he'll need...</strong><hr></blockquote>
All PowerMacs should be Duals or better, this will give developers incentive to optamize professional programs for MP systems, which will be even more important as we move to Dual core and Hyperthreading processors. I would also like to see MP systems make it into the consumer lin-up. The reason that I see this as benefitial is that as consumers are doing more with computers, there will be a higher demand for multiple tasks to be carried out at the same time. As good as AltiVec is, it will only go so far in making the processors better able to multi-task, and MP systems can do this better than SP systems can.
Think about it, what is a Digital Hub, and what tasks will consumers be using it for in 2-5 years? If FireWire 800 does make inroads into AV system connectivity, which seams to be a logical place for it, then what will be the demand of that on systems? I can see a lot of potential tasks being carried out at the same time at home. Burning CD's/DVD's, surfing the Web or playing a game, rendering an iMovie, streaming a movie to your TV in the other room, and listending to music all at the same time. MP systems will make this a more enjoyable experience than SP systems can, even if the MP systems are running at a slower (ie more economical) speed.
<strong>I don't think we'll see huge clock speed increases for the initial launch of the 970. Right now Apple will be trying to figure out how SLOW a clock speed they can get away with.
Face it people, Apple are going to take the p!ss out off us again - simply because they can - there is no competition in the market. SJ must thank God every morning for OS X.
Please discuss...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure... I think the sentiments you express have no merit. Apple has been providing the fastest machines it has been capable of providing; they have not tried to hold anything back, they have been hamstrung by a chip supplier (Motorola) that has lost interest in the desktop market.
Everything from the processor to the resulting bus design/speed has been dependent on the processors MOT delivered. It is unreasonable to state that Apple wants to sell slow hardware because they have no competition. It is quite clear, especially for the Pro market, that Apple faces competition from all sides. Professionals may have a platform they prefer, but they will also be realistic about it, and use the fastest machine they can, if it makes a difference to their bottom line.
It is absolutely in Apple's best interests to release the fastest machines they possibly can, in the shortest timeframe they possibly can. I submit to you that they've been doing this all along, they simply have been limited in what they can accomplish because of MOT's relative disinterest in pushing the PPC architecture for the desktop.
Apple is well aware that they need machines that meet or exceed solutions running on x86 with Windows XP in terms of performance. I expect they'll step up to the plate.
<strong>Apple, to me...are at the point where they can't afford to get much smaller. How many times can you downsize your company before your purchasing volume on parts leaves you with such a massive disparity with Dell that your products will look ridiculously priced. ie you can, theoretically, get to a point where Apple can't compete on hardware prices and will, logically, throw in the towel and be a software only company.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eeeeeeh!
... and switch the OS to the x86 platform, trying to hold on to ever shrinking niches while hoping for a buyer?
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if the Deja Vu alone would make Steve Jobs squeal like Mini-Me down a laundry shoot?
Well, Overtoasty, I didn't say it would be pretty!
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Moki's defence of Apple is appropriate here. I don't like the G4 or Moto, inadvertant or otherwise, leaving Apple in the lurch.
(The lack of G5 hints that Moto' either cut it due to bleeding red $...or one hell of a major tech' difficulty held it up or Apple decided to go with IBM a looooong time ago following the G4 at 500mhz debacle. All the PR noises coming out of Moto for the last few years seems to indicate that desktop cpus are off their map. And a Canadian Rep was reputed to say (in a Macworld interview...) that the G5 wasn't even on their radar. Either way, I can't see how Apple can be blamed for Moto's problems. In this sense, Moto's problems have also become Apple's. Apple have probably done the best they can. The stuttering 'power'Mac bumps...must have left Steve Jobs purple in the face.)
I'm with Moki. Sooner or later, Apple will stand up to the plate and...STRIKE.
I feel they have to.
Everything else about the Steve Jobs era indicates this, the cpu/performance issue, is the last major stone left unturned. Everything else is looking great for Apple. The 970 really would be one of the final pieces in the puzzle.
