I really think some people are missing the point of this slightly off-topic discussion. Apple will release a workstation class machine if they can for a lot of reasons.
First, the profit margins on these machines are high. Second, Apple would milk the marketing of such a machine to help overall sales. Third, if the IBM processor is all it's cracked up to be, EVERYONE is going to want one. The best way for Apple to limit initial sales is to up the price high enough to slow sales.
People are pissed that the 1.25 GHZ machine was announced two months before it was available. If Apple finally releases a next-generation machine at $3000, there's absolutely no way they'll be able to produce enough to ship. Might as well sell a $5000 machine for six months before you let the chip permeate the PowerMac lineup.
<strong>I don't dispute that GPUL will come down to Sub $3k I'm just saying don't expect it. I expect Apple to come out with as fast a machine as they can and there WILL be a market for it even it it's out the range of many users. Maya, Shake, Tremor and plenty of other users could easily afford to pay for the huge increase in power.
Give it two years and you'll probably see a $2500 GPUL based machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Apple's long-term pricing strategy is pretty straightforward:
Maintain consistent price points and upgrade the value at those points - that way, you don't get trapped in price increases. Look at what happened when the miscalculated on the iMac - they got crucified over $100.
The reason why Apple is charging $3k for a dual 1.25GHz G4 has nothing to do with the cost of the G4s (they're quite cheap, in fact) but has everything to do with the cost of what's coming after the 1.25GHz G4s. When Apple upgrades the processors, they'll drop them in at the current price points - maybe not across the board, but they won't bring systems out at higher prices *unless* they move to quad or 8-ways systems.
GP-UL systems won't be any more than the current G4s. Unfortunately, the Cube will not return. The 17" iMac is the new Cube. 90% of Cube buyers ran 15" or 17" screens. There's nothing about the 17" iMac that shouldn't appeal to Cube lovers (except the price.) In 6 months, that'll be settled as well.
<strong>I really think some people are missing the point of this slightly off-topic discussion. Apple will release a workstation class machine if they can for a lot of reasons.
First, the profit margins on these machines are high. Second, Apple would milk the marketing of such a machine to help overall sales. Third, if the IBM processor is all it's cracked up to be, EVERYONE is going to want one. The best way for Apple to limit initial sales is to up the price high enough to slow sales.
People are pissed that the 1.25 GHZ machine was announced two months before it was available. If Apple finally releases a next-generation machine at $3000, there's absolutely no way they'll be able to produce enough to ship. Might as well sell a $5000 machine for six months before you let the chip permeate the PowerMac lineup.
Even if it pisses off Lemon Bon Bon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly Bunge. You're on target. Squeezing GPUL into the current range doesn't make much sense.
Another thing is how many of us here have been stunned by ANY Apple Hardware of recent years? Every Macworld event is followed by a Week or two of bitching about the speed of Powermacs.
I agree with Bunge. I think Apple goes high end with GPUL and then migrates it down from there.
The missing link is Eweeks slant on Moto still working on a G5.
Since there seems to be a lot of posting about "workstations", and how they fit into the general mix of high powered computing today, I think you should all read <a href="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/gamepc-gpg/"; target="_blank">this article</a>.
but for those of you too lazy...
basically, tech-report put a $3200 Workstation-class Dual Athlon MP 2100+ head-to-head against a very good, but not top-of-the-line DIY single Athlon XP box.
you can read through all the details, and the benchmarks, but the end result was basically a tie. sure, the dual can handle more at a time, but a consumer can build a dual for about half the cost of the "workstation".
"Make no mistake: the GPG X2 isn't for everyone. It's a high-powered workstation targeted at power users like aerospace engineers and game developers..."
um, yeah, except that your 11 year old neighbor probably built a faster machine this weekend for half the price.
"I don't hear too many complaints about HP charging $26k for a Dual 750Mhz PA-8700"
Riot at Macworld New York. (Chairs, despite being nailed down, are pried up by the Mac faithful as iCEO Murch announces we got the GPUL alright...but he's going to...)
Charge 26K for a Mac? Sure, it'll upset 'power'Mac users alright. Charge a ridiculous price outside your established 'niche' market of 'power' users. Wow, we've waited years for a decent cpu and Apple charges 26K for 'just about when its released' industry leading performance.
(and make your mind up iCEO Murch'...your workstation prices have thrashed about from 10K to $26K. Ouch. No likey iCEO Murch's Apple. Cost too much. No buy. Apple out of business.)
