Wow, its so weird being back at AI. It's like good ol times again!
Anyway, the AI iMac LCD article was fine, until they threw in the SuperDrive part. GHz G3 or not, MPEG 2 encoding will crawl, unless there is some hardware accelerator, or IBM has put AltiVec on the G3 all of a sudden (which I doubt). The G3 makes sense too, especially for price concerns. A $999 LCD iMac G4 would probbaly not be very profitable for Apple, BUT, they may sell a sh!tload, and this would allow them to throw in the SuperDrive too, due to the G4's performance. This way, if the GHz G3 isn't ready by January, Apple could use the GHz Apollo and reserve the Ghz G3 to keep the iBook line up to speed come MWT in Feb, which would probably be more realistic in terms of IBM's current development.
I could be wrong tho,
If Apple went with the G4 (Apollo), costs would be more, but this would also POSSIBLY make the SuperDrive an option. I say possibly, because the increased price of the G4 could offset the price balance, and not leave room for a SuperDrive, therefor a GHz G3 would maximize profit. (If IBM has it ready to go)
Wow, I really think Steve is gonna do a hell of a show. Revolutionary G5s, and " "LCD iMacs.
[quote]Rumor? I think not Gorgonzola. Don't let the title go to your head. Don't forget the pain some has caused in the past just because they are nice now.<hr></blockquote>
I'm well aware of what I posted that day, and I still remember well, and better than everyone else here, that getting a new server (which was really all that was needed to get AI back up) was complete and utter hell.
However, as I posted, not everything has to do with Monish. When it does, I'm the first to point fingers, but he's not the one that needs to clear this article, so he's really irrelevant in this discussion. The only reason I took a harsh tone (in retrospect, an overly harsh tone, and I apologize) is because you were helpful, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea regarding the situation here because they thought you knew something -- because you did indeed know what was going on with AI before. I know because I emailed you all of it.
In short, Monish isn't involved with 99% of the day-to-day at AppleInsider, and most delays have almost nothing to do with him. There were definitely problems before, but as I said, he's become far more accessible in recent months, and I'm all for forgive-and-forget rather than hold-the-grudge-until-you-die.
Repeating again: I am well aware of what I posted before, however, my other post in this thread was about a change for the better in that regard.
In fact, let's take a look at the points I posted around four months ago:
[quote](1) Our new publishing system is nowhere to be found.
(2) Parts of the MacNN Network that are now obsolete have not been removed or cleaned up. Â*games.macnn.com is still here even though it's been discontinued.
(3) Reviews.macnn.com is also extremely old. Â*We've in fact *published some new reviews* (on Snapz Pro X, for one), but I don't see that on reviews.macnn.com, do you?
(4) The new comments system is the most minimal possible incarnation of what we've been discussing.
(5) Monish has still not paid for the t-shirts that we ordered from a MacNN forum member for MWNY, despite repeated badgering from both myself and said member.
(6) The successor to our forum server has not arrived despite its scheduled installation about a month and a half ago, and as a result, there's no place to put AI.<hr></blockquote>
(1) We've postponed our new publisher system, as we've redesigned parts of the network in ways that make it generally unnecessary.
(2) The network has been cleaned up, and games.macnn.com is no more, and is no longer linked to.
(3) Reviews.macnn.com is in the process of being redesigned; it's almost done.
(4) The news comments system was updated for some time, as you recall (when usernames showed up), but unfortunately that updated code was overwritten somehow -- we don't know how it happened -- when we were transitioning to our new main page design.
(5) We paid for the t-shirts.
(6) As you know, the forum server is here, and AI Forums and Rumors are back online. Publication will resume soon, which is where we are right now.
Also, two things that weren't on that list:
(7) MacNN.com was completely redesigned.
(8) OSX.MacNN.com was completely redesigned.
Holding grudges gets you nowhere. Don't throw that post of mine back at me out of context; I posted it, I haven't forgotten. But frankly, the situation is very different now, and although I remember what happened very well, I just don't want to keep harping on it, and I don't see why you need to either.
Whoa, I agree. I have no idea where Gorgonzola'a anger derives from. I am not going to even bother answering that. Glad things are better here for you..whoa, relax.