Comments
This is one of the best statements i have ever read in my life. A statement like this rises my hopes up. To see the title on the newspapers "The Mac Still lives" would be cool.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. AMEN
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: nx7oe ]</p>
Originally posted by vinney57:
Apple will release the fastest possible processor that is reliable and that they have in sufficient quantity to meet projected demand. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]
Originally posted by Kurt:
I couldn't agree more. To me it is very troll like behavior to suggest that Apple would hold back the fastest processor they can offer. Do that many people really buy a new machine after every price bump? I find it hard to believe that would make anymore money holding back.
<hr></blockquote>
1GHz G3?
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Messiah ]
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Messiah ]</p>
People buy a machine (not an OS), this is a balance of PRICE, PERFORMANCE, and EXPERIENCE. Mebbe Apple provides a better experience, but it gets so soundly thrashed in the areas of price and performance, that it's still losing quarterly sales (especially in the pro line). The iBook has been one of their best selling machines. Why? because it's the closest they come to providing a cheap machine with relatively competitive performance. That means that OSX has LOTS of COMPETITION whether or not Apple chooses to recognize it or stick their faces in the sand for another 4 years.
This is the last chance Apple will see to make any serious inroads in their market-share -- which absolutely MUST INCREASE if Apple wants to remain a viable platform for another decade -- with the wintelon world's 64 bit path far from clear, and easily 18-24 months from offering the kind of reach a PPC970 might offer, this is the time to strike.
Not only do the machines need to be the fastest they can possibly be, they also need to, at a minimum, begin to drive their entire desktop line (consumer and pro) from 200-500USD cheaper on each and ever model.
If they choose to eek out the speed gains, people will hold off, the machines need to be basically irresistable. Jobs needs to get on stage and run the baddest photoshop/video/3-d bake off you've ever seen, something against a top shelf PC, not a carefully hobbled one, and when he does it, the mac has to win by at least half, but more like two thirds or three quarters. What takes 2 minutes on the mac, has to take 5 or more on the PC. Apple won't get there by holding back. Take stock of just how many pro customers they've lost, PM sales are a joke, and those customers aren't coming back unless they see dramatic performance increases. Remember they're now on a different platform, getting them to switch back after they've shelled out for PC systems and software won't be easy for the same reasons that many stuck with the mac for so long in the first place, switching platforms costs money and simply isn't worth it just to be a bit faster, you've gotta be 200-400% faster at the prices Apple is looking to charge. Or you gotta be a much more competitively priced! simple.
<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely correct. 100%
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: os10geek ]</p>
Apple will eventually close the speed gap.
They will polish OSX into one hell of an OS
but they will not EVER have anything close to a 200-400% speed advantage and nor with they hack their prices down too low.
You can huff and puff but it will do no good. Apple has a Culture that is defines that Tech and Art can and will be given equal consideration. This is Apple. Even in their darkest moments they refused to deliver the shoddy work seen in your typical PC as far as casing, design etc.
I realize that businesses will never use Macs on a large scale and I'm fine with that. Why use a Mercedes for a Taxi Cab when the Ford is much cheaper.
Yes Marketshare has dropped since Jobs took over but the market is much larger at the same time.
Never underestimate good looks and what that does to people. Erase the speed deficit and keep the Art and the consumers will be lined up with Credit Cards in hand. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>I realize that businesses will never use Macs on a large scale and I'm fine with that. Why use a Mercedes for a Taxi Cab when the Ford is much cheaper. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, in Norway most taxi cabs are Mercedes.
[QUOTEFunny, in Norway most taxi cabs are Mercedes.[/QUOTE]
I knew I was going to get called to the table for that
Yes I should have avoided the dreaded car analogy at all costs.
Won't Intel continue to spin 3Gh+ vs the 1.8Gh or 2.5? What will be their spin? Will the other side ever believe a processor in a mac could be faster?
