Reposting from the bottom of page 4 so it doesn't get buried:
Mac Rumors says G5s only prototypes now, prices higher.
"Recent information suggests that the machines will not see full availability until at least August. In fact, machines are said to be in prototype form at this time. The new machines are also said to be at higher price points than the towers they are replacing."
I still think we'll be able to order them starting tomorrow as per the Apple Store leak. What's in the boxes then?
Expect the price on the G5 to go up, not down. Not by a huge amount, but it will go up. However the long term ROI (Return On Investment) will be greater as well.
As far as reliability, all I will say is that my two Macs with OS-X have ran day in and day out 24/7 with never a problem for 15 months now. My 4 PC's require constant daily monitoring, because I never know when one or more of them will just "quit". The Macs have had "zero" cost for maintenence and repair. Service and repair on the 4 PC's has already come to over $1000 (total for all four) over the course of the last year, a major portion of that for "parts" and the rest for paid labor. Add to that my time spent fixing them as well.
The simple fact is with computers or any other product, Quality usually comes with a higher up front cost, but a lower cost of total ownership. It isn't so much a question of how much you spend, but rather when you spend it.
On another note, i went to a BMW dealer and told the salesman WTF? If Ford can make Ford tempos for less money why can't you drop the price of your 325i?\
Actually, that's quite a good comparison! I'm in the car development business myself and what BMW does is very similar to the Apple attitude.
What most people don't know is that the BMW (especially the 3series) is Germany's second most produced car behind the VW Golf (or Rabbit I believe in the States...).
They have a fantastic marketing tool though which gives people the impression that when you buy a BMW, you buy something special and as such they're able to convince them to pay 30% more for their quality product (car) than a competitor's...
On the other hand, it's true that a BMW is better build than most competitors. Why? Because they use 3 fixing clips where a Ford uses 2, because they use 5 bolts where anyone else uses 4. This makes their car 5% more expesive to produce, on the other hand they can sell it for 30% more!
This is exactly what Apple does. Well thought out computers with a production quality better than others... Costs about 5% more to produce but they can sell them with 30% more profit...
If we're to see a single processor 1.6 G5 at $1699, Apple will be once again laughed off by not only the media, but the public at large.
The perception will be that it's still slower than a 3.2GHz P4. Even if it is equivalent in performance, it's price can't compete.
It's time for Apple to make a stand. Innovate yes, but what good is that if you can make it affordable to the masses (many consumers who'd like a tower vs. AIO).
Fellas, don't be shocked when Apple charges a premium - like they always have. Here are the prices:
1.6 - $1599*
1.8 - $2599
2.0 Dual - $3499
* The 1.6 970 will have a Combo Drive,capacity for only 4GB of RAM, a lesser video card and no PCI-X.
Let's not condemn Apple's pricing until we've seen the benchmarks.
Superdrive acroos the board. and why only 4gb? doesn't make sense. I thought pci-x was backword compatible. Wouldn't it be more expensive for apple to use 2 different motherboards?
Quote:
Originally posted by satchmo
If we're to see a single processor 1.6 G5 at $1699, Apple will be once again laughed off by not only the media, but the public at large.
The perception will be that it's still slower than a 3.2GHz P4. Even if it is equivalent in performance, it's price can't compete.
It's time for Apple to make a stand. Innovate yes, but what good is that if you can make it affordable to the masses (many consumers who'd like a tower vs. AIO).
Not if apple markets the fact this a processor in a league of its own cause its 64bits. Frankly the professionals who would be buying this will look at benchmarks.
[B]Superdrive acroos the board. and why only 4gb? doesn't make sense. I thought pci-x was backword compatible. Wouldn't it be more expensive for apple to use 2 different motherboards?
Reading the specs at the Apple Store - "Up to 8GB of DDR SDRAM", "Three PCI or PCI-X expansion slots" - leads me to believe there will be two motherboards. I believe that Apple wants to release a cheap low-end PM box, but doesn't want it to compete with its more expensive offerings - this behavior is not new, Apple has done just this a number of times in the past - hobble the low end so buyers will go for the more expensive boxes.
" This is intensely flawed methodology because a "business" mac invariable refers to a creative pro's station while a "business" PC refers to a whole gamut of machines, the majority being Office machines.
Creative pros tend to understand their HW/SF, and to think before they act, Office monkeys tend not to understand anything, and act before they think."