Anyway. The whole "Apollo may be called the G5" debate that is going on may be because the "real" G5 isn't ready and Apple needs to move the consumer line to the G4. Intel has killed the Pentium III, moving on to the Pentium4 and Itanium full time. Apple needs to answer this by killing the G3. Therefore I think the next iMac will have a G4. But what will Apple do as far as speeds? They cannot take a step back by saying that even though it's slower it's a G4 so therefore it's faster. That would go over as well as the "Two brains are better than one" campaign.
<strong>Wow, its so weird being back at AI. It's like good ol times again!
Anyway, the AI iMac LCD article was fine, until they threw in the SuperDrive part. GHz G3 or not, MPEG 2 encoding will crawl, unless there is some hardware accelerator, or IBM has put AltiVec on the G3 all of a sudden (which I doubt). The G3 makes sense too, especially for price concerns. A $999 LCD iMac G4 would probbaly not be very profitable for Apple, BUT, they may sell a sh!tload, and this would allow them to throw in the SuperDrive too, due to the G4's performance. This way, if the GHz G3 isn't ready by January, Apple could use the GHz Apollo and reserve the Ghz G3 to keep the iBook line up to speed come MWT in Feb, which would probably be more realistic in terms of IBM's current development.
how can you say this? how can you know? I don't see any reason why any G3 above 700Mhz should have a problem with MPEG 2 encoding. Especially at the bitrate Apple uses.
- what about the OS? Development of Software costs money. It has to be earned by hardware-sales.
- what about a profit?
Forget about anything cheaper than $999</strong><hr></blockquote>
R&D- covered by quarterly revenue. R&D doesn't go into the cost of the machine. it's already paid for
Casing- could be expensive. no idea what it costs for Apple's cases.
Keyboard/Mouse- that's got to be about 20 bucks maybe
OS development- covered by profit on machine. it doesn't go into the cost.
profit? not sure what you mean.
the prices I listed were what I thought cost for Apple would be, not prices. I have said I don't expect an LCD imac below 1299. In fact I have said that they will go with a single LCD iMac at 1299.
R&D- covered by quarterly revenue. R&D doesn't go into the cost of the machine. it's already paid for
Casing- could be expensive. no idea what it costs for Apple's cases.
Keyboard/Mouse- that's got to be about 20 bucks maybe
OS development- covered by profit on machine. it doesn't go into the cost.
profit? not sure what you mean.
the prices I listed were what I thought cost for Apple would be, not prices. I have said I don't expect an LCD imac below 1299. In fact I have said that they will go with a single LCD iMac at 1299.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes applenut's case even stronger is that you forget that Apple has sold thousands upon thousands of OSX copies at $129 and $69 for retail full versions (69 for the education discount---ha). They also have shipped a google of upgrade CD's, haven't they. Let's see, about 47 cents to make the CD and about $2.00 to ship it. Hmmmm...a little profit there. That should cover R&D.
<strong>yeah and it didn't cost them a ****ing cent to actually DEVELOP OSX did it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
development R/D costs are covered by revenue from hardware. Apple wasn't selling Mac OS X for the three years it was in development but yet they funded the development. Software like Mac OS X just rakes in profit.
BTW,
this just in.
next iMac will have a G4 at MWSF
PowerMac G5 is making its debut at MWSF
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.
development R/D costs are covered by revenue from hardware. Apple wasn't selling Mac OS X for the three years it was in development but yet they funded the development. Software like Mac OS X just rakes in profit.
BTW,
this just in.
next iMac will have a G4 at MWSF
PowerMac G5 is making its debut at MWSF
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're the first "normal" (ie: non Junkyard Dawg) person to say something like that.
I REALLY hope you're right.
To still get to have a cool all-in-one like the iMac, BUT with a larger screen and a G4 would just be a complete, GREAT computer.
I'm trying not to get torqued up (so I won't be let down or bummed at any unveilings NOT up to snuff), but I have to admit: the past few days, I've been getting really antsy.
I just got - totally out of the blue - a Christmas bonus check last week that was THREE TIMES the amount it's been for the past three years! I'm pretty much "there" now in my "get a new Mac fund...", so for the first time EVER, I'm actually going to have the ability to buy a new, SIGNIFICANTLY different Mac immediately following a Macworld Expo...if I choose to do so.
Up until about a week or so ago, I'd had my heart completely set on an iBook and that was just going to be the way it was.
But if all this talk of a new iMac is true (and the specs are reasonably accurate), I may just stick with a desktop and get another iMac...ESPECIALLY if 'nut's comments above are correct.
