The Reinvention of Apple Computer

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 152
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Krassy

    what iCam?



    The one Faeylyn seemed so sure of in this thread:AI- iCam Proof of Concept
  • Reply 42 of 152
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Apple should buy apple records for 1 simple reason, the beatles catalog! can you say APPLE ITMS EXCLUSIVE of huge preportions? dont use the lable for new music, and whala - no competition to the other lables - unless paul McCartny threarens Creed

  • Reply 43 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    The one Faeylyn seemed so sure of in this thread:AI- iCam Proof of Concept



    Yes, I was wrong about that. Maybe I just wanted the prototype I saw to be real too bad. But Apple seems very reluctant to enter into commodity markets or those that will quickly turn in that direction. The iCam WILL come out. It just won't have an Apple logo on it. And, as long as you are looking at old posts, you could also bring up that I was correct about the G5 way back when....
  • Reply 44 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nebagakid

    There is no NEED for Apple to Purchase Pixar, or Disney for that matter. They are entertainment companies, not computer/software/hardware companies (except for Pixar which makes software already available on Mac OS X). It will not happen. I guarantee 500 AI Credits on it.



    This would be like McDonald's purchasing Aamco.




    I accept. Please deposit the 500 credits in my account ASAP.



    For those who think the iPod/iTMS/AppleRecords deal is out of the question, consider the first part (analysis) of that second post. Be VERY SURE that top Apple brass has already come to the same conclusion. Apple is in very real danger of losing the majority of their market for both iPods and iTMS within 3 years and dumping both soon after.



    Apple must do something to keep its hand in the music cookie jar. Something big. Something significant. iPods with 240GB drives won't do it. Color iPods won't do it. Apple cannot compete in a mature market like that long term.



    The choice is to do nothing and give away another market they created or to do something and keep it. So, if you're so sure that the scenario above isn't going to happen, then how, pray tell, is Apple going to hold onto that market? Or are they in it for the quick buck and intend to dump (or sell) it after they squeeze all the high-margin profits out of it?
  • Reply 45 of 152
    bjerbjer Posts: 67member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Faeylyn

    Yes, I was wrong about that. Maybe I just wanted the prototype I saw to be real too bad. But Apple seems very reluctant to enter into commodity markets or those that will quickly turn in that direction. The iCam WILL come out. It just won't have an Apple logo on it. And, as long as you are looking at old posts, you could also bring up that I was correct about the G5 way back when....



    Actually, no need to get personal on this...I this or I that.



    Your two posts leading off this thread were indeed well thoughtout,well articulated and excellent examples of cartesian logic.



    For me, the more impressive is actually the second one. Don't think there is much new to add in the first one. The second one on the iTMS and new Apple Studio, would be such an incredible master stroke if Apple can pull it off. What was particular impressive was your analysis of where iPod and iTunes will go, which did not fall into the trap of irrational exuberance exhibited by the various fora of Mac fans.



    well done
  • Reply 46 of 152
    bjerbjer Posts: 67member
    What if the Apple Corps deal is cash plus Apple stock and the remaining members of the original quartet become promotors for Apple?!
  • Reply 47 of 152
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Apple does seem to be grooming iTunes/iTMS to be a spinoff; and they have already licensed the iPod to HP.



    Buying Apple Corps (aka Apple Records) might make a little sense. Buying Pixar, though, is completely unnecessary. If Pixar were in financial trouble it might make sense. (I agree with those who think the Pixar/Disney squabble is directly related to Roy Disney's struggle with Michael Eisner.)



    The modular iMac and the IBM G4 have been discussed to death already.



    As for the iCam, I'd like to see a camcorder using Sony's new MiniDisk format disks. The advantage of disk over tape is that you can jump to any spot quickly.



    We would all like to be Wowed by Apple this year. However, the seemingly interminable wait for the G5 and the 15" alubook have seasoned us to not expect updates very often. It's sort of like baseball; "long months of complete boredom punctuated by moments of sheer ecstasy".
  • Reply 48 of 152
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Apple should buy apple records for 1 simple reason, the beatles catalog! can you say APPLE ITMS EXCLUSIVE of huge preportions? dont use the lable for new music, and whala - no competition to the other lables - unless paul McCartny threarens Creed





    Michael Jackson needs the money, he owns the publishing rights to beatles songs correct????
  • Reply 49 of 152
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Well, there's certainly no shortage of information to bat around, leaving aside questions of veracity.



