I think much of the speculation on which models will go Intel first are a result of two things.
1. Supposedly, Apple has a contract with IBM that lasts until 2007 and currently has no long term contract with Freescale. This has been reported to be mentioned in a SEC filing. Anyone know for sure?
2. Steve Jobs did say there were good PPC chips in the pipeline and everyone just assumed them to be IBM and not Freescale. And Steve Jobs emphasized the performance per watt at the expo, which may have led people to some how extrapolate this to the low end.
I do suspect these rumors concerning the low end transitioning first to be true, because I do believe the IBM contract (speculation?). I think there is no way IBM develops the 970 MP without a commitment from Apple for purchasing a given amount or for a given time frame.
Although, for the half-full glass crowd, this might mean the high end PowerMacs/Powerbooks transition first to a monster Intel chip and the 970GX and 970MP are relegated to the low end - Now that would make Apple customers happy, wouldn't it? Let's see now, a mac mini and iBook with a 970GX, a new SFF computer and iMac with a 970MP, the towers with dual dual core Intel cpus and a Powerbook with a single dual core Intel cpu.
In a marketing point of vue, I don't see the interest of developping an mini G5 for many reasons :
- first of all, a mobo G5 and a G5 chip are more expansive than the current mobo and G4 chip. If Apple broke with IBM, one of the biggest reason, was the costs.
- second, I don't see the interest of developping a mac mini G5 for only six months. Even if the product is already developped, the cost of making the line ready for production for only some months is not logical
- third, even in the lattest version, the G5 produce more heat, than the G4 : cooling it is an issue, and a case redesign should be necessary.
- fourth, in a marketing point of vue, it would not make sense, after SJ claimed out loud, that the G5 was a dead end, he will present a whole new machine based on this chip ?
If there is a great improvement in the G5 line, it would be in the Tower line. Apple could use the dual core G5, but we don't know if :
- this ship is ready for mass production
- IBM want to sell it to Apple after the big clash between them
A lot of speculation are in the way for the next two years.
Another important issue to consider is that Apple likely has pretty good margins with the current Mac Mini (in the ballpark of roughly 30-35% according to one analyst report), a move to low power G5 would place a squeeze on this (since the lower power G5 is almost certainly more expensive than the current model of G4 being used).
Also, as I've been watching Apple over the past couple of years, I've been noticing that they tend to use designs for as long as possible, with relatively minor tweaks over time (different CPU speeds, more RAM, different video chips, etc.). Because of this, I would assume that the Mini will move directly to using an Intel chip as opposed to an intermediary hop to a G5 prior to then. Probably depends a great deal on how the Mini is selling as well.
Another important issue to consider is that Apple likely has pretty good margins with the current Mac Mini (in the ballpark of roughly 30-35% according to one analyst report), a move to low power G5 would place a squeeze on this (since the lower power G5 is almost certainly more expensive than the current model of G4 being used).
Also, as I've been watching Apple over the past couple of years, I've been noticing that they tend to use designs for as long as possible, with relatively minor tweaks over time (different CPU speeds, more RAM, different video chips, etc.). Because of this, I would assume that the Mini will move directly to using an Intel chip as opposed to an intermediary hop to a G5 prior to then. Probably depends a great deal on how the Mini is selling as well.
Given the recent 'non' update...there's nothing stopping a 9 month long addition of a Mac Mini G5 slotted in above the G4 range.
It would bolster sales. Why do it before the Intel transition?
Because they can make money?
June 2006 is a long way away for a machine which hasn't been updated since Jan 2005.
The mac mini, ibook and I suspect the Powerbook updates are and will be underwhelming. The Powerbook, in particular is getting spanked by a 17 inch Vaio in the value and speed stakes.
That leaves the PowerMac.
Er...judging by the above logic...there'll be no PCI Express 'cept PCs will have it and the PowerMac will make the transition in 2007? With AGP all that time?
Given the recent 'non' update...there's nothing stopping a 9 month long addition of a Mac Mini G5 slotted in above the G4 range. <snip>
June 2006 is a long way away for a machine which hasn't been updated since Jan 2005.