I know someone who deals directly with Apple for very large orders... can't get more specific than that. sorry.
Now he has been right in the past. he never knows the details but he usually always finds out what products are being updated and what the major change will be.
Hope he's right. Based on the past I would say he is
<strong>R&D- covered by quarterly revenue. R&D doesn't go into the cost of the machine. it's already paid for
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, makes sense. Hardware R&D money comes from quarterly revenue. Cool. Wait, where's quarterly revenue come from?
[quote] Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>What makes applenut's case even stronger is that you forget that Apple has sold thousands upon thousands of OSX copies at $129 and $69 for retail full versions (69 for the education discount---ha). They also have shipped a google of upgrade CD's, haven't they. Let's see, about 47 cents to make the CD and about $2.00 to ship it. Hmmmm...a little profit there. That should cover R&D.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh! I get it! Quarterly revenue comes from software! Wait, but as Murbot pointed out, what about the R&D for software? Where's that come from?
[quote] Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>development R/D costs are covered by revenue from hardware.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course! It's so simple! Software R&D money comes from hardware!
So, in conclusion, no R&D costs are built into hardware prices. Software pays for hardware R&D, and hardware pays for software R&D, except when R&D costs aren't built into hardware prices, which is always. Therefore, Apple R&D doesn't exist.
Thanks for clearing that up, guys. Clear as an unmuddied lake.
Comments
Anyway, the AI iMac LCD article was fine, until they threw in the SuperDrive part. GHz G3 or not, MPEG 2 encoding will crawl, unless there is some hardware accelerator, or IBM has put AltiVec on the G3 all of a sudden (which I doubt). The G3 makes sense too, especially for price concerns. A $999 LCD iMac G4 would probbaly not be very profitable for Apple, BUT, they may sell a sh!tload, and this would allow them to throw in the SuperDrive too, due to the G4's performance. This way, if the GHz G3 isn't ready by January, Apple could use the GHz Apollo and reserve the Ghz G3 to keep the iBook line up to speed come MWT in Feb, which would probably be more realistic in terms of IBM's current development.
I could be wrong tho,
If Apple went with the G4 (Apollo), costs would be more, but this would also POSSIBLY make the SuperDrive an option. I say possibly, because the increased price of the G4 could offset the price balance, and not leave room for a SuperDrive, therefor a GHz G3 would maximize profit. (If IBM has it ready to go)
Wow, I really think Steve is gonna do a hell of a show. Revolutionary G5s, and " "LCD iMacs.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Tarbash ]</p>
I'm well aware of what I posted that day, and I still remember well, and better than everyone else here, that getting a new server (which was really all that was needed to get AI back up) was complete and utter hell.
However, as I posted, not everything has to do with Monish. When it does, I'm the first to point fingers, but he's not the one that needs to clear this article, so he's really irrelevant in this discussion. The only reason I took a harsh tone (in retrospect, an overly harsh tone, and I apologize) is because you were helpful, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea regarding the situation here because they thought you knew something -- because you did indeed know what was going on with AI before. I know because I emailed you all of it.
In short, Monish isn't involved with 99% of the day-to-day at AppleInsider, and most delays have almost nothing to do with him. There were definitely problems before, but as I said, he's become far more accessible in recent months, and I'm all for forgive-and-forget rather than hold-the-grudge-until-you-die.
Repeating again: I am well aware of what I posted before, however, my other post in this thread was about a change for the better in that regard.
In fact, let's take a look at the points I posted around four months ago:
[quote](1) Our new publishing system is nowhere to be found.
(2) Parts of the MacNN Network that are now obsolete have not been removed or cleaned up. Â*games.macnn.com is still here even though it's been discontinued.
(3) Reviews.macnn.com is also extremely old. Â*We've in fact *published some new reviews* (on Snapz Pro X, for one), but I don't see that on reviews.macnn.com, do you?
(4) The new comments system is the most minimal possible incarnation of what we've been discussing.
(5) Monish has still not paid for the t-shirts that we ordered from a MacNN forum member for MWNY, despite repeated badgering from both myself and said member.
(6) The successor to our forum server has not arrived despite its scheduled installation about a month and a half ago, and as a result, there's no place to put AI.<hr></blockquote>
(1) We've postponed our new publisher system, as we've redesigned parts of the network in ways that make it generally unnecessary.
