THT, with regards to the Mac mini, I do see your point. However, I am a little confused about the rest. For example, the iMac DOES include a G5 processor, so it isn't like its form factor is not letting them build in a G5.
And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.
And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.
The problem is that a lot of us would be very happy with a "G5 desktop replacement brick" as you call it. But since Apple is a monopoly they don't need to cater to their customers nearly as much as the windows hardware venders do, so we will never see one -- which is extremely frustrating.
THT, with regards to the Mac mini, I do see your point. However, I am a little confused about the rest. For example, the iMac DOES include a G5 processor, so it isn't like its form factor is not letting them build in a G5.
My point was about easier control of inventory. If Apple had mid-range and low-end desktops that can accommodate large Watt CPUs, Apple can waterfall the ~5 week inventory of Power Mac G5 and Xserve G5 CPUs down to the mid-range and low-end desktops. This would give them better control of inventory and of when they can announce a revision. They wouldn't need to squeeze water from a rock at the end of every revision, ie, reduce their inventory. Said inventory simply gets sold in a cheaper lineup.
The iMac G5 has a presumed Watt sensitive form factor. Do you think they can put the current 2+ GHz 970fx into the iMac? I'm guessing they can't, and therefore have to wait for a process tweak before it can be updated. A simple G5 mini - take the Power Mac G5 case and cut out the volume and space required for 1 of the CPUs, 2 PCI slots, and 4 DIMM slots and you'd have something at least half the size - however, would be able to use those 2, 2.3 and 2.5 GHz 970fx w/o much effort. It should just be drop in.
There desktop lineup really should be Mac mini G5 (no expansion), PM G5 mini (slight expansion), and PM G5 (actual expansion). The eMac and iMac would then be the boutique Macs or education Macs that Apple sells at whatever price they need to sell it at.
Quote:
And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.
The laptop market is arguably more important than the desktop market. If there is a market where Apple needs to cater to as many people as possible, this is it. Apple needs to have a low-end (iBook), mid-range (Powerbook G4), high-end (Powerbook G5), ultra-light, and possibly palm-top.
So, you should not have choose brick if you don't want it. But there will be a nontrivial set of people who will fork over $3000+ for it.
The problem is that a lot of us would be very happy with a "G5 desktop replacement brick" as you call it. But since Apple is a monopoly they don't need to cater to their customers nearly as much as the windows hardware venders do, so we will never see one -- which is extremely frustrating.
Those "bricks" are portable desktop computers that look like big carry-around laptops. Someone a while back started a discussion about a possible portable desktop Mac that I found interesting. If Apple made such a beast, I'd guess it would likely look like what it is, but of course very cool. It would probably not be a laptop impostor.
I believe the only thing keeping Apple from catering to more customer needs is hard business reality. Until sales are much higher, Apple must limit the number of products it offers.
If Apple had any other options, the PowerPC 7447 wouldn't be used anymore. Believe me, Apple isn't happy to be stuck with things like a 167mhz SDR bus and 4x AGP. The 970 is too power hungry, so Apple really have a choice. Freescale isn't making custom designs for Apple anymore. If it won't help their embedded market, they won't make it.
Right, but Freescale is still making them and Apple is still buying them. So they technically didn't bail on Apple. They just cut out a project that was bleeding money. They were designing products for fab technology that they didn't have. They had to kill the 850 or whatever it was. They simply didn't have the ability to make it.
As for now, they're just starting to turn it around. Designing and fabbing custom processors is a very risky undertaking for them. If they make one false move, they're back up the creek.
IBM on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this problem. They have a ton of resources at their disposal and can afford to assume the risk of custom work. And guess who pays for this increased risk? Apple pays for it in unit pricing. Remember, Apple doesn't buy 970s by the unit. They buy it by the lot. And I can guarantee you that Apple and IBM work very closely with eachother to avoid excess inventory on both sides. This in turn simplifies the pricing structure that IBM requires to recoup its investment and manufacturing costs.
I just think the argument doesn't hold water. You're comparing apples and oranges since we're talking about two companies with vastly different financial profiles.
All these examples of IBM's CPU design and fab prowess are compelling and well-founded, and generate hope for Apple's future. Unfortunately, where the tires hit the road, IBM hasn't proven they are anything more than a one hit wonder with the 970. Here it is over a year since Jobs promised 3 GHz, presumably based on assurances from IBM, and we are stuck nowhere near 3 GHz. For a whole year we've been stuck at 2.5 GHz, with rumors swirling of a mythical dual core 970, and yet Apple has nothing.
There comes a point where a company's reputation matters less than what they can deliver. Apple can try telling high end Powermac buyers that the Macs are powered by CPUs from a very prestigious company that is most highly respecting in technical markets, but if Wintels are outperforming Powermacs 2:1 nobody will give a peep about IBM's rep.