And 'p*ssed off' won't beging to describe the gnashing and wailing of sack cloth and ash in the hair that will go on these boards if they release a stupidly released machine, 'Bungie'.
These are the same users that screamed at .Mac and paying $100 bucks for a decent OS upgrade. I can see them parting with their 10K, sorry, 26K right now.
"10K for a box? Okay. What?! You want me to pay 100 bucks for Jaguar? Are you nuts? 49$ for .Mac? No way...but I'll take this outrageously priced workstation that offers slightly better performance than the competition that costs a fraction of the price but its okay, I'm a Mac user who loves the OS, no wait, I'm too stingy to pay for that expensive upgrade. Drat. Crisis of confidence. Wait. If I buy this workstation, I get Jag' free. Lordy. I'm happy now. Worth the premium. Oh, and can I have the 9c change pleae."
concentricity ..I guess GamePC and I differ on what makes a Workstation.
I expect a Workstation to have an ucommonly fast motherboard. SCSI is a must.
I expect more than 4 memory slots.
I expect great Graphics with certified drivers if possible.
This review basically pits a Homebuilt against a Company SELLING Homebuilts. Anyone using the infamous Chenbo, Antec case is a DIY'er no matter what they claim.
The fact that they're using Dual Athlons means it's either an ASUS mobo or Tyan...total "consumerish" LOL
I'm curious to see what Apple has a year from today. I think the road has some more curves yet.
[quote] Wormboy...just because you can run Blast on your Notebook doesn't mean the workstation maket is finished. Make your living doing so and things change.
<hr></blockquote>
I do exactly that. I make a living as a molecular geneticist, and use huge databases and "server farm" software all the time. I just do it on a portable often. You know, at the park, on the balcony or transatlantic. The portable is not as fast, but it's a hell of a lot faster than any computer I used 5 years ago. Nor am I suggesting that high performance computing is finished. It's not. Its just very difficult for some of the markets that used to be slaves to "workstation" computers to justify the cost, when they can buy cheap desktops that are nearly as fast for many tasks, and replace then 4-5 times over.
I do exactly that. I make a living as a molecular geneticist, and use huge databases and "server farm" software all the time. I just do it on a portable often. You know, at the park, on the balcony or transatlantic. The portable is not as fast, but it's a hell of a lot faster than any computer I used 5 years ago. Nor am I suggesting that high performance computing is finished. It's not. Its just very difficult for some of the markets that used to be slaves to "workstation" computers to justify the cost, when they can buy cheap desktops that are nearly as fast for many tasks, and replace then 4-5 times over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's really cool Wormboy. I hope that whatever we get next year is a good leap forward in speed. Man I'd love to get extra generous helpings of crow next year as that means we have speed parity with X86 and at an affordable price.
The thing that throws everything off is eweeks mention of a G5. It may be false but if it were true. Where would it fit in this lineup?
OCT 15 is going to shed much more light on this situation. Despite some complaints this thread has been informative to me. It presents varying views which are just as valid as any others that I've heard.
[quote]The thing that throws everything off is eweeks mention of a G5. It may be false but if it were true. Where would it fit in this lineup? <hr></blockquote>
Portables. iMac. eMac. Any G5 from Moto is likely to be based on the e500 core, and will therefore be a good choice for laptops and consumer desktops with quiet, slow turning fans.
What used to be done on $50k workstations can now be done on $5k PCs. The Power Mac replaces workstations.
High-end computing is not finished, but it's not mainstream anymore.
Apple has been making all its machines great price vs features/performance wise.
Look at the iMac. 17" 1440x960, 800MHz G4, GeForce 4 MX, 80GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive, all for an amazing $4400 Australian!
In recent years, I've been thrilled by the TiBook, iBook, iMac G4, eMac and Xserve. There is more to Apple than the Power Mac (hard to believe if you visit FH often, but TRUE!).
In 2003 it seems, the Power Mac will become a computer worthy of the badge.
I think that many on this board are neglecting to consider that this coming IBM processor is already defined by IBM as targeted for the "desktop and small server" market. Also the cost to manufacture the GPUL will plummet with 300 mm wafers and .90nm process. Derived from the Power4 also means that much of the R&D work has been covered.
This is coming to the Powermac at the current price points (or less!), not some uber Mac at an astronomic price point. Sure, Apple intends to release a Workstation model at some point to run Maya, Shake, & Tremor ~ but that model will be a 4 or 8 chip machine (depending on # of cores per chip).
