if half of the sales were from laptop, i suspect why apple like to release intel Mac Mini before MacBook (iBook), strange
Well the problem could simply be that the hardware for the laptop is not available yet. The possibilities in clude apple wanting a specific ultra low voltage part, products modified by Intel for Apples use or maybe a inntegrated chips set for ATI or somebody.
Quote:
earlier reports mentioned that Mac Book were eating up the inventory of 1.67Ghz Duo
I suspect that Intel will have production problems. There are a number of reasons for this but don't expect Intel to be able to handle all their customers or potential customers for the core duos for awhile.
In any event I think that may people here are going to be disapointed if they think that the iBook replacement won't have integrated video. It is the one sure way for Apple to innovate on this platfrom. Further there are options besides Intel for integrated chip sets. Engineering wise there are to many advantages for Apple not to go this way and very few disadvantages.
Lets face it the current iBooks have had crippled video systems for some time, modern integrated systems will allow Apple to move away from this issue and remain competitive.
The other thing that bothers me a bit is that Apple has bought up at least a couple of manufactures specializing in graphics hardware and we have yet to really see this tech implemented in Apple computing hardware. It could very well be that Apple is working with a supplier to support Apple specific tech on their chip sets.
In any event I don't see a timing issue like others. All the iBooks really need to be is a low power device with great battery life.
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").
That is not what a loss-leader is. A loss-leader is a product that is bought at no or negative profit - think console or printer - that leads to the purchase of a much more profitable peripheral or item required periodically - think game or ink cartridge.
The only thing your description would make up in volume would be a larger loss. Loss leaders eventually lead to profit, not marketshare.
It is easy to discount Intel integrated graphics, especially because in the past they sucked. Really really badly. The newest chipsets from Intel are, however, quite impressive. Some advantages include, but are not limited to:
4. Actually very powerful. Intel's latest integrated graphics chipsets are quite fast, and would more than suffice for entry level hardware.
I would say that's an overstatement. Take a look at the benchmarks for the Intel GMA 950 (the most likely integrated solution that an iBook or Mini would use):
It is completely blown away by the NVidia 6200 and ATI X300 parts. The 6200 and X300 are low-end parts, so that's not a good showing at all. Apple should not offer integrated graphics except in really, really cheap machines. And maybe not even then.
Okay. And the conclusion of that review is: "...the [bottom-of-the-line] X300 smokes everything [including the Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics]. It's amazing what even a $100 add-in card can do for game performance"
That is not what a loss-leader is. A loss-leader is a product that is bought at no or negative profit - think console or printer - that leads to the purchase of a much more profitable peripheral or item required periodically - think game or ink cartridge.
The only thing your description would make up in volume would be a larger loss. Loss leaders eventually lead to profit, not marketshare.
Right, I understand that. And my point was that Apple has avoided this (rightly so). I'm not suggesting they should do it at all. I was simply saying that they won't (if history is any indication) sell something like Mac mini at a loss to build market share in something else (like what? they sell computers...so selling their computers at a loss to make a profit in...ummm...computers is dumb...but is what has often been suggested here by folks in the past).
Right, I understand that. And my point was that Apple has avoided this (rightly so). I'm not suggesting they should do it at all. I was simply saying that they won't (if history is any indication) sell something like Mac mini at a loss to build market share in something else (like what? they sell computers...so selling their computers at a loss to make a profit in...ummm...computers is dumb...but is what has often been suggested here by folks in the past).
Gotcha.
Then we agree. There's no way Apple, can, should, or will do this sort of thing. They make their money on hardware and that isn't going to change.
The argument you describe is falacious, and you're right to say that it appears on forums a lot. I don't want to say that Apple doesn't care about marketshare, but I think it's obvious that they're not interested in sacrificing profit just to increase it.
The share price and billions in the bank would seem to support this course of action.
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.
And the Celeron M 4xx parts are likely to be a further $100 cheaper yet offer almost identical performance to the Core Solo for most people. And I'd bet on Intel 950 GMA graphics too which despite the protests will still be way faster than the outgoing ATi 9200, the Nvidia 5200 and quite possibly the ATi 9600 in laptops. It'll do Core graphics no problem.