What I don't understand is, given IBM's history and "reputation," why isn't IBM the first to market with desktop dual core CPUs? The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable.
Apple is screwed once again on CPU performance. I fear that that my favorite computer company is slowly devolving into a maker of boutique computers that are stylish and good for interior decorating ideas but underperform too badly to be of any use beyond email and word processing. The Mini already proves that Apple cares more about style than function and performance, since they could have used it to boost their 970 buying volume and leverage greater desktop PPC R&D at IBM.
. . . The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable. . .
If I believed what you say, I'd have to conclude that IBM abandoned its plans to make the Power PC a widely used chip, and now intends to focus on game consoles. I simply cannot buy such a scenario. I'm sure IBM is glad to get the game console business, but rather than be distracted by it, I'd bet IBM uses everything learned to advancing the Power PC in general. I think many of us sense that the Cell already made a major positive impact on the Power PC's future.
So why does IBM care about Apple? Apple is currently the most highly visible customer IBM has using its chips. It's fair to say Apple is a showcase for IBM's Power PC technology. That being the case, IBM is not going to let Apple suffer in the market place for lack competitive CPUs.
It was Monday that Intel announced. Let's see, today is Friday. Check back in a few months.
What I don't understand is, given IBM's history and "reputation," why isn't IBM the first to market with desktop dual core CPUs? The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable.
More likely, IMO, is that Apple doesn't want to ship a machine with a massive power profile like those of the dual P4 and (to a lesser extent) the dual Operton. Especially since Delphi's water cooling unit doesn't look like it'll hold water for long. This is the aesthetics-are-paramount rule that THT mentioned raising its, uh, ugly head again.
IBM doesn't care about being first to market. If you compare recent history it is Intel's forte to do paper launches and make grandiose statements or roadmaps(Tejas anyone?) and then reneg.Today Big Blue is a model of steadiness and stability(hasn't always been that way of course).
Yes Intel is first to dual-core with the shabbiest DC architecture. They're pricing them low because they can fab better than AMD but the fact is as Intel always does there are blatant compromises.
Where Mac users are misguided or even manipulated is in our interpretation of how information in the PC land is disseminated. We often take the press release or hyperbole as fact or shipping product. These hardware technogies are more similar than they are dissimilar.
I can excuse IBM/Apple for coming to the party late as long as they are the best dressed.
Yes, dual core is old news, for the big iron servers. The Power 4 CPU is too power hungry for a desktop, even water cooled. This is the whole paradox; IBM has been making bitch-ass dual core server CPUs for years, yet they cannot get a dual core desktop CPU on the market, even while CPU makers with no dual core experience are putting out dual core desktop CPUs.
It makes no sense. It's as if Apple is a curse upon any CPU maker that dares to supply Apple with any chips.
This is why apple needs to give up hardware and focus on software. They are excellent at what they do with software, why not cave in with the x86 architecture and just put OS X out there. I don't want anyone to reply to that idea because it will throw the thread off course... but to be honest, I'm really getting tired of this same old routine of waiting and waiting. They have great hardware, but these annual updates are a bit too slow. Technology moves at a much faster pace then once a year people. If apple does come out with dual 2.7 g5's... I might be macless for much longer then I anticipated. I shouldn't have ever sold my dual 2.0. Silly me I thought a powerbook would be nice (dog ass slow), or I could wait for new powermacs. If the 2.7s are released without a price change? I'm out of the mac scene for a while, and I'm ashamed to say that after 12 years of loyalty.
Remember, Apple doesn't buy 970s by the unit. They buy it by the lot.
Actually IBM does sell by working unit and not by wafers. Motorola is the same so I'd be surprised if Apple's agreement isn't for the same. It's IBM's problem if they can't get decent yields, except for the supply problems it causes their customers.
Yes, dual core is old news, for the big iron servers. The Power 4 CPU is too power hungry for a desktop, even water cooled. This is the whole paradox; IBM has been making bitch-ass dual core server CPUs for years, yet they cannot get a dual core desktop CPU on the market, even while CPU makers with no dual core experience are putting out dual core desktop CPUs.
Sure it does, they have no customer yet. Not only do they need to hit certain yields, but a certain price point and profile.
Intel and AMD can cater to the white box market or make paper launches while maintaining the bulk of their sales in the lower market. IBM doesn't do that.
Several of us are in that camp apparently. Onlooker promised to put together some killer DC AMD kit for us when and if it's biz as usual at WWDC.
(18 years of loyalty - first Mac an SE)
I'd go for that, if they had a decent operating system. Its either stay with apple and get sub-par hardware or leave Apple and get a sub-par operating system. What a choice
doesn't mean you just "leave" Apple. Apple is not perfect and being loyal means sticking with something through thick and thin. I've never had absolute Apple loyalty, and never will, but i won't just push them aside when things aren't hunky-dory.