Considering Apple Pi; I believe we will see this new bus architecture (UMA-2?) possibly as soon as MWSF, most likely with the next generation Motorola processor (dare I say G5?). This allows the iBook to move up to a G4 and iMacs to get the fastest G4's available. Apple Pi is what mandates OSX only booting in my opinion,
A Motorola (whatever it is called) processor at the .9nm will be faster and less expensive than current offerings, so I expect dual, and even quad versions, enabled by Apple Pi architecture. Also, expect the Marketing Department to add the speed of the processors together and call the resulting number the speed of the machine. (Example: 1.5 Gig x 2 = 3 GHz PowerMac). And Apple Pi might make it actually close to the truth.
2003, and maybe by MWNY (or Boston), we will see the G5 & Apple Pi move to the iMac, coinciding with the release of the GPUL in PowerMacs. This will happen at the same or similar price points. To raise prices (especially as cost to manufacture decrease) would be to maintain the disparity in price/performance that is currently killing the platform
To repeat my main point: The GPUL will be cheaper than current top-of-the-line Motorola's AMD's or Pentiums, not more expensive as this thread has generally supposed. My signature since 1999 may finally be realized.
Well, Apple's long-term pricing strategy is pretty straightforward:
Maintain consistent price points and upgrade the value at those points - that way, you don't get trapped in price increases. Look at what happened when the miscalculated on the iMac - they got crucified over $100.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, except that the price points are about 5-7 years out of date. The entire industry has shifted the it's price points downward, significantly. Apple competes with these prices, wintel or not. The Powermacs already have 'workstation' pricing, they just don't have workstation performance. Now Apple is falling behind in laptops aswell, both in terms of performance and price. It used to be that budget laptops in wintelon land weren't worth a second look. As little as 2 years ago, many still came with NiMH batteries, poor quality (if TFT) screens, very small HDD's, crippled CPU's and especially GPU's, and no burning options. But now an entry level laptop comes with a very good XGA (often 14 or 15) screen, a combo drive, a fast cpu, decent battery life, a very good GPU, and 30GB HDD's STANDARD. All for the same price as the LOW-end iBook. Going for a laptop with the same read only optical and small drive allows the wintelon buyer to undercut the mac to the tune of 899-999 for a laptop. Apple is losing sales because they are not maintaining 'value', not when your severely limited low-end machine (12" XGA, 600Mhz G3, read only optical, 20GB, 128MB for 1249 has to compete against machines that for the same price offer twice the RAM, 30-40GB, STANDARD COMBO DRIVES, and comparable I/O. Software is nice, but software can and will be updated during the life of the machine, hardware sticks you with what you've got, and on the mac side that ain't much.
This pattern repeats throughout the Mac line-up. Machines simply cost too much, an the price-points are in dire need of re-alignment. Apple was deservedly roasted over the 100 price bump because the increased costs were an almost complete fallacy used to jack prices over a period of months when they at best account for little more than a week's worth of price increeases. At any time durning the months of Apple's price bump the retail price of RAM and LCD's did NOT increase (17-18" LCD's actually got cheaper!)
Apple has most certainly NOT been making it's machines great from a price to performance/value standpoint. They typically debut at a decent value metric, but very quickly fall behind from lack of updates. The window on any one model is about two months max before the spec starts to look very poor relative to the competition.
<strong>uh, no. Let me explain something to you. Just because there are three of something doesn't make it a "three-tiered strategy".</strong><hr></blockquote>
No?
[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>The iMac and eMac have the same target markets. They are both G4s with available superdrives, and similar price structures differentiated by the monitor. They have equivalent performance, but one is an LCD and one is a CRT. Apple sold the eMac in the education channel, but so many people wanted to stick with the CRT that Apple opened them up to consumers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now;
eMac targets the ~1000 $ market
iMac the 1500-2000 $ market
powerMac the 2000+ $ market
(talking Austrian prices here)
People with less money buy eMac, people with more money buy iMac people who do work on Apple computers buy powerMac. The iMac and eMac are not the same market - if they were I doubt anyone would be the eMac. And I doubt there would be such a price difference between the two. The iMac basically took the Cube's place.
That to me is defining three target groups and delivering for them, and if that's a two-tiered strategy for you, you can as well start calling it a one-tier strategy (hey, they're all G4!).