(2) The network has been cleaned up, and games.macnn.com is no more, and is no longer linked to.
(3) Reviews.macnn.com is in the process of being redesigned; it's almost done.
(4) The news comments system was updated for some time, as you recall (when usernames showed up), but unfortunately that updated code was overwritten somehow -- we don't know how it happened -- when we were transitioning to our new main page design.
(5) We paid for the t-shirts.
(6) As you know, the forum server is here, and AI Forums and Rumors are back online. Publication will resume soon, which is where we are right now.
Also, two things that weren't on that list:
(7) MacNN.com was completely redesigned.
(8) OSX.MacNN.com was completely redesigned.
Holding grudges gets you nowhere. Don't throw that post of mine back at me out of context; I posted it, I haven't forgotten. But frankly, the situation is very different now, and although I remember what happened very well, I just don't want to keep harping on it, and I don't see why you need to either.
You have it all back now. What more do you need?
Anyway. The whole "Apollo may be called the G5" debate that is going on may be because the "real" G5 isn't ready and Apple needs to move the consumer line to the G4. Intel has killed the Pentium III, moving on to the Pentium4 and Itanium full time. Apple needs to answer this by killing the G3. Therefore I think the next iMac will have a G4. But what will Apple do as far as speeds? They cannot take a step back by saying that even though it's slower it's a G4 so therefore it's faster. That would go over as well as the "Two brains are better than one" campaign.
Better find Leonis and borrow his Enya or something...
Back to topic!
<strong>Wow, its so weird being back at AI. It's like good ol times again!
Anyway, the AI iMac LCD article was fine, until they threw in the SuperDrive part. GHz G3 or not, MPEG 2 encoding will crawl, unless there is some hardware accelerator, or IBM has put AltiVec on the G3 all of a sudden (which I doubt). The G3 makes sense too, especially for price concerns. A $999 LCD iMac G4 would probbaly not be very profitable for Apple, BUT, they may sell a sh!tload, and this would allow them to throw in the SuperDrive too, due to the G4's performance. This way, if the GHz G3 isn't ready by January, Apple could use the GHz Apollo and reserve the Ghz G3 to keep the iBook line up to speed come MWT in Feb, which would probably be more realistic in terms of IBM's current development.
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Tarbash ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
how can you say this? how can you know? I don't see any reason why any G3 above 700Mhz should have a problem with MPEG 2 encoding. Especially at the bitrate Apple uses.
Nevermind a 1Ghz G3.
[quote]
1.) that mac does not cost 2500 right now. [..]
15 inch LCD- 200-300 dollars
733 Mhz G4- 150-200 dollars I would imagine
256 MB RAM- 20 dollars
60 GB HD- 80 dollars
Motherboard with nVidia graphics- 75 dollars
Superdrive- 300-350 dollars
$at the lowend of the price range that would cost $825 high end estimate $1025<hr></blockquote>
- what about R&D
- what about the Casing?
- what about keyboard, mouse etc.?
- what about the OS? Development of Software costs money. It has to be earned by hardware-sales.
- what about a profit?
Forget about anything cheaper than $999
<strong>Originally posted by applenut:
- what about R&D
- what about the Casing?
- what about keyboard, mouse etc.?
- what about the OS? Development of Software costs money. It has to be earned by hardware-sales.
- what about a profit?
Forget about anything cheaper than $999</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a good point, but if Apple would maybe cut they're profit down just a drop then there would be a chance.
Won't happen.
(please prove me wrong Steve)
<strong>Originally posted by applenut:
- what about R&D
- what about the Casing?
- what about keyboard, mouse etc.?
- what about the OS? Development of Software costs money. It has to be earned by hardware-sales.
- what about a profit?
Forget about anything cheaper than $999</strong><hr></blockquote>
R&D- covered by quarterly revenue. R&D doesn't go into the cost of the machine. it's already paid for
Casing- could be expensive. no idea what it costs for Apple's cases.
Keyboard/Mouse- that's got to be about 20 bucks maybe
OS development- covered by profit on machine. it doesn't go into the cost.
profit? not sure what you mean.
the prices I listed were what I thought cost for Apple would be, not prices. I have said I don't expect an LCD imac below 1299. In fact I have said that they will go with a single LCD iMac at 1299.
<strong>
R&D- covered by quarterly revenue. R&D doesn't go into the cost of the machine. it's already paid for
Casing- could be expensive. no idea what it costs for Apple's cases.