And we're supposed to keep rewarding Apple for updates like that? 200mhz is an insult to its users.
No offense to anyone, but it would be interesting to see if all the people complaining about the "insulting 200mhz update" are actually ones that would buy a PM to begin with. How many people out there are really looking to upgrade their 2.5ghz with a faster CPU?
I'd like to see Apple break out with a 3ghz PM as much as the next person. However, I'm not going to jump off a bridge, cursing Apple the entire way down if they don't.
2.7ghz is still still 35% faster than my 2.0ghz PM. And that's not including any video/hard drive/RAM/etc.. upgrades they may also throw in at the same price or lower than the current pricing scheme.
Comments
And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.
The problem is that a lot of us would be very happy with a "G5 desktop replacement brick" as you call it. But since Apple is a monopoly they don't need to cater to their customers nearly as much as the windows hardware venders do, so we will never see one -- which is extremely frustrating.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
THT, with regards to the Mac mini, I do see your point. However, I am a little confused about the rest. For example, the iMac DOES include a G5 processor, so it isn't like its form factor is not letting them build in a G5.
My point was about easier control of inventory. If Apple had mid-range and low-end desktops that can accommodate large Watt CPUs, Apple can waterfall the ~5 week inventory of Power Mac G5 and Xserve G5 CPUs down to the mid-range and low-end desktops. This would give them better control of inventory and of when they can announce a revision. They wouldn't need to squeeze water from a rock at the end of every revision, ie, reduce their inventory. Said inventory simply gets sold in a cheaper lineup.
The iMac G5 has a presumed Watt sensitive form factor. Do you think they can put the current 2+ GHz 970fx into the iMac? I'm guessing they can't, and therefore have to wait for a process tweak before it can be updated. A simple G5 mini - take the Power Mac G5 case and cut out the volume and space required for 1 of the CPUs, 2 PCI slots, and 4 DIMM slots and you'd have something at least half the size - however, would be able to use those 2, 2.3 and 2.5 GHz 970fx w/o much effort. It should just be drop in.
There desktop lineup really should be Mac mini G5 (no expansion), PM G5 mini (slight expansion), and PM G5 (actual expansion). The eMac and iMac would then be the boutique Macs or education Macs that Apple sells at whatever price they need to sell it at.
And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.
The laptop market is arguably more important than the desktop market. If there is a market where Apple needs to cater to as many people as possible, this is it. Apple needs to have a low-end (iBook), mid-range (Powerbook G4), high-end (Powerbook G5), ultra-light, and possibly palm-top.
So, you should not have choose brick if you don't want it. But there will be a nontrivial set of people who will fork over $3000+ for it.
Originally posted by Res
The problem is that a lot of us would be very happy with a "G5 desktop replacement brick" as you call it. But since Apple is a monopoly they don't need to cater to their customers nearly as much as the windows hardware venders do, so we will never see one -- which is extremely frustrating.
Those "bricks" are portable desktop computers that look like big carry-around laptops. Someone a while back started a discussion about a possible portable desktop Mac that I found interesting. If Apple made such a beast, I'd guess it would likely look like what it is, but of course very cool. It would probably not be a laptop impostor.
I believe the only thing keeping Apple from catering to more customer needs is hard business reality. Until sales are much higher, Apple must limit the number of products it offers.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
If Apple had any other options, the PowerPC 7447 wouldn't be used anymore. Believe me, Apple isn't happy to be stuck with things like a 167mhz SDR bus and 4x AGP. The 970 is too power hungry, so Apple really have a choice. Freescale isn't making custom designs for Apple anymore. If it won't help their embedded market, they won't make it.
Right, but Freescale is still making them and Apple is still buying them. So they technically didn't bail on Apple. They just cut out a project that was bleeding money. They were designing products for fab technology that they didn't have. They had to kill the 850 or whatever it was. They simply didn't have the ability to make it.
As for now, they're just starting to turn it around. Designing and fabbing custom processors is a very risky undertaking for them. If they make one false move, they're back up the creek.
IBM on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this problem. They have a ton of resources at their disposal and can afford to assume the risk of custom work. And guess who pays for this increased risk? Apple pays for it in unit pricing. Remember, Apple doesn't buy 970s by the unit. They buy it by the lot. And I can guarantee you that Apple and IBM work very closely with eachother to avoid excess inventory on both sides. This in turn simplifies the pricing structure that IBM requires to recoup its investment and manufacturing costs.
I just think the argument doesn't hold water. You're comparing apples and oranges since we're talking about two companies with vastly different financial profiles.
There comes a point where a company's reputation matters less than what they can deliver. Apple can try telling high end Powermac buyers that the Macs are powered by CPUs from a very prestigious company that is most highly respecting in technical markets, but if Wintels are outperforming Powermacs 2:1 nobody will give a peep about IBM's rep.