Sure, it'll barf on DOOM III but who expects a Mac Mini to run 3D games.
Quartz Extreme and 2D Extreme will be standard moving forward.
They will need their own dedicate GPU.
And an Intel Integrated Graphics chip *IS* a dedicated GPU. What you don't get is the dedicated RAM for your GPU but with PCI Express and faster DDR2 RAM, that's less of an issue than in the G4 past and I'd argue, a completely non-issue in a budget laptop, sub-notebook or Mac Mini. Indeed, it's actually a GOOD IDEA in a sub-notebook.
Intel rightly argues that for 90% of people out there, running fast 3D games isn't important whereas extremely low power consumption and the GPU costing about $5 to $10 is.
That's not to say Apple will do it. The 10% of the people who might spout FUD on gaming forums also flap their lips far too much. And there's always someone complaining they can't run Final Cut Studio on an iBook.
And the Celeron M 4xx parts are likely to be a further $100 cheaper yet offer almost identical performance to the Core Solo for most people.
agreed.
celerons it is. core solo/duo bto, maybe...
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And I'd bet on Intel 950 GMA graphics too which despite the protests will still be way faster than the outgoing ATi 9200, the Nvidia 5200 and quite possibly the ATi 9600 in laptops. It'll do Core graphics no problem.
here i dont agree.
the gma-950 is basically a 900 speedbumped from 333 to 400 mhz.
the x300 (which is more or less like the 9550 that can be found in the current ibook but in pci-e flavor) is much faster and x300 got some nice features that are really good for core image hardware acceleration which the gma950 is missing too.
afaik, the x300 runs just about even with the nvidia 6200 in their respective 'leech-of-the-main-ram' mode.
still a low-end gma-950 would probably be quite enough for most people, but so would a ibook g3...
It all has to do with cost. We know that Apple pays more for Intel's chips than they did for IBM and Freescale's. That's been shown.
To, the question is what Apple can afford to put into these machines.
We all agree (I hope) that Apple should not sell without making a proper profit. Therefore, the question is: What can Apple put into these machines and not have the price RISE? So many have been talking about a $700 or $800 iBook. But can it really be done without some compromise? Can they keep it at the same price, and make it better?
The iBook has a power problem as well. It's been said by Hannibal, and others that a Duo chip is out of the question for the iBook, and probably for the Mini as well. Cost, power, heat. If they don't enlarge the Mini somewhat, stuffing a Duo inside might be a problem. And certainly not for the $500 model.
The iBook is known for having better battery life than the Powerbook. We can see from the Macbook Pro's, that battery life is one thing that doesn't benefit.
The newer Integrated Graphics that Intel will be coming out with soon is rated to run Vista's "Glass", so it should Run Apple's various Quartz environments as well.
The newer Integrated Graphics that Intel will be coming out with soon is rated to run Vista's "Glass", so it should Run Apple's various Quartz environments as well.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the current GMA 950 runs Vista fully already. However, Quartz has much, much lower requirements than Vista does.
From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.
So how many OpenGL 2 video cards are there currently in the market? And since Leopard will be demonstrated in June with OpenGL 2 support what are the odds Apple will have an on-board only video option for these upcoming Mac-mini's versus an upgradeable BTO?
From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.
Nope, that's not the case. The Intel Dev Kits were using Intel GMA 950 chips and supported Quartz Extreme, Core Image and OpenGL. Anything from a 900 up does.
There's also plenty of pirates on the OSX86Project forums asking which Intel 9xx series chipset motherboard they should buy to run their ripped off copies of OSX on.
Having an integrated graphics card does not fit the direction Apple is heading with Quartz. They are moving more and more of Quartz on to the graphics card, with the latest (Quartz 2D Extreme) being almost entirely on the card. The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme. Now the backing store would be back in main RAM, and has to compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. I highly doubt apple will move backwards from dedicated video memory that is already included with both the iBook and mini.
Here are some diagrams from the Ars Technica review of Tiger.