<strong>Riot at Macworld New York. (Chairs, despite being nailed down, are pried up by the Mac faithful as iCEO Murch announces we got the GPUL alright...but he's going to...)
Charge 26K for a Mac? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying Apple will charge that much, but I would be surprised to see a $1699 machine with the new processor. I hope I'm wrong (although I would like to see the live stream with chairs flying about.)
This processor is for Apple. Apple will use it. Apple's PowerMac line is crap. It doesn't live up to its name.
This processor is for the PowerMac line. dual G4s vs a single dual core processor may be a bit cheaper but probably not much.. Apple may split the powermac line, have a cheaper more limited model and these new systems starting at 2000 or so but these are definitely going into the PowerMacs... and definitely for similar pricing as today... if they weren't it is wasted resources and money. Apple's problem is the PowerMac line and processor speed not the ack of a 10000 workstation.
[quote] This processor is for Apple. Apple will use it. Apple's PowerMac line is crap. It doesn't live up to its name. <hr></blockquote>
can we get off blanket statements like this?
sometimes the PC is faster at things and sometimes the macs are faster (oh say, 5 to 21 times or so faster on "blast" benchmarks)
there is plenty of _real_ work getting done on powermacs. I get more work done of my "crap" 667 dvi PB then i would on a 3 gighz pc.
why does it seem like most the guys calling the g4 and powermacs slow and crappy are the ones that aren't even using the speed they have in their ibooks?
its really tuning into a broken record on these boards....
edit: please don't take it as a personal attack applenut, i was just commenting remarks like that in general. I would love a g5-gpul on monday to be announced butt to say the whole powermac is crap and that no one can get work done with the current line is hogwash IMO.
Actually the low end dual tower is a great deal. It's a sweet spot in the line up that is less crippled by bus issues than the other two. I have a dual 500 and find it quite speedy for my uses, in fact, my Cube is used 95% of the time, just because for surfing, email, and general uses the silence far outweighs the speed gains the tower gives me. My point being that, for the great majority of users, what Apple offers now is more than enough.
Having said that, I also must say that I pretty much agree with what Applenut has just posted. Apple's future depends on at least perceived parity with the Wintel World, both in speed and in value. Note that I did not say price.
<strong>...my Cube is used 95% of the time, just because for surfing, email, and general uses the silence far outweighs the speed gains the tower gives me. My point being that, for the great majority of users, what Apple offers now is more than enough.
This is why the whole industry is slumping. Does a secretary really need a 2Ghz vs 1Ghz? Apple does need to address the high end market, and there is something to be said for the perceived speed gap. But I think that Apple will solve the speed gap one way or another. The real future is in services and ease of implementations, both of which Apple is very good at. They need to survive the short term, because the long term is going to be great.
Comments
First, the profit margins on these machines are high. Second, Apple would milk the marketing of such a machine to help overall sales. Third, if the IBM processor is all it's cracked up to be, EVERYONE is going to want one. The best way for Apple to limit initial sales is to up the price high enough to slow sales.
People are pissed that the 1.25 GHZ machine was announced two months before it was available. If Apple finally releases a next-generation machine at $3000, there's absolutely no way they'll be able to produce enough to ship. Might as well sell a $5000 machine for six months before you let the chip permeate the PowerMac lineup.
Even if it pisses off Lemon Bon Bon.
<strong>I don't dispute that GPUL will come down to Sub $3k I'm just saying don't expect it. I expect Apple to come out with as fast a machine as they can and there WILL be a market for it even it it's out the range of many users. Maya, Shake, Tremor and plenty of other users could easily afford to pay for the huge increase in power.
Give it two years and you'll probably see a $2500 GPUL based machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Apple's long-term pricing strategy is pretty straightforward:
Maintain consistent price points and upgrade the value at those points - that way, you don't get trapped in price increases. Look at what happened when the miscalculated on the iMac - they got crucified over $100.
The reason why Apple is charging $3k for a dual 1.25GHz G4 has nothing to do with the cost of the G4s (they're quite cheap, in fact) but has everything to do with the cost of what's coming after the 1.25GHz G4s. When Apple upgrades the processors, they'll drop them in at the current price points - maybe not across the board, but they won't bring systems out at higher prices *unless* they move to quad or 8-ways systems.
GP-UL systems won't be any more than the current G4s. Unfortunately, the Cube will not return. The 17" iMac is the new Cube. 90% of Cube buyers ran 15" or 17" screens. There's nothing about the 17" iMac that shouldn't appeal to Cube lovers (except the price.) In 6 months, that'll be settled as well.