    PowerMacs: There seem to be several fairly reliable sources pointing to an ambitious and imminent update, and PMs are generally updated in early spring as it is, so no surprise there.



    There aren't any "little birds" singing in my ear, but I've picked up some interesting tidbits from here and there:



    1) Persistent reports that the 970 was "rushed." While there is no question that the processor is a beautiful design, it's quite likely that what was rushed was a move up to 130nm, which might have required some work. The much lower power draw characteristics for the 90nm 970fx tend to bear this out. I think IBM, like Moto, attempted to jump ahead to 90nm and they didn't quite make it.



    2) The realization among several Ars denizens that the poor positioning of the HDD heat sensor and the small number of internal hard drives - both in a case which is otherwise acknowledged to be the best case anyone has seen - both point to a last-minute expansion of the middle heat zone to accommodate hot CPUs. The rather obvious heat pipe on the CPU daughtercard - which isn't even for the CPU! - also points to a possible "oh crap" measure. In other words, we might see a case revision that expands the number of available drives - actually, the original case design, to handle the originally envisioned 90nm CPUs.



    3) The Xserve. It handles ECC RAM now. I've seen the argument that technologies like ECC aren't useful in PCs, but the PowerMac isn't a PC. Apple's pushing it as a workstation. Now, of course, there is no bright line between "desktop PC" and "workstation," but there are some general differences. Workstations generally have much higher system bandwidth; PowerMacs stomp everything in their general price range (and higher) in system bandwidth. Workstations generally have extra-mile features like ECC, just so that there's one less thing to worry about. The PowerMac currently doesn't. I think the next revision will feature another boost in general bandwidth and ECC RAM, making it a bona fide, no excuses workstation. The only think it will lack is radiation-hardened components, but I don't know that it's possible to offer that in a $3K machine.



    As for Xserve, the main reason for that to remain a 1U, 2 processor server is so that it can borrow lots of components from the PowerMac and use the economies of scale to remain cost-competitive. Right now, the market for Apple servers simply doesn't support anything else. If it ever does, there will be room for other models, and I'm sure Apple skunkworks is ready for that possibility. The G5 architecture is scalable in a way that the G4 was not (you could have 8 G4s in one machine, but only if you hung them all off the same MaxBus), so there are no real technological obstacles. There just have to be enough people willing to buy a serious server from Apple.



    Why one of these instead of 2 or 4 Xserves? The 4-CPU 3U model would probably be cheaper than 2 2-CPU Xserves, and the 8-CPU 3U model would be more space efficient than 4 2-CPU Xserves.



    The 1.8GHz G4 PowerBook. The Mot G4 is dead, yes. There is no roadmap past the 7457. However, this forum and others have been kicking around the IBM G4 - the "VX" - for some time now. If the Motorola offering can hit 1.25GHz on 130nm in a Moto fab it's not that much of a stretch to see IBM hitting 1.8GHz on 90nm in Fishkill. Apple said that the G4 had a long life yet in their products; they never said that the Motorola G4 did.



    I'm not 100% sure about the iPod argument. Accessories do not follow commodity-market rules, or the iPod mini would be dead on arrival. There's a real question about what Apple has to do to keep the iPod a desirable accessory - a current iPod with 240GB of storage is silly - but Apple's been pretty good at keeping the design fresh and the functionality updated so far. The trick is to make sure that by the time the cut-rate people have finally figured out how to do last year's iPod, it's only last year's iPod. Windows only caught up to Mac OS because Mac OS stagnated for the better part of a decade.



    As for Apple the publishing company: While buying Apple Records would be a way to settle that catfight for once and for all, it would put Apple in direct competition with the labels, and at least outside the tech industry you really don't want to compete with your customers, especially in an industry where you're the new guy. I think this is more likely than Apple absorbing Pixar and going into the movie publishing business, though. Big music is pretty dysfunctional, and Apple just might pull an FCP on them just to shake some sense the industry and give both artists and customers a better break. I don't think there's much of an analogy to the film industry, though.



    Mark my words: There will never be a direct line from GarageBand or Logic to iTMS. Never.
  • Reply 50 of 152
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    I think the idea behind Apple Inc. is pure genius. The aquisition of both Apple Records and Pixar would make Apple Inc. a *REAL* player in the industry. Pixar would lend the new company an instant validation, while on the music side of things Apple could genuinely turn the music biz on it's ear. Imagine...a music company that actually values talent and creativity...and pays the artist accordingly. Very novel, very simple, very Apple.
  • Reply 51 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    Imagine...a music company that actually values talent and creativity...and pays the artist accordingly. Very novel, very simple, very Apple.