Do we really know this at all? I'm thinking that unless someone here works in Apple purchasing...the best we have is educated guesses.
It's been stated before. Intel's prices are well known. The prices for IBM and Freescale's chips are as well. Apple doesn't get special prices on any of this. It's purely sold, and priced, by volume. Since Apple isn't accepting co-op advertising rebates from Intel, they are, if anything, at a disadvantage to Intel's other customers who do.
Having an integrated graphics card does not fit the direction Apple is heading with Quartz. They are moving more and more of Quartz on to the graphics card, with the latest (Quartz 2D Extreme) being almost entirely on the card. The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme. Now the backing store would be back in main RAM, and has to compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. I highly doubt apple will move backwards from dedicated video memory that is already included with both the iBook and mini.
Here are some diagrams from the Ars Technica review of Tiger.
This one shows how Quartz Extreme works:
And, this one shows Quartz 2D Extreme:
And MS is doing exactly the same thing with Glass, in Vista. Not the exact same technology, of course, but close enough. Vista will have more daunting requirements for the full "experience" of Glass than Apple will have for all of it's forms of quartz.
Now, what I would like to see, and I'm fairly sure that most people here would like to see as well, is the resolution independent GUI that both Apple and MS are supposed to be working on.
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme.
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.
That said, I think that Apple will be pushing the mini as a media machine, and integrated cards really aren't good enough yet.
Comments
Originally posted by shanmugam
Question Question
if half of the sales were from laptop, i suspect why apple like to release intel Mac Mini before MacBook (iBook), strange
Well the problem could simply be that the hardware for the laptop is not available yet. The possibilities in clude apple wanting a specific ultra low voltage part, products modified by Intel for Apples use or maybe a inntegrated chips set for ATI or somebody.
Quote:
earlier reports mentioned that Mac Book were eating up the inventory of 1.67Ghz Duo
I suspect that Intel will have production problems. There are a number of reasons for this but don't expect Intel to be able to handle all their customers or potential customers for the core duos for awhile.
************************************************** ********
In any event I think that may people here are going to be disapointed if they think that the iBook replacement won't have integrated video. It is the one sure way for Apple to innovate on this platfrom. Further there are options besides Intel for integrated chip sets. Engineering wise there are to many advantages for Apple not to go this way and very few disadvantages.
Lets face it the current iBooks have had crippled video systems for some time, modern integrated systems will allow Apple to move away from this issue and remain competitive.
The other thing that bothers me a bit is that Apple has bought up at least a couple of manufactures specializing in graphics hardware and we have yet to really see this tech implemented in Apple computing hardware. It could very well be that Apple is working with a supplier to support Apple specific tech on their chip sets.
In any event I don't see a timing issue like others. All the iBooks really need to be is a low power device with great battery life.
Dave
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").
That is not what a loss-leader is. A loss-leader is a product that is bought at no or negative profit - think console or printer - that leads to the purchase of a much more profitable peripheral or item required periodically - think game or ink cartridge.
The only thing your description would make up in volume would be a larger loss. Loss leaders eventually lead to profit, not marketshare.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
It is easy to discount Intel integrated graphics, especially because in the past they sucked. Really really badly. The newest chipsets from Intel are, however, quite impressive. Some advantages include, but are not limited to:
4. Actually very powerful. Intel's latest integrated graphics chipsets are quite fast, and would more than suffice for entry level hardware.
I would say that's an overstatement. Take a look at the benchmarks for the Intel GMA 950 (the most likely integrated solution that an iBook or Mini would use):
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427
It is completely blown away by the NVidia 6200 and ATI X300 parts. The 6200 and X300 are low-end parts, so that's not a good showing at all. Apple should not offer integrated graphics except in really, really cheap machines. And maybe not even then.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1617350,00.asp
Okay. And the conclusion of that review is: "...the [bottom-of-the-line] X300 smokes everything [including the Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics]. It's amazing what even a $100 add-in card can do for game performance"
Originally posted by jouster
That is not what a loss-leader is. A loss-leader is a product that is bought at no or negative profit - think console or printer - that leads to the purchase of a much more profitable peripheral or item required periodically - think game or ink cartridge.