And who's to say the mini would get an Intel chip before late 2007? If Apple could shoehorn a low power G5 in the mini it would be a good idea, if only for a couple of years. I agree with those who say Apple probably won't make a mini with a G5 if it requires a case redesign. Is there any precedent that would indicate Apple could never have a line of minis with both G4s and G5s? (Keep a G4 in the low end and charge a premium for a high end G5).
i mentioned this in a previous thread, and i'm sure other people have noted it, but making a G5 mini completely contradicts the computer's original purpose. by introducing a computer in the 600-700 dollar range or whatever with a G5 would steal sales IN EXTREME AMOUNTS from "higher-end" computers like the ibook, PB, iMac, eMac, and probably the PM. why would anyone spend 2000-3000 dollars for a PM when you could spend 1300 dollars less and get a G5 mini? sure, some would want the extra power of the PM, but would it really be worth the 1300 dollar premium? somehow i doubt it. the only way this would be plausible is if apple moved the entire computer line to a G5 (or intel, i suppose...). no way is that going to happen. i think the mini is in dire need for an update, as are many computers in apple's current lineup (save, maybe, the iMac), but i can't imagine them moving every CPU to a G5 this soon to intel. that said, i've also heard that the MDD G4 tower was a complete mobo redesign, shortly before the G5 (i can't remember, but i've read that was the case), so moving a higher-end machine to a new motherboard doesn't seem COMPLETELY out of the question. its just a G5 in a mini, well, thats a different story. thats just my logic.
i mentioned this in a previous thread, and i'm sure other people have noted it, but making a G5 mini completely contradicts the computer's original purpose. by introducing a computer in the 600-700 dollar range or whatever with a G5 would steal sales IN EXTREME AMOUNTS from "higher-end" computers like the ibook, PB, iMac, eMac, and probably the PM. why would anyone spend 2000-3000 dollars for a PM when you could spend 1300 dollars less and get a G5 mini? sure, some would want the extra power of the PM, but would it really be worth the 1300 dollar premium? somehow i doubt it. the only way this would be plausible is if apple moved the entire computer line to a G5 (or intel, i suppose...). no way is that going to happen. i think the mini is in dire need for an update, as are many computers in apple's current lineup (save, maybe, the iMac), but i can't imagine them moving every CPU to a G5 this soon to intel. that said, i've also heard that the MDD G4 tower was a complete mobo redesign, shortly before the G5 (i can't remember, but i've read that was the case), so moving a higher-end machine to a new motherboard doesn't seem COMPLETELY out of the question. its just a G5 in a mini, well, thats a different story. thats just my logic.
Yeah, I've heard this logic many times and I don't doubt that there's something to it. But OTOH, if you take the argument to completion you end up determining that Apple should only sell one model as that is the way to minimize (in this case, eliminate) cannibalization of sales. The iMac certainly steals sales from the PowerMac, too.
Perhaps the way to look at this is from a total sales and total profit standpoint. Apple surely will accept cannibalization of some models if it results in a higher overall sales total and a higher overall profit.
The mini will never offer some of the features that users buy a PowerMac for. Things like GigEthernet, FW800, PCI slots, multiple RAM slots, monitor spanning, extra drive space, etc. If you don't need/want those things then you probably didn't need a PowerMac in the first place.
i mentioned this in a previous thread, and i'm sure other people have noted it, but making a G5 mini completely contradicts the computer's original purpose. by introducing a computer in the 600-700 dollar range or whatever with a G5 would steal sales IN EXTREME AMOUNTS from "higher-end" computers like the ibook, PB, iMac, eMac, and probably the PM.
Don't forget, there are people like me who won't buy a Power Mac because they're too expensive. I won't buy an all in one because I have a nice 23" display. However, I would like something a little better than the mini I'm currently using and there are no other choices without switching to Windows. Apple is losing a sale to me. They don't offer a computer I will buy right now. I would be willing to pay more than $600-700 for a G5 mini with a decent GPU. (I'd even consider buying a new *G4* mini with a decent GPU but that's another topic.)
I don't think it is that expensive for Apple to make motherboards. You have to guess that they already have a number of Mac mini prototypes running G5 processors just to see how they'd perform. Not only Mac mini but perhaps other small form factors.
It is really unclear whether Apple would put a G5 in a Mac mini. After all, the whole idea of a Mac mini was pretty much a surprise. They could bump it to 1.3 and 1.5 GHz G5s (or whatever the correct bus multipliers are). This would not dramatically change the performance so it wouldn't take sales from the iMac or tower but the higher profile of a G5 might garner more sales. The price of the G5 to Apple is the big unknown.
The big thing to help the Mac mini would be a much better GPU.