<strong>I really think some people are missing the point of this slightly off-topic discussion. Apple will release a workstation class machine if they can for a lot of reasons.
First, the profit margins on these machines are high. Second, Apple would milk the marketing of such a machine to help overall sales. Third, if the IBM processor is all it's cracked up to be, EVERYONE is going to want one. The best way for Apple to limit initial sales is to up the price high enough to slow sales.
People are pissed that the 1.25 GHZ machine was announced two months before it was available. If Apple finally releases a next-generation machine at $3000, there's absolutely no way they'll be able to produce enough to ship. Might as well sell a $5000 machine for six months before you let the chip permeate the PowerMac lineup.
Even if it pisses off Lemon Bon Bon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly Bunge. You're on target. Squeezing GPUL into the current range doesn't make much sense.
Another thing is how many of us here have been stunned by ANY Apple Hardware of recent years? Every Macworld event is followed by a Week or two of bitching about the speed of Powermacs.
I agree with Bunge. I think Apple goes high end with GPUL and then migrates it down from there.
The missing link is Eweeks slant on Moto still working on a G5.
but for those of you too lazy...
basically, tech-report put a $3200 Workstation-class Dual Athlon MP 2100+ head-to-head against a very good, but not top-of-the-line DIY single Athlon XP box.
you can read through all the details, and the benchmarks, but the end result was basically a tie. sure, the dual can handle more at a time, but a consumer can build a dual for about half the cost of the "workstation".
"Make no mistake: the GPG X2 isn't for everyone. It's a high-powered workstation targeted at power users like aerospace engineers and game developers..."
um, yeah, except that your 11 year old neighbor probably built a faster machine this weekend for half the price.
Riot at Macworld New York. (Chairs, despite being nailed down, are pried up by the Mac faithful as iCEO Murch announces we got the GPUL alright...but he's going to...)
Charge 26K for a Mac? Sure, it'll upset 'power'Mac users alright. Charge a ridiculous price outside your established 'niche' market of 'power' users. Wow, we've waited years for a decent cpu and Apple charges 26K for 'just about when its released' industry leading performance.
(and make your mind up iCEO Murch'...your workstation prices have thrashed about from 10K to $26K. Ouch. No likey iCEO Murch's Apple. Cost too much. No buy. Apple out of business.)
And 'p*ssed off' won't beging to describe the gnashing and wailing of sack cloth and ash in the hair that will go on these boards if they release a stupidly released machine, 'Bungie'.
These are the same users that screamed at .Mac and paying $100 bucks for a decent OS upgrade. I can see them parting with their 10K, sorry, 26K right now.
"10K for a box? Okay. What?! You want me to pay 100 bucks for Jaguar? Are you nuts? 49$ for .Mac? No way...but I'll take this outrageously priced workstation that offers slightly better performance than the competition that costs a fraction of the price but its okay, I'm a Mac user who loves the OS, no wait, I'm too stingy to pay for that expensive upgrade. Drat. Crisis of confidence. Wait. If I buy this workstation, I get Jag' free. Lordy. I'm happy now. Worth the premium. Oh, and can I have the 9c change pleae."
LEmon BOn BoN
[ 09-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>This thread is getting out of hand.
i agree
I expect a Workstation to have an ucommonly fast motherboard. SCSI is a must.
I expect more than 4 memory slots.
I expect great Graphics with certified drivers if possible.
This review basically pits a Homebuilt against a Company SELLING Homebuilts. Anyone using the infamous Chenbo, Antec case is a DIY'er no matter what they claim.
The fact that they're using Dual Athlons means it's either an ASUS mobo or Tyan...total "consumerish" LOL
I'm curious to see what Apple has a year from today. I think the road has some more curves yet.
<hr></blockquote>
I do exactly that. I make a living as a molecular geneticist, and use huge databases and "server farm" software all the time. I just do it on a portable often. You know, at the park, on the balcony or transatlantic. The portable is not as fast, but it's a hell of a lot faster than any computer I used 5 years ago. Nor am I suggesting that high performance computing is finished. It's not. Its just very difficult for some of the markets that used to be slaves to "workstation" computers to justify the cost, when they can buy cheap desktops that are nearly as fast for many tasks, and replace then 4-5 times over.
