That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
Apple can ask for help like most others and Intel will provide board design, services. This was different with Moto and IBM, to ask cost lots of money.
I'm failing to see why apple would want to stall a cpu manufacturer from releasing a cpu? What would prevent apple from not being ready? I can kind of see it with IBM / Freescale since apple made the motherboards... but now intel is making the boards... So what would they stall for?
It's pretty well known how Apple punishes manufacturers for announcing before they want to do so. The apparently just did it again with Samsung.
Apple has always had their own schedule. But now they can't do it. when Apple used most of IBM's G5's, they could do it. The same thing with Moto and Freescale. If the cpu was ready, but Apple wasn't, the announcement would wait. This isn't exactly news.
Apple can ask for help like most others and Intel will provide board design, services. This was different with Moto and IBM, to ask cost lots of money.
It isn't so much Apple needing help, as it is Apple wanting to intro products, and the parts that go into them, on their own schedule.
How many discussions have we had over Steve waiting to intro a product when he wants to.
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
My guess would be that because the iMac and the Mini are such relatively unique machines, they can hold off updating them a little longer therby increasing their margins without appreciably loosing sales.
My guess would be that because the iMac and the Mini are such relatively unique machines, they can hold off updating them a little longer therby increasing their margins without appreciably loosing sales.
That doesn't really make sense. Apple's margins are fine with these machines. The small increase would not be appreciable. The loss in sales could be. The Mini sell well, but not great. The iMac is Apples leading consumer/prosumer machine on the sesktop. People will wait. What for? And as we get closer to Merom, even more people will wait. This doesn't help the bottom line one bit. The faster the chip, the better Rosetta works. This is holding up some sales as well.
It all matters. Apple makes decisions, and they aren't always good ones.
That doesn't really make sense. Apple's margins are fine with these machines. The small increase would not be appreciable. The loss in sales could be. The Mini sell well, but not great. The iMac is Apples leading consumer/prosumer machine on the sesktop. People will wait. What for? And as we get closer to Merom, even more people will wait. This doesn't help the bottom line one bit. The faster the chip, the better Rosetta works. This is holding up some sales as well.
It all matters. Apple makes decisions, and they aren't always good ones.
I absolutley agree apple doesn't always make good decisions, but we simply don't have the information to know which side of the tetter totter waiting a little longer to upgrade for the purpose of better margins vs. potential loss of sales the situation lies.
I was just presenting what Apple's logic may be. I'm not saying it's correct. I've got no clue
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.
Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.
Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.
Vinea
Yeah I know. I was thinking about getting one as a second computer. BUt I'm waiting on a Media center and a tablet, because I would rather buy both of those and a new PowerMac/Mac Pro than a second PC.
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.
Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.
Apple has always made a big play of comparing their new top of the line machine against the old top of the line machine. We're all used to seeing the bar graphs on the Apple site.
The intel based iMacs, MBPro and MBs all leave their predecessors standing, but part of this is due to the fact they featured a second core, and significantly faster front side buses.
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores ? so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
Apple has always made a big play of comparing their new top of the line machine against the old top of the line machine. We're all used to seeing the bar graphs on the Apple site.
The intel based iMacs, MBPro and MBs all leave their predecessors standing, but part of this is due to the fact they featured a second core, and significantly faster front side buses.
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores ? so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
I don't think that there will be any question that the new Mac Pro's will be faster than the G5 models they replace.
The Conroe's will be better performers, and the Woodcrests, if Apple will use them, will be better yet.
We don't know what Apple intends, but if they can go to a 3GHz dual socket Woodcrest design for the top model, the present Quad will definitely be eclipsed.
I was going to buy a Quad in January, but decided to wait. At the very least, of course, the new machines will be the way to go, simply because they are what Apple will be supporting.
And, the likelyhood that we MIGHT be able to replace the chips the machine will initially come with, with faster ones a year or so down the road, is very appealing. It's something many of us had valued over the years, in our towers, but lost when the G5's came out. Consider that possibility as well.
First off, Woodcrest can be used in dualcore SMP. I read it somewhere. And second off, so far Intel has been so ridiculously faster than PowerPC so far that even the Quad will be eclipsed.
If they solder the processors in there like they do with the laptops, i'm going to flip. Wait...all desktop processors use LGA 775. I think we're going to be able to upgrade Pro Intel Macs!
With Boot Camp the new intel PM could be crazy delicious for gaming
Yeah, that's why I'm holding out.
It's really pretty much similar to buying any other boutique gaming PC such as FalconNW or Alienware; you pay more, you get a slick case and fast hardware.
Let's just hope that they dont' intentionally cripple the ability to install PC components. I want in particular to be able to install any GPU I darned well please.
(No, this doesn't require a bunch of Mac OS X drivers, since most hardware has a VESA fallback mode that any operating system can use without custom drivers.)
It's really pretty much similar to buying any other boutique gaming PC such as FalconNW or Alienware; you pay more, you get a slick case and fast hardware.