Don't forget, there is a lot of anxiety that sales will tank until the Intel based product appears. That might be good reason to pack a few more goodies in the current product than Apple normally would. If an Intel Mac Mini is coming out in the March to June time frame a nice upgrade now would not be bad.
I think the PB is less likely to get a G5 just because we haven't seen the candidate chip. It may be secret but you'd think that for the PB they'd go for at least a 1.8GHz G5. On the other hand, if they can get good, low power G4s running 2.0GHz that would beat the G5.
My speculation about the sequence of Intel introductions is this:
Mac Mini - spring 2006
iBook - summer 2006
PB - fall 2006 or MWSF 2007
PM - mid to late 2007
I think Apple would like to have a bunch of these in the field in non-critical applications before transitioning the pro lines. If the first introductions look problem free perhaps they could accelerate the timing.
If the Mac mini sees a bump before the transition to Intel, I would expect it to be either or both of the following: A better GPU, a faster PowerPC G4 processor.
For example, a 1.5 and 1.67GHz CPU, and a 9600 with 64 or 128 megabytes video memory.
Comments
1. Supposedly, Apple has a contract with IBM that lasts until 2007 and currently has no long term contract with Freescale. This has been reported to be mentioned in a SEC filing. Anyone know for sure?
2. Steve Jobs did say there were good PPC chips in the pipeline and everyone just assumed them to be IBM and not Freescale. And Steve Jobs emphasized the performance per watt at the expo, which may have led people to some how extrapolate this to the low end.
I do suspect these rumors concerning the low end transitioning first to be true, because I do believe the IBM contract (speculation?). I think there is no way IBM develops the 970 MP without a commitment from Apple for purchasing a given amount or for a given time frame.
Although, for the half-full glass crowd, this might mean the high end PowerMacs/Powerbooks transition first to a monster Intel chip and the 970GX and 970MP are relegated to the low end
Time to load up on Apple stock.
- first of all, a mobo G5 and a G5 chip are more expansive than the current mobo and G4 chip. If Apple broke with IBM, one of the biggest reason, was the costs.
- second, I don't see the interest of developping a mac mini G5 for only six months. Even if the product is already developped, the cost of making the line ready for production for only some months is not logical
- third, even in the lattest version, the G5 produce more heat, than the G4 : cooling it is an issue, and a case redesign should be necessary.
- fourth, in a marketing point of vue, it would not make sense, after SJ claimed out loud, that the G5 was a dead end, he will present a whole new machine based on this chip ?
If there is a great improvement in the G5 line, it would be in the Tower line. Apple could use the dual core G5, but we don't know if :
- this ship is ready for mass production
- IBM want to sell it to Apple after the big clash between them
A lot of speculation are in the way for the next two years.
Also, as I've been watching Apple over the past couple of years, I've been noticing that they tend to use designs for as long as possible, with relatively minor tweaks over time (different CPU speeds, more RAM, different video chips, etc.). Because of this, I would assume that the Mini will move directly to using an Intel chip as opposed to an intermediary hop to a G5 prior to then. Probably depends a great deal on how the Mini is selling as well.
Originally posted by Chagi
Another important issue to consider is that Apple likely has pretty good margins with the current Mac Mini (in the ballpark of roughly 30-35% according to one analyst report), a move to low power G5 would place a squeeze on this (since the lower power G5 is almost certainly more expensive than the current model of G4 being used).
Also, as I've been watching Apple over the past couple of years, I've been noticing that they tend to use designs for as long as possible, with relatively minor tweaks over time (different CPU speeds, more RAM, different video chips, etc.). Because of this, I would assume that the Mini will move directly to using an Intel chip as opposed to an intermediary hop to a G5 prior to then. Probably depends a great deal on how the Mini is selling as well.
Good points
It would bolster sales. Why do it before the Intel transition?
Because they can make money?
June 2006 is a long way away for a machine which hasn't been updated since Jan 2005.
The mac mini, ibook and I suspect the Powerbook updates are and will be underwhelming. The Powerbook, in particular is getting spanked by a 17 inch Vaio in the value and speed stakes.
That leaves the PowerMac.
Er...judging by the above logic...there'll be no PCI Express 'cept PCs will have it and the PowerMac will make the transition in 2007? With AGP all that time?
We'll see.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Given the recent 'non' update...there's nothing stopping a 9 month long addition of a Mac Mini G5 slotted in above the G4 range. <snip>
June 2006 is a long way away for a machine which hasn't been updated since Jan 2005.