    ... the first time I heard of Garageband (and it being an integrated part of iLife) this is EXACTLY what came to mind.



    Remember mp3.com? They used a similar model for unsigned (and yes, admittedly, in many cases untalented) artists. I think the idea has legs...



    In addition, I can see a band like "Pearl Jam" (who just got out of their record deal) buying into iTMS big time ... a few of those, and iTMS as a distribution label is a reality. Add a section for GB musicians, and you've performed a coup.



    -John
  • Reply 52 of 152
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bangstudios

    ... the first time I heard of Garageband (and it being an integrated part of iLife) this is EXACTLY what came to mind.



    In fact, when I heard the name GarageBand I thought it was an incredibly stupid name for an incredibly powerful iApp. If Apple would indeed open up a side-portion of its music biz...the 'garage' so to speak...to up and coming musicians...



    Worldwide exposure for no-names trying to make one? Power to the people...and those people would jump at giving Apple half of their 99 cent fee per download. Anyone would.
  • Reply 53 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tak1108

    This seems way to "just made up for me" First of all, 1.6, or 1.8 G4s? Come on. We all know the G4 is dead. Unless, the IBM G3 with altivec is the 1.6 G4 you're talking about, this will NOT happen. Is there some magic that happened when Motorola spun of the semiconductor unit, that made it possible to not only make a 1.6 or 1.6 G4, but make them in sufficient quanity? No there isn't. Mot. spun off the semiconductor unit, and the mot G4 will die soon.



    Quad Xserves? 8 processors? You're kidding right? This has been wished for, for a long long time and has always been "rumored". Now, if they are "in the lab" then I do believe with your sentiment that they won't be released.



    EDIT: I would expect that with everything involved in a 4 or 8 processor Xserve, it would be cheaper to manufacture and sell 2 or 4 dual processor Xserves, thus making money for apple. I do not see 4 or 8 processor Xserves. Xserves are 1u and that's they way they will stay.



    The new new iMac. Sounds just like a cube! yes, the same cube that several of us have been wanting for a long time. yes a cube with a 17" widescreen display. Just what I've wanted for a long long time.



    This just seems like dreaming to me.






    these ARE ibm g4s.

    the g4 is FAR from dead my friend as you will soon see.



    I as well as mr.macphisto have been telling any "insiders" who would listen that apple would use this chip in the powerbooks.



    im very excited about what the new "cube" form factor will look like.
  • Reply 54 of 152
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Am I the only person who noticed that the "headless iMac" represents a cost increase over the current model?



    $999 just gets you the base. How much is the LCD on top?



    All else being equal (i.e., if you have to design the case and board for both), AIOs are more cost-efficient than any collection of separate units. For this to work, Apple will have to resort to the old sleight-of-hand of advertising an iMac as $999*













    *monitor sold separately.
  • Reply 55 of 152
    jobjob Posts: 420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Am I the only person who noticed that the "headless iMac" represents a cost increase over the current model?



    $999 just gets you the base. How much is the LCD on top?




    I guess it depends on how far Faeylyn's projected price cuts on the monitors go.
  • Reply 56 of 152
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    Bah, Faeylyn is making it up.



    1. Xserves will stay single or dual processor with a 1U form factor in perpetuity. It is the most cost effective solution in performance and in volume. Any hypothetical 8 processor 3U Xserve will not offer any benefits over a 4 1U dual processor Xserve, especially how expensive it will be to produce an 8 processor architecture.



    2. Not much of prediction. The PowerMac G5 came out in late August. By adding 6 to 8 months for the typical product cycle, we can expect new PowerMac G5s in late February to March with top speeds in the 2.4 to 2.6 GHz range. Whether the bottom end is dual or single processor is not that big of deal. If dual, it'll have a $2k price. If single, it'll be ~$1.8k. I'll speculate that the next PowerMac G5s will be dual 1.8, dual 2.2 and dual 2.5 GHz for $2k, $2.5k, and $3k, and I bet I won't be far off at all.



    3. The iMac will stay in an AIO form factor. They will use the 970 architecture.



    4. Displays will have G5 based styling, if they are actually updated.



    5. Displays will be 17", 20" and 23". There will not be a 23+ inch display because DVI doesn't really have the bandwidth to go much higher than the 23" resolution.