I've hoped for this so long myself that I won't believe it till I see it. (I am from Missouri, so show me, please...)
Carmack already has Q3 optimized for dual PPC. Bribe him to add a few altivec optimizations, stand back, and be amazed.
It would be something else to see hard-core gamers start buying Powermacs because they get 1.5-2X the framerates of Wintels!
<strong>
...they will not EVER have anything close to a 200-400% speed advantage and nor with they hack their prices down too low.
You can huff and puff but it will do no good. Apple has a Culture that is defines that Tech and Art can and will be given equal consideration. This is Apple. Even in their darkest moments they refused to deliver the shoddy work seen in your typical PC as far as casing, design etc.
I realize that businesses will never use Macs on a large scale and I'm fine with that. Why use a Mercedes for a Taxi Cab when the Ford is much cheaper.
Yes Marketshare has dropped since Jobs took over but the market is much larger at the same time.
Never underestimate good looks and what that does to people. Erase the speed deficit and keep the Art and the consumers will be lined up with Credit Cards in hand. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
NO, they won't. Apple was still in bad shape when they had clearly faster machines. PRICE must also come down as performance goes up. They are far far out of sync with the general desktop performance of the industry.
Let's forget the percentages for a second and deal with multiples since I always cock-up perccentages. 2-4X, There are quite a few tasks now where a powermac is 2X or more slower than an equivalently priced PC, so why is it so odd to expect macs to reverse that at the VERY HIGH desktop pricepoints they've set. No one is asking an iMac to anihilate an X86 workstation, but a powermac is supposed to do that. Or if that is indeed an impossibility, and performance is in the relative ballpark, THEN PRICES SHOULD ALSO BE COMPETITIVE, which they clearly are not.
If they want to actually gain marketshare, they're going to have to find a way to offer performance and price even when they're ahead on performance.
Furthermore, computers are not like cars. Apple's marketshare is absolutely critical because they represent the entire mac platform, if anyone of the PC makers suffers, even the largest, that's not more than 15% of all PC's sold, Windows would be fine if Dell bit the dust. As the market grows, marketshare (of a platform) becomes even more critical, not less. Why? if the market tripled and Apple still sold the same number of computers, they'd have slightly less the 1% of the market. For ever one million macs, there'd be 99 million PC's sold that year. AS a developer you have to seriously think about whether the mac is even worth your time, even if you reach only 1 out of a hundred PC users, you've already sold as much as you could sell if your product made on to each and every single mac users desk that year.
If you must think about cars, imagine there were only two makes of car in the whole market (many models, but only two makes). 99% of all cars are PC, use the same gas and parts. 1% are Macs, use different gas and require a completely different service training and equipment. Outfitting your shop to service both makes will cost twice as much as servicing PC's only. I think you know what to do. There may be mac specialty shops for enthusiasts, but they'll be few and far between and expensive. Cool maybe, but impractical. You're going to buy a car, which make will you buy? I suspect your car buying decision woiuld be nothing like your computer buying answer. Cars != computers. Apple simply cannot continue to lose marketshare, it doesn't matter how big the market gets, they threaten to make themselves insignificant with any more market share loss.
They need to start heading in the 5% range first and quickly build on any momentum to 10% and a little on. And keep building on that.
Freddy Anderson says Apple are looking to 5%. They're going to have to get alittle more competitive on price, I'm afraid. They doing this with the laptops, but I question their desktop range. It's underpowered and wayyyyy over priced.....not to mention inflexible and hard to buy on an average high street. Especially here in the UK. Maybe Apple stores will become international over the next couple of years. An Apple Store in the major UK cities would be a start.
Advertising. Gotta raise that profile. Say why you should use 'X' and a Mac and show people. Show people using IT!
What does this mean for the 970 Towers?
I hope Apple keep the current prices while boosting to G5 level of performances. I'd settle for that.