And who's to say the mini would get an Intel chip before late 2007? If Apple could shoehorn a low power G5 in the mini it would be a good idea, if only for a couple of years. I agree with those who say Apple probably won't make a mini with a G5 if it requires a case redesign. Is there any precedent that would indicate Apple could never have a line of minis with both G4s and G5s? (Keep a G4 in the low end and charge a premium for a high end G5).
Originally posted by exhibit_13
i mentioned this in a previous thread, and i'm sure other people have noted it, but making a G5 mini completely contradicts the computer's original purpose. by introducing a computer in the 600-700 dollar range or whatever with a G5 would steal sales IN EXTREME AMOUNTS from "higher-end" computers like the ibook, PB, iMac, eMac, and probably the PM. why would anyone spend 2000-3000 dollars for a PM when you could spend 1300 dollars less and get a G5 mini? sure, some would want the extra power of the PM, but would it really be worth the 1300 dollar premium? somehow i doubt it. the only way this would be plausible is if apple moved the entire computer line to a G5 (or intel, i suppose...). no way is that going to happen. i think the mini is in dire need for an update, as are many computers in apple's current lineup (save, maybe, the iMac), but i can't imagine them moving every CPU to a G5 this soon to intel. that said, i've also heard that the MDD G4 tower was a complete mobo redesign, shortly before the G5 (i can't remember, but i've read that was the case), so moving a higher-end machine to a new motherboard doesn't seem COMPLETELY out of the question. its just a G5 in a mini, well, thats a different story. thats just my logic.
Yeah, I've heard this logic many times and I don't doubt that there's something to it. But OTOH, if you take the argument to completion you end up determining that Apple should only sell one model as that is the way to minimize (in this case, eliminate) cannibalization of sales. The iMac certainly steals sales from the PowerMac, too.
Perhaps the way to look at this is from a total sales and total profit standpoint. Apple surely will accept cannibalization of some models if it results in a higher overall sales total and a higher overall profit.
The mini will never offer some of the features that users buy a PowerMac for. Things like GigEthernet, FW800, PCI slots, multiple RAM slots, monitor spanning, extra drive space, etc. If you don't need/want those things then you probably didn't need a PowerMac in the first place.
Originally posted by exhibit_13
i mentioned this in a previous thread, and i'm sure other people have noted it, but making a G5 mini completely contradicts the computer's original purpose. by introducing a computer in the 600-700 dollar range or whatever with a G5 would steal sales IN EXTREME AMOUNTS from "higher-end" computers like the ibook, PB, iMac, eMac, and probably the PM.
Don't forget, there are people like me who won't buy a Power Mac because they're too expensive. I won't buy an all in one because I have a nice 23" display. However, I would like something a little better than the mini I'm currently using and there are no other choices without switching to Windows. Apple is losing a sale to me. They don't offer a computer I will buy right now. I would be willing to pay more than $600-700 for a G5 mini with a decent GPU. (I'd even consider buying a new *G4* mini with a decent GPU but that's another topic.)
It is really unclear whether Apple would put a G5 in a Mac mini. After all, the whole idea of a Mac mini was pretty much a surprise. They could bump it to 1.3 and 1.5 GHz G5s (or whatever the correct bus multipliers are). This would not dramatically change the performance so it wouldn't take sales from the iMac or tower but the higher profile of a G5 might garner more sales. The price of the G5 to Apple is the big unknown.
The big thing to help the Mac mini would be a much better GPU.
Don't forget, there is a lot of anxiety that sales will tank until the Intel based product appears. That might be good reason to pack a few more goodies in the current product than Apple normally would. If an Intel Mac Mini is coming out in the March to June time frame a nice upgrade now would not be bad.
I think the PB is less likely to get a G5 just because we haven't seen the candidate chip. It may be secret but you'd think that for the PB they'd go for at least a 1.8GHz G5. On the other hand, if they can get good, low power G4s running 2.0GHz that would beat the G5.
My speculation about the sequence of Intel introductions is this:
Mac Mini - spring 2006
iBook - summer 2006
PB - fall 2006 or MWSF 2007
PM - mid to late 2007
I think Apple would like to have a bunch of these in the field in non-critical applications before transitioning the pro lines. If the first introductions look problem free perhaps they could accelerate the timing.
For example, a 1.5 and 1.67GHz CPU, and a 9600 with 64 or 128 megabytes video memory.