    6. I believe the next Powerbook will be a Powerbook G5. It is by far the most sensible thing for Apple to do. They really can't afford to do multiple "advanced" architectures anymore. So, at most, Apple is waiting on the 90nm 970fx to become plentiful and for a 90nm system ASIC. It is simply stupid for Apple to develop another system ASIC with 333 MHz FSB for a G4 architecture when the G5 is wholly adequate if not the best option. Simply add 6 to 8 months to the last Powerbook G4 release to determine when a Powerbook G5 will come out, which will be the late March to May time frame.



    7. iBook will essentially use the Powerbook G4 motherboard in the next revision minus the cardbus slot, Firewire 800, Gigabit Ethernet, illuminated keyboard and other features Apple considers "pro" features. It'll have 1 to 1.25 GHz 7447/7457 chips. Simply add 6 to 8 months from the last release date and that will be the approximate date for new iBooks.



    8. There is one possible G4 revision left for the eMac at 1.25 GHz. The iMac doesn't have much life left in it. If Apple comes out with a headless G5 Macintosh, then Apple will retire the eMac, push the iMac to the 800 to 1500 USD, and the new headless Mac will be in the 1300 to 1800 USD range. If they don't, I think it'll be retired after the 1.25 GHz revision and the iMac 15" will be pushed to to 800 to 1000 USD while the 17" and 20" will be in the prosumer range. It is only popular because it is the cheapest Mac.



    9. Apple will ride the iPod as far as they can. Then they will hopefully license the architecture out, and I expect they have to be forced to do it. They will be perfectly happy with being the market leader in high-end music players for as long as they dominate the high-end market.



    10. Apple will never ever, never buy Pixar. Apple will never ever become a record label.



    11. The next big thing in computing is truly pervasive computing, and the key component to that is wireless networking with a constellation of satellites. There needs to be constant access everywhere. So, Apple either has to create the client or make the hardware for the network to be in on the next big thing in computing.
  • Reply 57 of 152
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    Bah, Faeylyn is making it up.



    Not unlikely; but at least s/he's borrowing from a lot of other rumors if so. And there's plenty of stuff for us to chew on.



    Quote:

    6. I believe the next Powerbook will be a Powerbook G5. It is by far the most sensible thing for Apple to do. They really can't afford to do multiple "advanced" architectures anymore. So, at most, Apple is waiting on the 90nm 970fx to become plentiful and for a 90nm system ASIC. It is simply stupid for Apple to develop another system ASIC with 333 MHz FSB for a G4 architecture when the G5 is wholly adequate if not the best option. Simply add 6 to 8 months to the last Powerbook G4 release to determine when a Powerbook G5 will come out, which will be the late March to May time frame.



    Possible, but it depends more on the cost and capabilities of the 970fx than anything else.



    If the 970fx does really well on the cost and efficiency fronts as the fab process matures, certain of Apple's lines might be able to limp along on the 7455a and 7457 until Apple can stuff G5s in everything (at which point the towers will sport the POWER5-derived CPU. This is the best case, and one that I don't consider likely.



    What I see as more likely is that Apple figured they'd need something under the 970, so at about the time they started work on GPUL with IBM, or not long after, they started the VX project to replace the G3. There is no particular reason why this CPU can't use Elastic Bus, although it might not ship with the same 2:1 ratio that the towers use. That saves Apple some cost and trouble in developing a replacement for the low-end system controller, and (more importantly) frees Apple once and for all of the performance-nerfing 60x family of busses (including MaxBus). Then there's a pretty straightforward path from the VX to the 970 when the latter is ready. One of the things that influences my thinking in this direction is a late rumor that Apple and Moto had split over the issue of what bus technology to use. Apple wanted "ApplePI," which now appears to be Elastic Bus.
  • Reply 58 of 152
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT



    1. Xserves will stay single or dual processor with a 1U form factor in perpetuity. It is the most cost effective solution in performance and in volume. Any hypothetical 8 processor 3U Xserve will not offer any benefits over a 4 1U dual processor Xserve, especially how expensive it will be to produce an 8 processor architecture.





    Quite a few people have said something like this about bigger XServes. If it were true, however, no >2 CPU boxes would exist. Maybe we should call up IBM and tell them that we at AI just had some amazing insight, and they should stop bothering with their midrange midrange pSeries.



    Not every problem can be solved with clustering.
  • Reply 59 of 152
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    In fact, when I heard the name GarageBand I thought it was an incredibly stupid name for an incredibly powerful iApp. If Apple would indeed open up a side-portion of its music biz...the 'garage' so to speak...to up and coming musicians...