What I don't understand is, given IBM's history and "reputation," why isn't IBM the first to market with desktop dual core CPUs? The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable.
Apple is screwed once again on CPU performance. I fear that that my favorite computer company is slowly devolving into a maker of boutique computers that are stylish and good for interior decorating ideas but underperform too badly to be of any use beyond email and word processing. The Mini already proves that Apple cares more about style than function and performance, since they could have used it to boost their 970 buying volume and leverage greater desktop PPC R&D at IBM.
One of these days...
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
. . . The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable. . .
If I believed what you say, I'd have to conclude that IBM abandoned its plans to make the Power PC a widely used chip, and now intends to focus on game consoles. I simply cannot buy such a scenario. I'm sure IBM is glad to get the game console business, but rather than be distracted by it, I'd bet IBM uses everything learned to advancing the Power PC in general. I think many of us sense that the Cell already made a major positive impact on the Power PC's future.
So why does IBM care about Apple? Apple is currently the most highly visible customer IBM has using its chips. It's fair to say Apple is a showcase for IBM's Power PC technology. That being the case, IBM is not going to let Apple suffer in the market place for lack competitive CPUs.
It was Monday that Intel announced. Let's see, today is Friday. Check back in a few months.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
What I don't understand is, given IBM's history and "reputation," why isn't IBM the first to market with desktop dual core CPUs? The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable.
More likely, IMO, is that Apple doesn't want to ship a machine with a massive power profile like those of the dual P4 and (to a lesser extent) the dual Operton. Especially since Delphi's water cooling unit doesn't look like it'll hold water for long. This is the aesthetics-are-paramount rule that THT mentioned raising its, uh, ugly head again.
Yes Intel is first to dual-core with the shabbiest DC architecture. They're pricing them low because they can fab better than AMD but the fact is as Intel always does there are blatant compromises.
Where Mac users are misguided or even manipulated is in our interpretation of how information in the PC land is disseminated. We often take the press release or hyperbole as fact or shipping product. These hardware technogies are more similar than they are dissimilar.
I can excuse IBM/Apple for coming to the party late as long as they are the best dressed.
It makes no sense. It's as if Apple is a curse upon any CPU maker that dares to supply Apple with any chips.
Originally posted by emig647
If the 2.7s are released without a price change? I'm out of the mac scene for a while, and I'm ashamed to say that after 12 years of loyalty.
Several of us are in that camp apparently. Onlooker promised to put together some killer DC AMD kit for us when and if it's biz as usual at WWDC.
(18 years of loyalty - first Mac an SE)
Originally posted by Arty50
Remember, Apple doesn't buy 970s by the unit. They buy it by the lot.
Actually IBM does sell by working unit and not by wafers. Motorola is the same so I'd be surprised if Apple's agreement isn't for the same. It's IBM's problem if they can't get decent yields, except for the supply problems it causes their customers.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Yes, dual core is old news, for the big iron servers. The Power 4 CPU is too power hungry for a desktop, even water cooled. This is the whole paradox; IBM has been making bitch-ass dual core server CPUs for years, yet they cannot get a dual core desktop CPU on the market, even while CPU makers with no dual core experience are putting out dual core desktop CPUs.
Sure it does, they have no customer yet. Not only do they need to hit certain yields, but a certain price point and profile.
Intel and AMD can cater to the white box market or make paper launches while maintaining the bulk of their sales in the lower market. IBM doesn't do that.
Originally posted by emig647
If the 2.7s are released without a price change? I'm out of the mac scene for a while, and I'm ashamed to say that after 12 years of loyalty.
you can't be serious
Originally posted by Dave J
Several of us are in that camp apparently. Onlooker promised to put together some killer DC AMD kit for us when and if it's biz as usual at WWDC.
(18 years of loyalty - first Mac an SE)
I'd go for that, if they had a decent operating system. Its either stay with apple and get sub-par hardware or leave Apple and get a sub-par operating system. What a choice
Originally posted by Performa636CD
you can't be serious
And we're supposed to keep rewarding Apple for updates like that? 200mhz is an insult to its users.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
And we're supposed to keep rewarding Apple for updates like that? 200mhz is an insult to its users.
No offense to anyone, but it would be interesting to see if all the people complaining about the "insulting 200mhz update" are actually ones that would buy a PM to begin with. How many people out there are really looking to upgrade their 2.5ghz with a faster CPU?
I'd like to see Apple break out with a 3ghz PM as much as the next person. However, I'm not going to jump off a bridge, cursing Apple the entire way down if they don't.
2.7ghz is still still 35% faster than my 2.0ghz PM. And that's not including any video/hard drive/RAM/etc.. upgrades they may also throw in at the same price or lower than the current pricing scheme.
Seems alright by me.