Matsu, unfortunately, this is not always true.
As a consultant, I have met just as many "creative pros" who ONLY understand their favored App and have little or no interest in the OS or other apps like disk utilities, antivirus, etc.
Yes, some pros have an interest in learning and mastering their Macs, but in many, many work environments the attitude is "Hey, I use PhotoShop/Quark/Freehand/Whatever, I'm not supposed to know how to fix my Mac."
Years ago, maybe 1 in 10 didn't care, now that number is higher, about 7 in 10 in my practice.
That's why I get paid $80-$120 per hour. I honestly wish they would do the maintenance themselves - they should, but they choose to have me do it. My good luck, I guess.
As a consultant, I have met just as many "creative pros" who ONLY understand their favored App and have little or no interest in the OS or other apps like disk utilities, antivirus, etc.
Yes, some pros have an interest in learning and mastering their Macs, but in many, many work environments the attitude is "Hey, I use PhotoShop/Quark/Freehand/Whatever, I'm not supposed to know how to fix my Mac."
Is it fair to say that the new low-end G5 will be faster than the current high-end G4?
Good Question.
If there is the ProSumer model or the headless iMac that is faster than the current high end G4 but proced just above the current low end then, I think Apple will sell them by the bucket load.
Do we have any benchmarks for the 1.6 as opposed to the Dual 1.42 g4?
that's my thinking. here's why please correct if i seem off base:
factoid: a 970 will run at least twice the speed as a g4 at the same speed.
a the "lowend" 970 will be (let's assume leak was accurate) 1.6hgz
which would then translate into a 3.2 ghz g4. current high end g4 is dual 1.42 (let's call it a 2.8ghz g4 even though we know through put is not the same) for $2700
if the lowend g5 is $1800
then by tommorrow you will get a machine that is faster then the fastest mac you can buy TODAY for a $900 price drop.
and as you move up to a dual 2ghz you will be getting the eqivilant of a 8ghz g4 for around the same price as a dual 1.42 g4
frelling scary, a price drop and performance gain that would satisfy (ALMOST*) anyone!
*But don't worry folks there will still be complainers come monday!
If there is the ProSumer model or the headless iMac that is faster than the current high end G4 but proced just above the current low end then, I think Apple will sell them by the bucket load.
Do we have any benchmarks for the 1.6 as opposed to the Dual 1.42 g4?
IBM has stated (the PDF is somewhere in IBM's site) that the PPC970 runs almost twice as fast as the similarly clocked G4.....so the 1.6GHz 970 would beat dual 1.42GHz G4 (don't forget the G4 is bandwidth limited and the dual only gains 50%) for sure
If there is the ProSumer model or the headless iMac that is faster than the current high end G4 but proced just above the current low end then, I think Apple will sell them by the bucket load.
Do we have any benchmarks for the 1.6 as opposed to the Dual 1.42 g4?
No they won't, not unless they either cut the iMac line or push its prices WAY down, say around $500 or so. there's no room in the rice structure to allow for a "prosumer" Mac like this. And no one will tolerate substantially higher PowerMac prices. The Cube failed for an important reason: a poor financial model.
then by tommorrow you will get a machine that is faster then the fastest mac you can buy TODAY for a $900 price drop.
The problem is, at $1500 the price/performance premium for the Mac over the Dell PC mentioned in this thread is about 50-60%. If the price goes up to $1800, that premium goes up to 80-100%... That just reduces their audience.
One would hope that as their manufacturing capacity rises, the price will come down.
Fellas, don't be shocked when Apple charges a premium - like they always have. Here are the prices:
1.6 - $1599*
1.8 - $2599
2.0 Dual - $3499
* The 1.6 970 will have a Combo Drive,capacity for only 4GB of RAM, a lesser video card and no PCI-X.
Let's not condemn Apple's pricing until we've seen the benchmarks.
Ther rumours about 2 mother boards break them into single and dual mother boards. There was discussion at some length about the need to do this due to 970 archatecture. If so I would imagine that the 1.6 and 1.8 single processors wil have the same number of memory slots and the same PCI architecture. The dual 2.0 would have PCI-X and more memory slots.
Comments
Mac Rumors says G5s only prototypes now, prices higher.