    Worldwide exposure for no-names trying to make one? Power to the people...and those people would jump at giving Apple half of their 99 cent fee per download. Anyone would.




    That was my thought when I started this thread.



    I know Amorph doesn't believe it can happen, but I think it may have a play in the long run.
  • Reply 60 of 152
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    1) Persistent reports that the 970 was "rushed." While there is no question that the processor is a beautiful design, it's quite likely that what was rushed was a move up to 130nm, which might have required some work.



    The much lower power draw characteristics for the 90nm 970fx tend to bear this out. I think IBM, like Moto, attempted to jump ahead to 90nm and they didn't quite make it.




    I think this would be baseless speculation, not to mention that I think it is rather illogical to begin with. The most sensible thing for IBM to do was to fab the 970 on the 130 nm node. Wouldn't fabbing a new processor design on a brand new node be the riskiest proposition? Just look at the P3, P4 and Athlon. All of them were huge, hot and expensive when they first came out, just like the 970. It was only after the first process shrink that the processors hit their stride, and so it will be with the 970.



    Yes, the 970 is likely designed for 90 nm, but to say it was rushed out on the 130 nm node seems too conspiratorial when it is the typical design practice. Pentium 4 hit its stride at 130 nm, yet it came out at 180 nm. Athlon hit its stride at 180 nm, yet it came out on 250 nm. Are we to say that those processors were rushed too?



    Quote:

    2) The realization among several Ars denizens that the poor positioning of the HDD heat sensor and the small number of internal hard drives - both in a case which is otherwise acknowledged to be the best case anyone has seen - both point to a last-minute expansion of the middle heat zone to accommodate hot CPUs. The rather obvious heat pipe on the CPU daughtercard - which isn't even for the CPU! - also points to a possible "oh crap" measure. In other words, we might see a case revision that expands the number of available drives - actually, the original case design, to handle the originally envisioned 90nm CPUs.



    Possible. But if Apple ships a 90nm 970fx at 3 GHz in 2H 04, CPU power consumption and heat dissipation once again will be in the 50+ Watt range and would necessitate the same level of cooling. So, I wouldn't be too sure about that speculation.



    Apple only having 1 "external" 5.25" drive bay and 2 hard drive bays in the G5 case is just typical Jobsian design philosophy. Ie, why put in 3 to 4 SATA channels when only 5% of the customers will use them all.



    The only reason we will see a case change is when customers make it the number 1 demand. That also means Apple has to put it more SATA channels in the I/O ASIC, which I'm not sure Apple is willing to do. With drives getting so large, the percentage of customers who will want that many drive bays will only get smaller and smaller.



    Quote:

    3) The Xserve. It handles ECC RAM now. I've seen the argument that technologies like ECC aren't useful in PCs, but the PowerMac isn't a PC. Apple's pushing it as a workstation. Now, of course, there is no bright line between "desktop PC" and "workstation," but there are some general differences. Workstations generally have much higher system bandwidth; PowerMacs stomp everything in their general price range (and higher) in system bandwidth. Workstations generally have extra-mile features like ECC, just so that there's one less thing to worry about. The PowerMac currently doesn't. I think the next revision will feature another boost in general bandwidth and ECC RAM, making it a bona fide, no excuses workstation.



    Agree here. ECC will become more and more of a necessity for the next PowerMac as it addresses more and more memory. So I think it'll eventually happen. At some point Apple should also add in RAID options too. The next PowerMac G5 will probably be able to "officially" address 16 GB of memory too.



    Quote:

    The 1.8GHz G4 PowerBook. The Mot G4 is dead, yes. There is no roadmap past the 7457. However, this forum and others have been kicking around the IBM G4 - the "VX" - for some time now. If the Motorola offering can hit 1.25GHz on 130nm in a Moto fab it's not that much of a stretch to see IBM hitting 1.8GHz on 90nm in Fishkill. Apple said that the G4 had a long life yet in their products; they never said that the Motorola G4 did.



    The G4 class CPU is dead to Apple. They have zero need for it past 1.25 GHz. With the 970fx at 66 sq mm, it'll be plenty cheap enough to put in low-end machines (eMacs, iBooks and the like) in about 8+ months. In 2005, Apple will probably have the option of using a 970 derived processor with 1 MB L2 cache and multithreading for their high end processor.
Sign In or Register to comment.