Though, I do think if they could trim another 100-200 off tower prices while increasing the standard and build to order options...with optional and further discounts if you buy with Apple displays...then Apple may provide a compelling tower switcher argument.
And yes. Apple SHOULD release the fastest CPUs they can. If they have 1.8-2.5 to go. Let's have them.
It's funny, I was reading through my old Macworld mags just now. And there's a clear quote by Jobs saying he intended to close the speed gap in 2001. That's two years ago folks.
Simon Jary saying in his editorial that don't expect G5/Rapid Io style products until 2003/2004. Well folks. 2003 first half is rapidly on its way.
2004 is only nine months ish away.
Lemon Bon Bon
in my opinion -- the fact, that the 970 has such a superior bus-technology compared to the G4-MaxBus, is the reason why it is so important that apple goes all dual again. at least the mid-range PowerMac must be a dualie... with os x AND the 970 it would be the worst decision ever to switch back to single-cpu-systems.
b)
if IBM is able to deliver high quantities of 2.5Ghz 970s then apple would be foolish not to sell these beasts. the question is not if they can milk their PowerMac-customers with lower-speed-970s but if Apple can open new markets with absolutely high-end-machines... with the 2.5Ghz 970s and the option to bring out quad-970s at 2.5Ghz each cpu(!!!!) apple has the chance to get into the high-end graphics/video/movie-production market and eat other alternatives (wintel/linux/siliconGraphix or whatever) with it's own killer-machines... price rates could be:
PowerMac
(entry) 1.4Ghz single - 1499$
(mid) 1.6Ghz dual - 1999$
(high) 1.8Ghz dual - 2499$
PowerMac "Extreme/RenderMac"
(entry) 1.8Ghz quad - 3499$
(mid) 2.2Ghz quad - 4099$
(high) 2.5Ghz quad - 4899$
how about this? all about options... apple could milk the market and all will be happy... every customer has the chance to buy what he'll need...
(entry) 1.4Ghz single - 1499$
(mid) 1.6Ghz dual - 1999$
(high) 1.8Ghz dual - 2499$
PowerMac "Extreme/RenderMac"
(entry) 1.8Ghz quad - 3499$
(mid) 2.2Ghz quad - 4099$
(high) 2.5Ghz quad - 4899$
how about this? all about options... apple could milk the market and all will be happy... every customer has the chance to buy what he'll need...
<hr></blockquote>
Krassy. That's m'boy!
100% agreed.
This is exactly the growth machine Apple needs.
Lemon Bon Bon !!!
<strong>a)
in my opinion -- the fact, that the 970 has such a superior bus-technology compared to the G4-MaxBus, is the reason why it is so important that apple goes all dual again. at least the mid-range PowerMac must be a dualie... with os x AND the 970 it would be the worst decision ever to switch back to single-cpu-systems.
b)
if IBM is able to deliver high quantities of 2.5Ghz 970s then apple would be foolish not to sell these beasts. the question is not if they can milk their PowerMac-customers with lower-speed-970s but if Apple can open new markets with absolutely high-end-machines... with the 2.5Ghz 970s and the option to bring out quad-970s at 2.5Ghz each cpu(!!!!) apple has the chance to get into the high-end graphics/video/movie-production market and eat other alternatives (wintel/linux/siliconGraphix or whatever) with it's own killer-machines... price rates could be:
PowerMac
(entry) 1.4Ghz single - 1499$
(mid) 1.6Ghz dual - 1999$
(high) 1.8Ghz dual - 2499$
PowerMac "Extreme/RenderMac"
(entry) 1.8Ghz quad - 3499$
(mid) 2.2Ghz quad - 4099$
(high) 2.5Ghz quad - 4899$
how about this? all about options... apple could milk the market and all will be happy... every customer has the chance to buy what he'll need...</strong><hr></blockquote>
All PowerMacs should be Duals or better, this will give developers incentive to optamize professional programs for MP systems, which will be even more important as we move to Dual core and Hyperthreading processors. I would also like to see MP systems make it into the consumer lin-up. The reason that I see this as benefitial is that as consumers are doing more with computers, there will be a higher demand for multiple tasks to be carried out at the same time. As good as AltiVec is, it will only go so far in making the processors better able to multi-task, and MP systems can do this better than SP systems can.