"Recent information suggests that the machines will not see full availability until at least August. In fact, machines are said to be in prototype form at this time. The new machines are also said to be at higher price points than the towers they are replacing."
I still think we'll be able to order them starting tomorrow as per the Apple Store leak. What's in the boxes then?
As far as reliability, all I will say is that my two Macs with OS-X have ran day in and day out 24/7 with never a problem for 15 months now. My 4 PC's require constant daily monitoring, because I never know when one or more of them will just "quit". The Macs have had "zero" cost for maintenence and repair. Service and repair on the 4 PC's has already come to over $1000 (total for all four) over the course of the last year, a major portion of that for "parts" and the rest for paid labor. Add to that my time spent fixing them as well.
The simple fact is with computers or any other product, Quality usually comes with a higher up front cost, but a lower cost of total ownership. It isn't so much a question of how much you spend, but rather when you spend it.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
On another note, i went to a BMW dealer and told the salesman WTF? If Ford can make Ford tempos for less money why can't you drop the price of your 325i?
Actually, that's quite a good comparison! I'm in the car development business myself and what BMW does is very similar to the Apple attitude.
What most people don't know is that the BMW (especially the 3series) is Germany's second most produced car behind the VW Golf (or Rabbit I believe in the States...).
They have a fantastic marketing tool though which gives people the impression that when you buy a BMW, you buy something special and as such they're able to convince them to pay 30% more for their quality product (car) than a competitor's...
On the other hand, it's true that a BMW is better build than most competitors. Why? Because they use 3 fixing clips where a Ford uses 2, because they use 5 bolts where anyone else uses 4. This makes their car 5% more expesive to produce, on the other hand they can sell it for 30% more!
This is exactly what Apple does. Well thought out computers with a production quality better than others... Costs about 5% more to produce but they can sell them with 30% more profit...
The perception will be that it's still slower than a 3.2GHz P4. Even if it is equivalent in performance, it's price can't compete.
It's time for Apple to make a stand. Innovate yes, but what good is that if you can make it affordable to the masses (many consumers who'd like a tower vs. AIO).
1.6 - $1599*
1.8 - $2599
2.0 Dual - $3499
* The 1.6 970 will have a Combo Drive,capacity for only 4GB of RAM, a lesser video card and no PCI-X.
Let's not condemn Apple's pricing until we've seen the benchmarks.
Originally posted by NerV
Fellas, don't be shocked when Apple charges a premium - like they always have. Here are the prices:
1.6 - $1599*
1.8 - $2599
2.0 Dual - $3499
* The 1.6 970 will have a Combo Drive,capacity for only 4GB of RAM, a lesser video card and no PCI-X.
Let's not condemn Apple's pricing until we've seen the benchmarks.
Superdrive acroos the board. and why only 4gb? doesn't make sense. I thought pci-x was backword compatible. Wouldn't it be more expensive for apple to use 2 different motherboards?
Originally posted by satchmo
If we're to see a single processor 1.6 G5 at $1699, Apple will be once again laughed off by not only the media, but the public at large.
The perception will be that it's still slower than a 3.2GHz P4. Even if it is equivalent in performance, it's price can't compete.
It's time for Apple to make a stand. Innovate yes, but what good is that if you can make it affordable to the masses (many consumers who'd like a tower vs. AIO).
Not if apple markets the fact this a processor in a league of its own cause its 64bits. Frankly the professionals who would be buying this will look at benchmarks.
Originally posted by O and A
[B]Superdrive acroos the board. and why only 4gb? doesn't make sense. I thought pci-x was backword compatible. Wouldn't it be more expensive for apple to use 2 different motherboards?
Reading the specs at the Apple Store - "Up to 8GB of DDR SDRAM", "Three PCI or PCI-X expansion slots" - leads me to believe there will be two motherboards. I believe that Apple wants to release a cheap low-end PM box, but doesn't want it to compete with its more expensive offerings - this behavior is not new, Apple has done just this a number of times in the past - hobble the low end so buyers will go for the more expensive boxes.
" This is intensely flawed methodology because a "business" mac invariable refers to a creative pro's station while a "business" PC refers to a whole gamut of machines, the majority being Office machines.
Creative pros tend to understand their HW/SF, and to think before they act, Office monkeys tend not to understand anything, and act before they think."
Matsu, unfortunately, this is not always true.