<strong>
I do exactly that. I make a living as a molecular geneticist, and use huge databases and "server farm" software all the time. I just do it on a portable often. You know, at the park, on the balcony or transatlantic. The portable is not as fast, but it's a hell of a lot faster than any computer I used 5 years ago. Nor am I suggesting that high performance computing is finished. It's not. Its just very difficult for some of the markets that used to be slaves to "workstation" computers to justify the cost, when they can buy cheap desktops that are nearly as fast for many tasks, and replace then 4-5 times over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's really cool Wormboy. I hope that whatever we get next year is a good leap forward in speed. Man I'd love to get extra generous helpings of crow next year as that means we have speed parity with X86 and at an affordable price.
The thing that throws everything off is eweeks mention of a G5. It may be false but if it were true. Where would it fit in this lineup?
OCT 15 is going to shed much more light on this situation. Despite some complaints this thread has been informative to me. It presents varying views which are just as valid as any others that I've heard.
<strong>
i agree
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guys, obviously, some people still see value in this thread, so enough with the dive bombing, OK?
Portables. iMac. eMac. Any G5 from Moto is likely to be based on the e500 core, and will therefore be a good choice for laptops and consumer desktops with quiet, slow turning fans.
What used to be done on $50k workstations can now be done on $5k PCs. The Power Mac replaces workstations.
High-end computing is not finished, but it's not mainstream anymore.
Apple has been making all its machines great price vs features/performance wise.
Look at the iMac. 17" 1440x960, 800MHz G4, GeForce 4 MX, 80GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive, all for an amazing $4400 Australian!
In recent years, I've been thrilled by the TiBook, iBook, iMac G4, eMac and Xserve. There is more to Apple than the Power Mac (hard to believe if you visit FH often, but TRUE!).
In 2003 it seems, the Power Mac will become a computer worthy of the badge.
Barto
This is coming to the Powermac at the current price points (or less!), not some uber Mac at an astronomic price point. Sure, Apple intends to release a Workstation model at some point to run Maya, Shake, & Tremor ~ but that model will be a 4 or 8 chip machine (depending on # of cores per chip).
Considering Apple Pi; I believe we will see this new bus architecture (UMA-2?) possibly as soon as MWSF, most likely with the next generation Motorola processor (dare I say G5?). This allows the iBook to move up to a G4 and iMacs to get the fastest G4's available. Apple Pi is what mandates OSX only booting in my opinion,
A Motorola (whatever it is called) processor at the .9nm will be faster and less expensive than current offerings, so I expect dual, and even quad versions, enabled by Apple Pi architecture. Also, expect the Marketing Department to add the speed of the processors together and call the resulting number the speed of the machine. (Example: 1.5 Gig x 2 = 3 GHz PowerMac). And Apple Pi might make it actually close to the truth.
2003, and maybe by MWNY (or Boston), we will see the G5 & Apple Pi move to the iMac, coinciding with the release of the GPUL in PowerMacs. This will happen at the same or similar price points. To raise prices (especially as cost to manufacture decrease) would be to maintain the disparity in price/performance that is currently killing the platform
To repeat my main point: The GPUL will be cheaper than current top-of-the-line Motorola's AMD's or Pentiums, not more expensive as this thread has generally supposed. My signature since 1999 may finally be realized.
<strong>
Well, Apple's long-term pricing strategy is pretty straightforward:
Maintain consistent price points and upgrade the value at those points - that way, you don't get trapped in price increases. Look at what happened when the miscalculated on the iMac - they got crucified over $100.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, except that the price points are about 5-7 years out of date. The entire industry has shifted the it's price points downward, significantly. Apple competes with these prices, wintel or not. The Powermacs already have 'workstation' pricing, they just don't have workstation performance. Now Apple is falling behind in laptops aswell, both in terms of performance and price. It used to be that budget laptops in wintelon land weren't worth a second look. As little as 2 years ago, many still came with NiMH batteries, poor quality (if TFT) screens, very small HDD's, crippled CPU's and especially GPU's, and no burning options. But now an entry level laptop comes with a very good XGA (often 14 or 15) screen, a combo drive, a fast cpu, decent battery life, a very good GPU, and 30GB HDD's STANDARD. All for the same price as the LOW-end iBook. Going for a laptop with the same read only optical and small drive allows the wintelon buyer to undercut the mac to the tune of 899-999 for a laptop. Apple is losing sales because they are not maintaining 'value', not when your severely limited low-end machine (12" XGA, 600Mhz G3, read only optical, 20GB, 128MB for 1249 has to compete against machines that for the same price offer twice the RAM, 30-40GB, STANDARD COMBO DRIVES, and comparable I/O. Software is nice, but software can and will be updated during the life of the machine, hardware sticks you with what you've got, and on the mac side that ain't much.