The only thing your description would make up in volume would be a larger loss. Loss leaders eventually lead to profit, not marketshare.
Right, I understand that. And my point was that Apple has avoided this (rightly so). I'm not suggesting they should do it at all. I was simply saying that they won't (if history is any indication) sell something like Mac mini at a loss to build market share in something else (like what? they sell computers...so selling their computers at a loss to make a profit in...ummm...computers is dumb...but is what has often been suggested here by folks in the past).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right, I understand that. And my point was that Apple has avoided this (rightly so). I'm not suggesting they should do it at all. I was simply saying that they won't (if history is any indication) sell something like Mac mini at a loss to build market share in something else (like what? they sell computers...so selling their computers at a loss to make a profit in...ummm...computers is dumb...but is what has often been suggested here by folks in the past).
Gotcha.
Then we agree. There's no way Apple, can, should, or will do this sort of thing. They make their money on hardware and that isn't going to change.
The argument you describe is falacious, and you're right to say that it appears on forums a lot. I don't want to say that Apple doesn't care about marketshare, but I think it's obvious that they're not interested in sacrificing profit just to increase it.
The share price and billions in the bank would seem to support this course of action.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.
And the Celeron M 4xx parts are likely to be a further $100 cheaper yet offer almost identical performance to the Core Solo for most people. And I'd bet on Intel 950 GMA graphics too which despite the protests will still be way faster than the outgoing ATi 9200, the Nvidia 5200 and quite possibly the ATi 9600 in laptops. It'll do Core graphics no problem.
Sure, it'll barf on DOOM III but who expects a Mac Mini to run 3D games.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Quartz Extreme and 2D Extreme will be standard moving forward.
They will need their own dedicate GPU.
And an Intel Integrated Graphics chip *IS* a dedicated GPU. What you don't get is the dedicated RAM for your GPU but with PCI Express and faster DDR2 RAM, that's less of an issue than in the G4 past and I'd argue, a completely non-issue in a budget laptop, sub-notebook or Mac Mini. Indeed, it's actually a GOOD IDEA in a sub-notebook.
Intel rightly argues that for 90% of people out there, running fast 3D games isn't important whereas extremely low power consumption and the GPU costing about $5 to $10 is.
That's not to say Apple will do it. The 10% of the people who might spout FUD on gaming forums also flap their lips far too much. And there's always someone complaining they can't run Final Cut Studio on an iBook.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure, it'll barf on DOOM III but who expects a Mac Mini to run 3D games.
Heh, I'd still take it.
My iBook G3 barfs on the Doom 3 trailer......
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And the Celeron M 4xx parts are likely to be a further $100 cheaper yet offer almost identical performance to the Core Solo for most people.
agreed.
celerons it is. core solo/duo bto, maybe...
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And I'd bet on Intel 950 GMA graphics too which despite the protests will still be way faster than the outgoing ATi 9200, the Nvidia 5200 and quite possibly the ATi 9600 in laptops. It'll do Core graphics no problem.
here i dont agree.
the gma-950 is basically a 900 speedbumped from 333 to 400 mhz.
the x300 (which is more or less like the 9550 that can be found in the current ibook but in pci-e flavor) is much faster and x300 got some nice features that are really good for core image hardware acceleration which the gma950 is missing too.
afaik, the x300 runs just about even with the nvidia 6200 in their respective 'leech-of-the-main-ram' mode.
still a low-end gma-950 would probably be quite enough for most people, but so would a ibook g3...
edit: i see bigmig already covered this, sorry.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1617350,00.asp
As I have said, Intel integrated graphics used to suck. Full stop. That is, however, changing.
Yeah 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 EE on a dual channel DDR2-553 memory subsystem. Surely what we expect in a Mac mini or iBook
The fun with GMA is that it runs nicely on a highend system and sucks very bad on a slow system.
To, the question is what Apple can afford to put into these machines.