Keyboard/Mouse- that's got to be about 20 bucks maybe
OS development- covered by profit on machine. it doesn't go into the cost.
profit? not sure what you mean.
the prices I listed were what I thought cost for Apple would be, not prices. I have said I don't expect an LCD imac below 1299. In fact I have said that they will go with a single LCD iMac at 1299.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes applenut's case even stronger is that you forget that Apple has sold thousands upon thousands of OSX copies at $129 and $69 for retail full versions (69 for the education discount---ha). They also have shipped a google of upgrade CD's, haven't they. Let's see, about 47 cents to make the CD and about $2.00 to ship it. Hmmmm...a little profit there. That should cover R&D.
<strong>yeah and it didn't cost them a ****ing cent to actually DEVELOP OSX did it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
development R/D costs are covered by revenue from hardware. Apple wasn't selling Mac OS X for the three years it was in development but yet they funded the development. Software like Mac OS X just rakes in profit.
BTW,
this just in.
next iMac will have a G4 at MWSF
PowerMac G5 is making its debut at MWSF
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.
<strong>
BTW,
this just in.
next iMac will have a G4 at MWSF
PowerMac G5 is making its debut at MWSF
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
HEY!! That's not funny if you are being sarcastic!! Is it true? Where did you here it from? Please don't play with my gentle PM emotions
<strong>
development R/D costs are covered by revenue from hardware. Apple wasn't selling Mac OS X for the three years it was in development but yet they funded the development. Software like Mac OS X just rakes in profit.
BTW,
this just in.
next iMac will have a G4 at MWSF
PowerMac G5 is making its debut at MWSF
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wanna tell us more?
<strong>BTW,
this just in.
next iMac will have a G4 at MWSF
PowerMac G5 is making its debut at MWSF
this is seriously coming from a relatively reliable source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're the first "normal" (ie: non Junkyard Dawg) person to say something like that.
I REALLY hope you're right.
To still get to have a cool all-in-one like the iMac, BUT with a larger screen and a G4 would just be a complete, GREAT computer.
I'm trying not to get torqued up (so I won't be let down or bummed at any unveilings NOT up to snuff), but I have to admit: the past few days, I've been getting really antsy.
I just got - totally out of the blue - a Christmas bonus check last week that was THREE TIMES the amount it's been for the past three years! I'm pretty much "there" now in my "get a new Mac fund...", so for the first time EVER, I'm actually going to have the ability to buy a new, SIGNIFICANTLY different Mac immediately following a Macworld Expo...if I choose to do so.
Up until about a week or so ago, I'd had my heart completely set on an iBook and that was just going to be the way it was.
But if all this talk of a new iMac is true (and the specs are reasonably accurate), I may just stick with a desktop and get another iMac...ESPECIALLY if 'nut's comments above are correct.
That kinda makes it easy.
Now he has been right in the past. he never knows the details but he usually always finds out what products are being updated and what the major change will be.
Hope he's right. Based on the past I would say he is
<strong>R&D- covered by quarterly revenue. R&D doesn't go into the cost of the machine. it's already paid for
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, makes sense. Hardware R&D money comes from quarterly revenue. Cool. Wait, where's quarterly revenue come from?
[quote] Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>What makes applenut's case even stronger is that you forget that Apple has sold thousands upon thousands of OSX copies at $129 and $69 for retail full versions (69 for the education discount---ha). They also have shipped a google of upgrade CD's, haven't they. Let's see, about 47 cents to make the CD and about $2.00 to ship it. Hmmmm...a little profit there. That should cover R&D.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh! I get it! Quarterly revenue comes from software! Wait, but as Murbot pointed out, what about the R&D for software? Where's that come from?
[quote] Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>development R/D costs are covered by revenue from hardware.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course! It's so simple! Software R&D money comes from hardware!
So, in conclusion, no R&D costs are built into hardware prices. Software pays for hardware R&D, and hardware pays for software R&D, except when R&D costs aren't built into hardware prices, which is always. Therefore, Apple R&D doesn't exist.
Thanks for clearing that up, guys. Clear as an unmuddied lake.
G6 at MWSF!!
-mithral
New iMac has a G4, but does it get an LCD? and what size hopefully 15"
I assume there's no chance it will be more than 1024x768 resolution?
-'pert