This pattern repeats throughout the Mac line-up. Machines simply cost too much, an the price-points are in dire need of re-alignment. Apple was deservedly roasted over the 100 price bump because the increased costs were an almost complete fallacy used to jack prices over a period of months when they at best account for little more than a week's worth of price increeases. At any time durning the months of Apple's price bump the retail price of RAM and LCD's did NOT increase (17-18" LCD's actually got cheaper!)
Apple has most certainly NOT been making it's machines great from a price to performance/value standpoint. They typically debut at a decent value metric, but very quickly fall behind from lack of updates. The window on any one model is about two months max before the spec starts to look very poor relative to the competition.
<strong>uh, no. Let me explain something to you. Just because there are three of something doesn't make it a "three-tiered strategy".</strong><hr></blockquote>
No?
[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>The iMac and eMac have the same target markets. They are both G4s with available superdrives, and similar price structures differentiated by the monitor. They have equivalent performance, but one is an LCD and one is a CRT. Apple sold the eMac in the education channel, but so many people wanted to stick with the CRT that Apple opened them up to consumers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now;
eMac targets the ~1000 $ market
iMac the 1500-2000 $ market
powerMac the 2000+ $ market
(talking Austrian prices here)
People with less money buy eMac, people with more money buy iMac people who do work on Apple computers buy powerMac. The iMac and eMac are not the same market - if they were I doubt anyone would be the eMac. And I doubt there would be such a price difference between the two. The iMac basically took the Cube's place.
That to me is defining three target groups and delivering for them, and if that's a two-tiered strategy for you, you can as well start calling it a one-tier strategy (hey, they're all G4!).
<strong>Riot at Macworld New York. (Chairs, despite being nailed down, are pried up by the Mac faithful as iCEO Murch announces we got the GPUL alright...but he's going to...)
Charge 26K for a Mac? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying Apple will charge that much, but I would be surprised to see a $1699 machine with the new processor. I hope I'm wrong (although I would like to see the live stream with chairs flying about.)
This processor is for Apple. Apple will use it. Apple's PowerMac line is crap. It doesn't live up to its name.
This processor is for the PowerMac line. dual G4s vs a single dual core processor may be a bit cheaper but probably not much.. Apple may split the powermac line, have a cheaper more limited model and these new systems starting at 2000 or so but these are definitely going into the PowerMacs... and definitely for similar pricing as today... if they weren't it is wasted resources and money. Apple's problem is the PowerMac line and processor speed not the ack of a 10000 workstation.
Just stupid.
can we get off blanket statements like this?
sometimes the PC is faster at things and sometimes the macs are faster (oh say, 5 to 21 times or so faster on "blast" benchmarks)
there is plenty of _real_ work getting done on powermacs. I get more work done of my "crap" 667 dvi PB then i would on a 3 gighz pc.
why does it seem like most the guys calling the g4 and powermacs slow and crappy are the ones that aren't even using the speed they have in their ibooks?
its really tuning into a broken record on these boards....
edit: please don't take it as a personal attack applenut, i was just commenting remarks like that in general. I would love a g5-gpul on monday to be announced butt to say the whole powermac is crap and that no one can get work done with the current line is hogwash IMO.
[ 09-22-2002: Message edited by: keyboardf12 ]</p>
Having said that, I also must say that I pretty much agree with what Applenut has just posted. Apple's future depends on at least perceived parity with the Wintel World, both in speed and in value. Note that I did not say price.
[ 09-22-2002: Message edited by: Aphelion ]</p>
<strong>...my Cube is used 95% of the time, just because for surfing, email, and general uses the silence far outweighs the speed gains the tower gives me. My point being that, for the great majority of users, what Apple offers now is more than enough.
[ 09-22-2002: Message edited by: Aphelion ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is why the whole industry is slumping. Does a secretary really need a 2Ghz vs 1Ghz? Apple does need to address the high end market, and there is something to be said for the perceived speed gap. But I think that Apple will solve the speed gap one way or another. The real future is in services and ease of implementations, both of which Apple is very good at. They need to survive the short term, because the long term is going to be great.