We all agree (I hope) that Apple should not sell without making a proper profit. Therefore, the question is: What can Apple put into these machines and not have the price RISE? So many have been talking about a $700 or $800 iBook. But can it really be done without some compromise? Can they keep it at the same price, and make it better?
The iBook has a power problem as well. It's been said by Hannibal, and others that a Duo chip is out of the question for the iBook, and probably for the Mini as well. Cost, power, heat. If they don't enlarge the Mini somewhat, stuffing a Duo inside might be a problem. And certainly not for the $500 model.
The iBook is known for having better battery life than the Powerbook. We can see from the Macbook Pro's, that battery life is one thing that doesn't benefit.
The newer Integrated Graphics that Intel will be coming out with soon is rated to run Vista's "Glass", so it should Run Apple's various Quartz environments as well.
Originally posted by melgross
The newer Integrated Graphics that Intel will be coming out with soon is rated to run Vista's "Glass", so it should Run Apple's various Quartz environments as well.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the current GMA 950 runs Vista fully already. However, Quartz has much, much lower requirements than Vista does.
Originally posted by melgross
It all has to do with cost. We know that Apple pays more for Intel's chips than they did for IBM and Freescale's. That's been shown.
Do we really know this at all? I'm thinking that unless someone here works in Apple purchasing...the best we have is educated guesses.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I'm sure I read somewhere that the current GMA 950 runs Vista fully already. However, Quartz has much, much lower requirements than Vista does.
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/
From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.
Migration to OpenGL 2
So how many OpenGL 2 video cards are there currently in the market? And since Leopard will be demonstrated in June with OpenGL 2 support what are the odds Apple will have an on-board only video option for these upcoming Mac-mini's versus an upgradeable BTO?
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/
From what I read it supports OpenGL 1.4 and parts of it. Tiger OpenGL is 1.5 and Core Image which requires > 32MB of VRAM (my iBook G4 1Ghz with 32MB VRAM doesn't support Core Image) most likely will then need a video subsystem GPU that supports > 64MB VRAM, OpenGL 1.5 and most likely actually be targeted for OpenGL 2.0.
Nope, that's not the case. The Intel Dev Kits were using Intel GMA 950 chips and supported Quartz Extreme, Core Image and OpenGL. Anything from a 900 up does.
There's also plenty of pirates on the OSX86Project forums asking which Intel 9xx series chipset motherboard they should buy to run their ripped off copies of OSX on.
Here are some diagrams from the Ars Technica review of Tiger.
This one shows how Quartz Extreme works:
And, this one shows Quartz 2D Extreme:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Do we really know this at all? I'm thinking that unless someone here works in Apple purchasing...the best we have is educated guesses.
It's been stated before. Intel's prices are well known. The prices for IBM and Freescale's chips are as well. Apple doesn't get special prices on any of this. It's purely sold, and priced, by volume. Since Apple isn't accepting co-op advertising rebates from Intel, they are, if anything, at a disadvantage to Intel's other customers who do.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Having an integrated graphics card does not fit the direction Apple is heading with Quartz. They are moving more and more of Quartz on to the graphics card, with the latest (Quartz 2D Extreme) being almost entirely on the card. The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme. Now the backing store would be back in main RAM, and has to compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. I highly doubt apple will move backwards from dedicated video memory that is already included with both the iBook and mini.
Here are some diagrams from the Ars Technica review of Tiger.
This one shows how Quartz Extreme works:
And, this one shows Quartz 2D Extreme:
And MS is doing exactly the same thing with Glass, in Vista. Not the exact same technology, of course, but close enough. Vista will have more daunting requirements for the full "experience" of Glass than Apple will have for all of it's forms of quartz.
Now, what I would like to see, and I'm fairly sure that most people here would like to see as well, is the resolution independent GUI that both Apple and MS are supposed to be working on.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving the drawing backing store into the video card memory. Integrated graphics totally negate the benefits of Quartz 2D Extreme.
The big deal of Quartz 2D Extreme is moving drawing onto the video card. Whether or not the card is integrated has nothing to do with that.
That said, I think that Apple will be pushing the mini as a media machine, and integrated cards really aren't good enough yet.