Think about it, what is a Digital Hub, and what tasks will consumers be using it for in 2-5 years? If FireWire 800 does make inroads into AV system connectivity, which seams to be a logical place for it, then what will be the demand of that on systems? I can see a lot of potential tasks being carried out at the same time at home. Burning CD's/DVD's, surfing the Web or playing a game, rendering an iMovie, streaming a movie to your TV in the other room, and listending to music all at the same time. MP systems will make this a more enjoyable experience than SP systems can, even if the MP systems are running at a slower (ie more economical) speed.
<strong>I don't think we'll see huge clock speed increases for the initial launch of the 970. Right now Apple will be trying to figure out how SLOW a clock speed they can get away with.
Face it people, Apple are going to take the p!ss out off us again - simply because they can - there is no competition in the market. SJ must thank God every morning for OS X.
Please discuss...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure... I think the sentiments you express have no merit. Apple has been providing the fastest machines it has been capable of providing; they have not tried to hold anything back, they have been hamstrung by a chip supplier (Motorola) that has lost interest in the desktop market.
Everything from the processor to the resulting bus design/speed has been dependent on the processors MOT delivered. It is unreasonable to state that Apple wants to sell slow hardware because they have no competition. It is quite clear, especially for the Pro market, that Apple faces competition from all sides. Professionals may have a platform they prefer, but they will also be realistic about it, and use the fastest machine they can, if it makes a difference to their bottom line.
It is absolutely in Apple's best interests to release the fastest machines they possibly can, in the shortest timeframe they possibly can. I submit to you that they've been doing this all along, they simply have been limited in what they can accomplish because of MOT's relative disinterest in pushing the PPC architecture for the desktop.
Apple is well aware that they need machines that meet or exceed solutions running on x86 with Windows XP in terms of performance. I expect they'll step up to the plate.
All of the sudden, I've got the urge for a little EV Nova
<strong>Apple, to me...are at the point where they can't afford to get much smaller. How many times can you downsize your company before your purchasing volume on parts leaves you with such a massive disparity with Dell that your products will look ridiculously priced. ie you can, theoretically, get to a point where Apple can't compete on hardware prices and will, logically, throw in the towel and be a software only company.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eeeeeeh!
... and switch the OS to the x86 platform, trying to hold on to ever shrinking niches while hoping for a buyer?
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if the Deja Vu alone would make Steve Jobs squeal like Mini-Me down a laundry shoot?
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Moki's defence of Apple is appropriate here. I don't like the G4 or Moto, inadvertant or otherwise, leaving Apple in the lurch.
(The lack of G5 hints that Moto' either cut it due to bleeding red $...or one hell of a major tech' difficulty held it up or Apple decided to go with IBM a looooong time ago following the G4 at 500mhz debacle. All the PR noises coming out of Moto for the last few years seems to indicate that desktop cpus are off their map. And a Canadian Rep was reputed to say (in a Macworld interview...) that the G5 wasn't even on their radar. Either way, I can't see how Apple can be blamed for Moto's problems. In this sense, Moto's problems have also become Apple's. Apple have probably done the best they can. The stuttering 'power'Mac bumps...must have left Steve Jobs purple in the face.)
I'm with Moki. Sooner or later, Apple will stand up to the plate and...STRIKE.
I feel they have to.
Everything else about the Steve Jobs era indicates this, the cpu/performance issue, is the last major stone left unturned. Everything else is looking great for Apple. The 970 really would be one of the final pieces in the puzzle.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />