"Apple didn't need to make a quad single core motherboard. Who would they have marketed it to? They don't have a big enough share of the enterprise community, and they are just laying the groundwork in super-computing where IBM already is well known. I think there was no point in making a quad single core motherboard wit 4 physical chip sockets for 4 physical chips."
Sorry to leave out the reasoning (bolded above) behind your argument as to why a (four processor) quad makes no sense for Apple.
While there are plenty of non fortune 500 companies, and even individuals, for whom a quad Macintosh would have made perfect sense, even as far back as 2000, it is true that Apple has a very limited presence or even mindshare in enterprise accounts.
The mere existence of a quad workstation from Apple might do wonders for this enterprise mindshare. Like the Virginia Tech cluster, which has elevated the Apple platform in the thinking of enterprise buyers, even if they would have no direct use for such a beast.
In the very narrow niche that Apple products have succeeded in enterprise accounts (publishing and AV departments) the clamor for quads would be significant. With Oracle releasing it's database for OSX, might not a quad Powermac to run it make sense?
In the Fortune 5000 (as opposed to the Fortune 500) a quad Powermac as a server platform would have appeal as an All-In-One solution. (I'm not talking iMacs here). Many of these guys don't have server rooms, and racks of Xserves are overkill.
I think we are in agreement about quads in the present tense, assuming this dual core rumor is true. It's just that I think Apple should have brought this out in 2000 or 2001.
BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME!
on the other hand if they don't build it no one will buy one.
...There are others that I have missed but you get the picture, these "fews" add up, lower prices would also help but the $64,000 question still remains HOW low. Too low and Apple just sold the company for greater market share. NO the way there is slow and steady. Bit by bit....
The question of how to gain market share is a good one, and as you point out the way to do so has no definate answer. Apple appears to be doing a lot to gain credability with for their platform, especially on the high end. The iPod and iTMS have brought a lot of brand recogntion to Apple as well. Now how low should Apple price their computers? Well, they have recognized that the iMac is a few hundred dollars too high, so there is a starting point. But a low price alone will not bring the masses of switchers, they will also need to do a better job of selling the platform to the uninitiated. The original iMac ads point to a successful marketing campaing in doing so, as did the original iMac as a product.
Today Apple has more mature software to back up another such marketing campaign, but they do not have the product or presence in mass marketing to achieve it. As the eMac shows us it is not enough to have a low priced computer, you also have to let the public know you have one and what the price is, and if your audience is potential switchers then it is not enough to advertise in Mac-centric publications and media, you have to go into the "enemies" camp and win them over. They need a presence at Comdex, they need adds in traditionally PC magazines with the low end price in big bold numbers, and they need those ads in magazines and media that Apple has traditionally not advertised such as Fashion and news magazines. The also need a presence in local papers through their approved retailers that mentions the starting price, and not the price of the high end Mac like CompUSA usually advertises.
As to price, the iMac needs to start out at $999 at the most. The PowerMac needs to get down to no more that $1599 on the low end or else they need a new computer that can bridge the gap in performance, price and expandability between the iMac and the PowerMac.
As to price, the iMac needs to start out at $999 at the most. The PowerMac needs to get down to no more that $1599 on the low end or else they need a new computer that can bridge the gap in performance, price and expandability between the iMac and the PowerMac.
I believe that if youabck out the cost of the monitor you have an iMac at about that cost. I believe that a headless iMac could run $699 at the lowest and $899 at the top. Now that Apple has adopted DVI, that should save on the cost, albeit not very much of the video boards, and I suspect that the cost of the monitor mount and design was not cheap maybe close to $100. To me switchers are folks that have a computer and are willing to try somehting different. What better way than to say, you can save by using the old monitor if it is capable. The Mac right now uses somany standards that a Wintel user could keep most of their newer/old equipment and try the Mac. My guess is that Switching should be as cost effective as possible for the switcher and still not have Apple price things so low that they end-up giving away the computer. Some other sales could be iLife, .Mac, and in a few cases airport express. I tend to think that the all in one Mac for the rest of us is really the iBook for the future and now. The iMac is for folks that wish to save on the cost of a portable, and still not have something that is so cumbersome as to be the desk not just sit on the desk. I have no idea what Apple will do but I believe that this way would be more appealing to switchers and still not alienate Apple from their base.
. . . lower prices would also help but the $64,000 question still remains HOW low. Too low and Apple just sold the company for greater market share. . . .
We're off topic, but what the heck. Apple's pricing always gets a flood of opinions. Just one point. Apple doesn't have a product yet that can be priced low enough for much of the market. Apple needs such a product. Cutting prices on existing products is bad news, unless there has been a change in manufacturing cost that warrants such a cut.
That was a great post @homenow. I totally agree with it, and everything from those who responded to my posts/ranting as well.
As I was reading what you said I had a thought. Your right in basically saying that the eMac is the actually the missing link, and I think I know why it sells so poorly in a place where it should do better. It is "SO" non Apple. It's non everybody.
#1 it started out as old hat to begin with. It's just an old iMac with a slightly larger flat screen. It's has no legs of it's own to stand on if you know what I mean. It was relying on the legacy iMac design. It's funny because at that time people really wanted to try the Mac OS, and probably could have afforded a another computer.
I think the eMac needs to be re-thought, or phased out, and a similar sub iMac computer needs to be constructed to take it's place. But it needs a design of it's own, and it needs to be it's own computer - not your grandfathers iMac. Apple tried something similar with the cube, but I think the cube was way too much to be an eMac replacement.
People in here have been saying that Apple needed another computer for a long time, and I was not in total agreement with that thought until I read your post @homenow, and the thought about the eMac hit me. All that thing ever was was your grandfathers iMac. It's no wonder it didn't gobble up sales like the missing link.
I'm surprised Apple didn't notice. I suppose the eMac school sales were doing pretty well for a while, but that is a limited range sales point product for the most part, and it could actually have had much wider sales range. I wouldn't doubt it if Apple wasn't already rethinking this area as their next big jump into another sales bracket .
My 2¢
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
We're off topic, but what the heck. Apple's pricing always gets a flood of opinions. Just one point. Apple doesn't have a product yet that can be priced low enough for much of the market. Apple needs such a product. Cutting prices on existing products is bad news, unless there has been a change in manufacturing cost that warrants such a cut.
Yes thanks for pointing this out. 970MP, would be a welcome path to take the MP part that is, nothing against the 970.
I doubt IBM would go back to 130nm again. I just don't see that in the cards. They keep saying that they almost have the 90nm process nipped in the bud anyway so why would they bother going backwards?
My thoughts exactly. I could just see the guys at Intel "And now for some entertainment, IBM will be doing the PowerPC Cha-Cha" lol:
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I doubt IBM would go back to 130nm again. I just don't see that in the cards. They keep saying that they almost have the 90nm process nipped in the bud anyway so why would they bother going backwards?
My thoughts exactly. I could just see the guys at Intel "And now for some entertainment, IBM will be doing the PowerPC Cha-Cha"
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I doubt IBM would go back to 130nm again. I just don't see that in the cards. They keep saying that they almost have the 90nm process nipped in the bud anyway so why would they bother going backwards?
You're right in basically saying that the eMac is the actually the missing link, and I think I know why it sells so poorly in a place where it should do better. It is "SO" non Apple. It's non everybody.
Your subsequent reasoning might carry more weight if the eMac hadn't outsold the iMac2 by around 3:1. Could Apple care less in which 'place' it sells? They get paid just the same.....
Your subsequent reasoning might carry more weight if the eMac hadn't outsold the iMac2 by around 3:1. Could Apple care less in which 'place' it sells? They get paid just the same.....
Are you including education sales in that equation? No matter. I still think it would have sold much more than it had with it's own design.
Another question about that equation. Is that for the iMac 2's life of product, or, a quarter, or season?
[Sorry to return to AI boards since I officially left. I believe this is the third time. But I thought you might find this interesting.]
Again, I am the longest-registered account on Appleinsider!
Going on SIX YEARS of AppleInsider registration for me. Like the first year, where I posted three times total, this year has been light for me. Cheers.
Some possible explanations about the lack of multithreading in the ppc 970 mp :
I think that the main reason is the size. The core of the PPC 970 mp is certainly larger than the PPC 970 due to the deeper pipelining (and the more a chip is pipelined, the more transistors it recquieres). Adding multithreading will recquieres 25 % more transistors. At 90 nm the heat issue could become critical.
That's why multithreaded may be a feature that will appear when IBM switch for 65 nm process.
F*%K that! If Apple uses one of these as a Dual processor replacement I'm switching.
Wait a second. Dual-core chips are better than dual-processor chips. It would be just like having a more efficient dual-processor system. Why would you switch if they replaced something worse with something better?
Wait a second. Dual-core chips are better than dual-processor chips. It would be just like having a more efficient dual-processor system. Why would you switch if they replaced something worse with something better?
WEll that is not always the case, I'm sure more than a few applications will be found that work better on descreet processors. Dual core chips though will really shine on tightly coupled multithreaded applications. For the majority of the people dual core should be a big win.
The big loosers will be those who need very high single thread performance increases. Many of those applications exists so it is not to be discounted. In any event this rumored processor is to deliver a significant clock rate increase, so I can't really see many people complaining about that. I use the word rumoured as it is just that and some of the info is not consistant with other rumours to be had, especially with respect to cache.
I geuss my greatest objection is your statement that something worst (SMP single core) is being replaced with something better (dual core). Yes it has the potential to be better but there will certainly be cases where it is not. I would agree however that most people would experience a dual core chip in a very positive manner.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Wait a second. Dual-core chips are better than dual-processor chips. It would be just like having a more efficient dual-processor system. Why would you switch if they replaced something worse with something better?
Could you give an example of something that would perform *worse* on a dual core chip than on two separate chips? Is it just the possibility that they wouldn't up the FSB bandwidth correspondingly that makes you say this?
Could you give an example of something that would perform *worse* on a dual core chip than on two separate chips? Is it just the possibility that they wouldn't up the FSB bandwidth correspondingly that makes you say this?
Yeah I don't believe that what wizard69 posted is true, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Yeah, if clock speed was reduced, or even FSB like you say, I could see the problem. But otherwise I don't see how, for example, a dual 2.5 Ghz Powermac could ever be faster than a dual-core 2.5 Ghz PowerMac, assuming all else is equal (cache per core, etc.).
Yeah I'm sorry but I just don't see where an application would suffer at all with a dual core implementation.
The only issue with the dual cores is the FSB being shared. They've doubled the L2 cache and the increased speed in "chip to chip" communication should more than make up for any latencies caused by the sharing of the FSB.
The more you look at it the more dual cores make perfect sense architecturally and financially. I think the impact to developers will be quite transparent.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
I hate being quoted partially ...
"Apple didn't need to make a quad single core motherboard. Who would they have marketed it to? They don't have a big enough share of the enterprise community, and they are just laying the groundwork in super-computing where IBM already is well known. I think there was no point in making a quad single core motherboard wit 4 physical chip sockets for 4 physical chips."
Sorry to leave out the reasoning (bolded above) behind your argument as to why a (four processor) quad makes no sense for Apple.
While there are plenty of non fortune 500 companies, and even individuals, for whom a quad Macintosh would have made perfect sense, even as far back as 2000, it is true that Apple has a very limited presence or even mindshare in enterprise accounts.
The mere existence of a quad workstation from Apple might do wonders for this enterprise mindshare. Like the Virginia Tech cluster, which has elevated the Apple platform in the thinking of enterprise buyers, even if they would have no direct use for such a beast.
In the very narrow niche that Apple products have succeeded in enterprise accounts (publishing and AV departments) the clamor for quads would be significant. With Oracle releasing it's database for OSX, might not a quad Powermac to run it make sense?
In the Fortune 5000 (as opposed to the Fortune 500) a quad Powermac as a server platform would have appeal as an All-In-One solution. (I'm not talking iMacs here). Many of these guys don't have server rooms, and racks of Xserves are overkill.
I think we are in agreement about quads in the present tense, assuming this dual core rumor is true. It's just that I think Apple should have brought this out in 2000 or 2001.
BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME!
on the other hand if they don't build it no one will buy one.
...
Originally posted by Brendon
...There are others that I have missed but you get the picture, these "fews" add up, lower prices would also help but the $64,000 question still remains HOW low. Too low and Apple just sold the company for greater market share. NO the way there is slow and steady. Bit by bit....
The question of how to gain market share is a good one, and as you point out the way to do so has no definate answer. Apple appears to be doing a lot to gain credability with for their platform, especially on the high end. The iPod and iTMS have brought a lot of brand recogntion to Apple as well. Now how low should Apple price their computers? Well, they have recognized that the iMac is a few hundred dollars too high, so there is a starting point. But a low price alone will not bring the masses of switchers, they will also need to do a better job of selling the platform to the uninitiated. The original iMac ads point to a successful marketing campaing in doing so, as did the original iMac as a product.
Today Apple has more mature software to back up another such marketing campaign, but they do not have the product or presence in mass marketing to achieve it. As the eMac shows us it is not enough to have a low priced computer, you also have to let the public know you have one and what the price is, and if your audience is potential switchers then it is not enough to advertise in Mac-centric publications and media, you have to go into the "enemies" camp and win them over. They need a presence at Comdex, they need adds in traditionally PC magazines with the low end price in big bold numbers, and they need those ads in magazines and media that Apple has traditionally not advertised such as Fashion and news magazines. The also need a presence in local papers through their approved retailers that mentions the starting price, and not the price of the high end Mac like CompUSA usually advertises.
As to price, the iMac needs to start out at $999 at the most. The PowerMac needs to get down to no more that $1599 on the low end or else they need a new computer that can bridge the gap in performance, price and expandability between the iMac and the PowerMac.
Originally posted by @homenow
Snip
As to price, the iMac needs to start out at $999 at the most. The PowerMac needs to get down to no more that $1599 on the low end or else they need a new computer that can bridge the gap in performance, price and expandability between the iMac and the PowerMac.
I believe that if youabck out the cost of the monitor you have an iMac at about that cost. I believe that a headless iMac could run $699 at the lowest and $899 at the top. Now that Apple has adopted DVI, that should save on the cost, albeit not very much of the video boards, and I suspect that the cost of the monitor mount and design was not cheap maybe close to $100. To me switchers are folks that have a computer and are willing to try somehting different. What better way than to say, you can save by using the old monitor if it is capable. The Mac right now uses somany standards that a Wintel user could keep most of their newer/old equipment and try the Mac. My guess is that Switching should be as cost effective as possible for the switcher and still not have Apple price things so low that they end-up giving away the computer. Some other sales could be iLife, .Mac, and in a few cases airport express. I tend to think that the all in one Mac for the rest of us is really the iBook for the future and now. The iMac is for folks that wish to save on the cost of a portable, and still not have something that is so cumbersome as to be the desk not just sit on the desk. I have no idea what Apple will do but I believe that this way would be more appealing to switchers and still not alienate Apple from their base.
Originally posted by Brendon
. . . lower prices would also help but the $64,000 question still remains HOW low. Too low and Apple just sold the company for greater market share. . . .
We're off topic, but what the heck. Apple's pricing always gets a flood of opinions. Just one point. Apple doesn't have a product yet that can be priced low enough for much of the market. Apple needs such a product. Cutting prices on existing products is bad news, unless there has been a change in manufacturing cost that warrants such a cut.
As I was reading what you said I had a thought. Your right in basically saying that the eMac is the actually the missing link, and I think I know why it sells so poorly in a place where it should do better. It is "SO" non Apple. It's non everybody.
#1 it started out as old hat to begin with. It's just an old iMac with a slightly larger flat screen. It's has no legs of it's own to stand on if you know what I mean. It was relying on the legacy iMac design. It's funny because at that time people really wanted to try the Mac OS, and probably could have afforded a another computer.
I think the eMac needs to be re-thought, or phased out, and a similar sub iMac computer needs to be constructed to take it's place. But it needs a design of it's own, and it needs to be it's own computer - not your grandfathers iMac. Apple tried something similar with the cube, but I think the cube was way too much to be an eMac replacement.
People in here have been saying that Apple needed another computer for a long time, and I was not in total agreement with that thought until I read your post @homenow, and the thought about the eMac hit me. All that thing ever was was your grandfathers iMac. It's no wonder it didn't gobble up sales like the missing link.
I'm surprised Apple didn't notice. I suppose the eMac school sales were doing pretty well for a while, but that is a limited range sales point product for the most part, and it could actually have had much wider sales range. I wouldn't doubt it if Apple wasn't already rethinking this area as their next big jump into another sales bracket .
My 2¢
Originally posted by snoopy
We're off topic, but what the heck. Apple's pricing always gets a flood of opinions. Just one point. Apple doesn't have a product yet that can be priced low enough for much of the market. Apple needs such a product. Cutting prices on existing products is bad news, unless there has been a change in manufacturing cost that warrants such a cut.
I totally agree with that too snoopy.
Originally posted by snoopy
We're off topic, but what the heck.
Originally posted by Brendon
Yes thanks for pointing this out. 970MP, would be a welcome path to take the MP part that is, nothing against the 970.
I doubt IBM would go back to 130nm again. I just don't see that in the cards. They keep saying that they almost have the 90nm process nipped in the bud anyway so why would they bother going backwards?
Originally posted by onlooker
I doubt IBM would go back to 130nm again. I just don't see that in the cards. They keep saying that they almost have the 90nm process nipped in the bud anyway so why would they bother going backwards?
:
Originally posted by onlooker
I doubt IBM would go back to 130nm again. I just don't see that in the cards. They keep saying that they almost have the 90nm process nipped in the bud anyway so why would they bother going backwards?
Originally posted by onlooker
You're right in basically saying that the eMac is the actually the missing link, and I think I know why it sells so poorly in a place where it should do better. It is "SO" non Apple. It's non everybody.
Your subsequent reasoning might carry more weight if the eMac hadn't outsold the iMac2 by around 3:1. Could Apple care less in which 'place' it sells? They get paid just the same.....
Originally posted by jouster
Your subsequent reasoning might carry more weight if the eMac hadn't outsold the iMac2 by around 3:1. Could Apple care less in which 'place' it sells? They get paid just the same.....
Are you including education sales in that equation? No matter. I still think it would have sold much more than it had with it's own design.
Another question about that equation. Is that for the iMac 2's life of product, or, a quarter, or season?
Four years of Morpheus' chip chats can be found here:
(as well as YOUNG Nick dePlume(thinksecret) and his discussions, too)
http://spork.macedition.com/cgi-bin/WebX?
Search for morpheus
[Sorry to return to AI boards since I officially left. I believe this is the third time. But I thought you might find this interesting.]
Again, I am the longest-registered account on Appleinsider!
Going on SIX YEARS of AppleInsider registration for me. Like the first year, where I posted three times total, this year has been light for me. Cheers.
I think that the main reason is the size. The core of the PPC 970 mp is certainly larger than the PPC 970 due to the deeper pipelining (and the more a chip is pipelined, the more transistors it recquieres). Adding multithreading will recquieres 25 % more transistors. At 90 nm the heat issue could become critical.
That's why multithreaded may be a feature that will appear when IBM switch for 65 nm process.
Originally posted by onlooker
F*%K that! If Apple uses one of these as a Dual processor replacement I'm switching.
Wait a second. Dual-core chips are better than dual-processor chips. It would be just like having a more efficient dual-processor system. Why would you switch if they replaced something worse with something better?
Originally posted by BRussell
Wait a second. Dual-core chips are better than dual-processor chips. It would be just like having a more efficient dual-processor system. Why would you switch if they replaced something worse with something better?
Especially if it cost less
The big loosers will be those who need very high single thread performance increases. Many of those applications exists so it is not to be discounted. In any event this rumored processor is to deliver a significant clock rate increase, so I can't really see many people complaining about that. I use the word rumoured as it is just that and some of the info is not consistant with other rumours to be had, especially with respect to cache.
I geuss my greatest objection is your statement that something worst (SMP single core) is being replaced with something better (dual core). Yes it has the potential to be better but there will certainly be cases where it is not. I would agree however that most people would experience a dual core chip in a very positive manner.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by BRussell
Wait a second. Dual-core chips are better than dual-processor chips. It would be just like having a more efficient dual-processor system. Why would you switch if they replaced something worse with something better?
Originally posted by dfryer
Could you give an example of something that would perform *worse* on a dual core chip than on two separate chips? Is it just the possibility that they wouldn't up the FSB bandwidth correspondingly that makes you say this?
Yeah I don't believe that what wizard69 posted is true, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
The only issue with the dual cores is the FSB being shared. They've doubled the L2 cache and the increased speed in "chip to chip" communication should more than make up for any latencies caused by the sharing of the FSB.
The more you look at it the more dual cores make perfect sense architecturally and financially. I think the impact to developers will be quite transparent.