Let's just hope that they dont' intentionally cripple the ability to install PC components. I want in particular to be able to install any GPU I darned well please.
(No, this doesn't require a bunch of Mac OS X drivers, since most hardware has a VESA fallback mode that any operating system can use without custom drivers.)
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
The iMac is considered to be a decent gaming machine now. A faster graphics board would be of more value there.
Analysts also stated that mini sales were stronger than expected. Since the mini was an outperformer the last go around what makes you STILL run around claiming that the mini is suffering in some nebulous way? "well but not great".
Because you still can't admit you were wrong about the mini?
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores – so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
Woodcrest has twice the performance of the 970MP (in some benchmarks, which is good enough for Apple to claim "2X!").
If they solder the processors in there like they do with the laptops, i'm going to flip. Wait...all desktop processors use LGA 775. I think we're going to be able to upgrade Pro Intel Macs!
Sorry to spoil your fun, but the chips you'll want to upgrade to are going to be either higher speed Woodcrests (which'll work), or the eventual quad-core chips. The problem is that without an updated motherboard, you'll have 4 cores on a bus designed for 2, and sloppy performance will ensue. That's not to say that it won't be a boost, but it will be limited by the bus speed when you talk about 6-8 core machines in a 4-core motherboard.
Analysts also stated that mini sales were stronger than expected. Since the mini was an outperformer the last go around what makes you STILL run around claiming that the mini is suffering in some nebulous way? "well but not great".
Because you still can't admit you were wrong about the mini?
And why does Amazon prove nothing?
Vinea
Stronger than expected, which I also noted a while back, doesn't mean great. It means just what it says.
I wasn't wrong about the Mini.
Because amazon's sales have meaning only for Amazon. The obviously fairly small number of people who buy computers from them are not the average computer buyer.
Going by Amazon's lists, someone who didn't know better, would think that Apple had a 60% marketshare, and sold 50 million machines a year.
Since we know that Apple's marketshare is about 4%, that isn't correct.
How Amazons sales relate to the industry's, is pretty obvious: it's extemely skewed. Therefore any of their numbers are automatically suspect in the way they relate to overall sales, for Apple, as well as for everyone else.
As you pointed out, Dell isn't sold there. How many other manufacturers aren't sold there? And what are the percentages of sales for each model?
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
Apple can ask for help like most others and Intel will provide board design, services. This was different with Moto and IBM, to ask cost lots of money.
Originally posted by emig647
I'm failing to see why apple would want to stall a cpu manufacturer from releasing a cpu? What would prevent apple from not being ready? I can kind of see it with IBM / Freescale since apple made the motherboards... but now intel is making the boards... So what would they stall for?
It's pretty well known how Apple punishes manufacturers for announcing before they want to do so. The apparently just did it again with Samsung.
Apple has always had their own schedule. But now they can't do it. when Apple used most of IBM's G5's, they could do it. The same thing with Moto and Freescale. If the cpu was ready, but Apple wasn't, the announcement would wait. This isn't exactly news.
Originally posted by Brendon
Apple can ask for help like most others and Intel will provide board design, services. This was different with Moto and IBM, to ask cost lots of money.
It isn't so much Apple needing help, as it is Apple wanting to intro products, and the parts that go into them, on their own schedule.
How many discussions have we had over Steve waiting to intro a product when he wants to.
Originally posted by melgross
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
My guess would be that because the iMac and the Mini are such relatively unique machines, they can hold off updating them a little longer therby increasing their margins without appreciably loosing sales.
Originally posted by Flounder
My guess would be that because the iMac and the Mini are such relatively unique machines, they can hold off updating them a little longer therby increasing their margins without appreciably loosing sales.
That doesn't really make sense. Apple's margins are fine with these machines. The small increase would not be appreciable. The loss in sales could be. The Mini sell well, but not great. The iMac is Apples leading consumer/prosumer machine on the sesktop. People will wait. What for? And as we get closer to Merom, even more people will wait. This doesn't help the bottom line one bit. The faster the chip, the better Rosetta works. This is holding up some sales as well.
It all matters. Apple makes decisions, and they aren't always good ones.
Originally posted by melgross
That doesn't really make sense. Apple's margins are fine with these machines. The small increase would not be appreciable. The loss in sales could be. The Mini sell well, but not great. The iMac is Apples leading consumer/prosumer machine on the sesktop. People will wait. What for? And as we get closer to Merom, even more people will wait. This doesn't help the bottom line one bit. The faster the chip, the better Rosetta works. This is holding up some sales as well.
It all matters. Apple makes decisions, and they aren't always good ones.
I absolutley agree apple doesn't always make good decisions, but we simply don't have the information to know which side of the tetter totter waiting a little longer to upgrade for the purpose of better margins vs. potential loss of sales the situation lies.
I was just presenting what Apple's logic may be. I'm not saying it's correct. I've got no clue
Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.
Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.
Vinea
Yeah I know. I was thinking about getting one as a second computer. BUt I'm waiting on a Media center and a tablet, because I would rather buy both of those and a new PowerMac/Mac Pro than a second PC.
Originally posted by vinea
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.
Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.
Vinea
Forget about Amazon. That proves nothing.
Apple has always made a big play of comparing their new top of the line machine against the old top of the line machine. We're all used to seeing the bar graphs on the Apple site.
The intel based iMacs, MBPro and MBs all leave their predecessors standing, but part of this is due to the fact they featured a second core, and significantly faster front side buses.
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores ? so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
Originally posted by Messiah
Is the Mac Pro going to be faster than a Quad?
Apple has always made a big play of comparing their new top of the line machine against the old top of the line machine. We're all used to seeing the bar graphs on the Apple site.
The intel based iMacs, MBPro and MBs all leave their predecessors standing, but part of this is due to the fact they featured a second core, and significantly faster front side buses.
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores ? so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
I don't think that there will be any question that the new Mac Pro's will be faster than the G5 models they replace.
The Conroe's will be better performers, and the Woodcrests, if Apple will use them, will be better yet.
We don't know what Apple intends, but if they can go to a 3GHz dual socket Woodcrest design for the top model, the present Quad will definitely be eclipsed.
I was going to buy a Quad in January, but decided to wait. At the very least, of course, the new machines will be the way to go, simply because they are what Apple will be supporting.
And, the likelyhood that we MIGHT be able to replace the chips the machine will initially come with, with faster ones a year or so down the road, is very appealing. It's something many of us had valued over the years, in our towers, but lost when the G5's came out. Consider that possibility as well.
Originally posted by icfireball
With Boot Camp the new intel PM could be crazy delicious for gaming
Yeah, that's why I'm holding out.
It's really pretty much similar to buying any other boutique gaming PC such as FalconNW or Alienware; you pay more, you get a slick case and fast hardware.
Let's just hope that they dont' intentionally cripple the ability to install PC components. I want in particular to be able to install any GPU I darned well please.
(No, this doesn't require a bunch of Mac OS X drivers, since most hardware has a VESA fallback mode that any operating system can use without custom drivers.)
Originally posted by Placebo
Yeah, that's why I'm holding out.
It's really pretty much similar to buying any other boutique gaming PC such as FalconNW or Alienware; you pay more, you get a slick case and fast hardware.
Let's just hope that they dont' intentionally cripple the ability to install PC components. I want in particular to be able to install any GPU I darned well please.
(No, this doesn't require a bunch of Mac OS X drivers, since most hardware has a VESA fallback mode that any operating system can use without custom drivers.)
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
The iMac is considered to be a decent gaming machine now. A faster graphics board would be of more value there.
Originally posted by melgross
Forget about Amazon. That proves nothing.
Analysts also stated that mini sales were stronger than expected. Since the mini was an outperformer the last go around what makes you STILL run around claiming that the mini is suffering in some nebulous way? "well but not great".
Because you still can't admit you were wrong about the mini?
And why does Amazon prove nothing?
Vinea
Originally posted by Messiah
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores – so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
Woodcrest has twice the performance of the 970MP (in some benchmarks, which is good enough for Apple to claim "2X!").
Originally posted by theapplegenius
If they solder the processors in there like they do with the laptops, i'm going to flip. Wait...all desktop processors use LGA 775. I think we're going to be able to upgrade Pro Intel Macs!
Sorry to spoil your fun, but the chips you'll want to upgrade to are going to be either higher speed Woodcrests (which'll work), or the eventual quad-core chips. The problem is that without an updated motherboard, you'll have 4 cores on a bus designed for 2, and sloppy performance will ensue. That's not to say that it won't be a boost, but it will be limited by the bus speed when you talk about 6-8 core machines in a 4-core motherboard.
Originally posted by vinea
Analysts also stated that mini sales were stronger than expected. Since the mini was an outperformer the last go around what makes you STILL run around claiming that the mini is suffering in some nebulous way? "well but not great".
Because you still can't admit you were wrong about the mini?
And why does Amazon prove nothing?
Vinea
Stronger than expected, which I also noted a while back, doesn't mean great. It means just what it says.
I wasn't wrong about the Mini.
Because amazon's sales have meaning only for Amazon. The obviously fairly small number of people who buy computers from them are not the average computer buyer.
Going by Amazon's lists, someone who didn't know better, would think that Apple had a 60% marketshare, and sold 50 million machines a year.
Since we know that Apple's marketshare is about 4%, that isn't correct.
How Amazons sales relate to the industry's, is pretty obvious: it's extemely skewed. Therefore any of their numbers are automatically suspect in the way they relate to overall sales, for Apple, as well as for everyone else.
As you pointed out, Dell isn't sold there. How many other manufacturers aren't sold there? And what are the percentages of sales for each model?