As a consultant, I have met just as many "creative pros" who ONLY understand their favored App and have little or no interest in the OS or other apps like disk utilities, antivirus, etc.
Yes, some pros have an interest in learning and mastering their Macs, but in many, many work environments the attitude is "Hey, I use PhotoShop/Quark/Freehand/Whatever, I'm not supposed to know how to fix my Mac."
Years ago, maybe 1 in 10 didn't care, now that number is higher, about 7 in 10 in my practice.
That's why I get paid $80-$120 per hour. I honestly wish they would do the maintenance themselves - they should, but they choose to have me do it. My good luck, I guess.
As a consultant, I have met just as many "creative pros" who ONLY understand their favored App and have little or no interest in the OS or other apps like disk utilities, antivirus, etc.
Yes, some pros have an interest in learning and mastering their Macs, but in many, many work environments the attitude is "Hey, I use PhotoShop/Quark/Freehand/Whatever, I'm not supposed to know how to fix my Mac."
this is soooo true.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Is it fair to say that the new low-end G5 will be faster than the current high-end G4?
I would think so.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Is it fair to say that the new low-end G5 will be faster than the current high-end G4?
Good Question.
If there is the ProSumer model or the headless iMac that is faster than the current high end G4 but proced just above the current low end then, I think Apple will sell them by the bucket load.
Do we have any benchmarks for the 1.6 as opposed to the Dual 1.42 g4?
factoid: a 970 will run at least twice the speed as a g4 at the same speed.
a the "lowend" 970 will be (let's assume leak was accurate) 1.6hgz
which would then translate into a 3.2 ghz g4. current high end g4 is dual 1.42 (let's call it a 2.8ghz g4 even though we know through put is not the same) for $2700
if the lowend g5 is $1800
then by tommorrow you will get a machine that is faster then the fastest mac you can buy TODAY for a $900 price drop.
and as you move up to a dual 2ghz you will be getting the eqivilant of a 8ghz g4 for around the same price as a dual 1.42 g4
frelling scary, a price drop and performance gain that would satisfy (ALMOST*) anyone!
*But don't worry folks there will still be complainers come monday!
Originally posted by RedEric
Good Question.
If there is the ProSumer model or the headless iMac that is faster than the current high end G4 but proced just above the current low end then, I think Apple will sell them by the bucket load.
Do we have any benchmarks for the 1.6 as opposed to the Dual 1.42 g4?
IBM has stated (the PDF is somewhere in IBM's site) that the PPC970 runs almost twice as fast as the similarly clocked G4.....so the 1.6GHz 970 would beat dual 1.42GHz G4 (don't forget the G4 is bandwidth limited and the dual only gains 50%) for sure
Originally posted by RedEric
Good Question.
If there is the ProSumer model or the headless iMac that is faster than the current high end G4 but proced just above the current low end then, I think Apple will sell them by the bucket load.
Do we have any benchmarks for the 1.6 as opposed to the Dual 1.42 g4?
No they won't, not unless they either cut the iMac line or push its prices WAY down, say around $500 or so. there's no room in the rice structure to allow for a "prosumer" Mac like this. And no one will tolerate substantially higher PowerMac prices. The Cube failed for an important reason: a poor financial model.
then by tommorrow you will get a machine that is faster then the fastest mac you can buy TODAY for a $900 price drop.
The problem is, at $1500 the price/performance premium for the Mac over the Dell PC mentioned in this thread is about 50-60%. If the price goes up to $1800, that premium goes up to 80-100%... That just reduces their audience.
One would hope that as their manufacturing capacity rises, the price will come down.
Guess we will now in 24.5 hours.
But I really am waiting for rev B
Originally posted by NerV
Fellas, don't be shocked when Apple charges a premium - like they always have. Here are the prices:
1.6 - $1599*
1.8 - $2599
2.0 Dual - $3499
* The 1.6 970 will have a Combo Drive,capacity for only 4GB of RAM, a lesser video card and no PCI-X.
Let's not condemn Apple's pricing until we've seen the benchmarks.
Ther rumours about 2 mother boards break them into single and dual mother boards. There was discussion at some length about the need to do this due to 970 archatecture. If so I would imagine that the 1.6 and 1.8 single processors wil have the same number of memory slots and the same PCI architecture. The dual 2.0 would have PCI-X and more memory slots.
I think it's something along the lines of: "Speed, quality and price - pick any two."