Apple's upgrade stradegy...?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    It's just been so long I have a hard time believing apple will ever pull through. Here's to hoping you're right! I want my Powerbook G5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Reply 22 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    [quote]Originally posted by Algol:

    <strong>Also bogie, as matsu pointed out, your question is neither honest or straight forward. You cannot compare apple to one PC company. You have to compare apple against all of the PC world. That includes intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, Etc., etc., etc. Apple must compete against all of these companies, therefore, they must upgrade enough to stay competitive with all of them. I would suggest apple go with little upgrades whenever needed, but without warning or further ado. Then every 6-9 months do a big upgrade, not huge but big. Then every 2 years or so they should do a case redesign and add substantial motherboard improvements etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, that argument doesn't work. Dell competes with every PC OEM, as does Gateway, as does Acer, etc ... therefore they are in the same shoes [as an OEM] as Apple. Now as an OS maker they are not, but we are not talking about OSes we are talking about hardware OEMs. Noting Intel and AMD as you did is unrelated.



    So, what PC companies meet your criteria for a "good" upgrade system? Claiming that the entire "Windows PC OEM industry" together meets your criteria is a cop out because as I said, your topic is about hardware OEMs not about OS companies, not about platforms but about refresh cycles of hardware.



    \t

    [quote]Originally posted by Algol:

    <strong>Apple currently releases a new upgrade ever 6-9 months or so that looks appealing. Then they go on to upgrade their other products. After a few months the first upgraded no longer looks like a good deal. Apple does not bother to keep that product up to date with small improvements, but rather waits until no one will buy it then they bring it up to date. This upgrade strategy makes it look as if half of Apple's lineup is behind the other half. it also makes certain lines look way behind the competition, more so than is reality.

    [ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: Algol ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't understand how people can assume that Apple does this by choice which is what you insinuate when you say that Apple does not bother to keep products up to date. From a business perspective it is in any company's best interest to improve their product [this is a general rule, yes there are situational exceptions but claiming that Apple is better off selling under performing computers as you claim is a faulted argument ... all companies have limitations, I have been trying to demonstrate that by asking about PC OEMs but no one wants to answer ... or they can't answer ...
  • Reply 23 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by evangellydonut:

    <strong>

    As one of the posts pointed out, look at Dell. While they don't do major upgrades, they have almost no stock in hand, thus is able to release minor upgrades as soon as faster CPU hits the channel. Sure, I would be a little unhappy to know that in a month's time, my current machine can be had for a few hundread dollars less, but that's just how technology works.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The problem with this is that Dell does more or less zero R&D themselves. An upgarde cycle for Dell might mean just changing a part number on an order to a supplier, thus getting an updated motherboard that can just be used as a drop-in replacement for the old one. If a supplier can't deliver the new stuff, they just buy from another one. Apple, on the other hand, has to do a lot of the R&D involved in an update themselves, which obviously takes more time than outsourcing it. Also, since they probably don't have half a dozen suppliers to chose from for each component, they most likely can't afford to have almost no stock and just order stuff on demand.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 24 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    Very true RazzFazz, and may I also note that the original criteria was substancial upgrades not incrimental.
  • Reply 25 of 40
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    [quote]Originally posted by jante99:

    <strong>The update Apple is planning for on Wedensday is substancial. 200 dollar price drop on ibook with a 100 mzh speed increase with larger hard drives and possibly more video ram. Thiese changes should make the ibook competitive with PC labtops for the holiday season. OS X is also reciecing substancial updates way faster then Windows is updated. How often has microsoft completly updated Windows every 6 months?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Of course Microsodt cannot completly update Windows every six months. there will be a public uproar!!!



    Btw, Windows do provide updates occasionaly if u do bother to got to the microsoft webpage to download it. But then again, most of these updates are mainly security issues which shouldn;t exist in the first place.
  • Reply 26 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:

    <strong>



    The problem with this is that Dell does more or less zero R&D themselves. An upgarde cycle for Dell might mean just changing a part number on an order to a supplier, thus getting an updated motherboard that can just be used as a drop-in replacement for the old one. If a supplier can't deliver the new stuff, they just buy from another one. Apple, on the other hand, has to do a lot of the R&D involved in an update themselves, which obviously takes more time than outsourcing it. Also, since they probably don't have half a dozen suppliers to chose from for each component, they most likely can't afford to have almost no stock and just order stuff on demand.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Let's look at what Apple did in terms of R&D on the chipsets/mobo since B&W G3 ('til prior to the new mobo)...which i consider to be the last major revision prior to this new mobo. It's also the last time Apple was up-to-date with mobo design.



    ATA/66 - IEEE standard, pin-compatible with ATA/33 so no mobo revision needed

    AGP2x, AGP4x - both Intel design, both arrived 'bout a year later than Wintel. Also IEEE standard, meaning little mobo layout change from 2x to 4x other than power supply. Initial AGP implementation might've taken some effort.

    PC133 - IEEE standard? no new mobo layout

    The above required changes in the north/south bridge...

    1 extra PCI slot - a simply mobo layout revision

    Gigabit ethernet - Apple doesn't have to develop the controller chip, just integerate it...i haven't looked at the details, but probably pin compatible with 100bt controller...

    ...all that in what? 4 years? If I were given a chipset to begin with, I can (almost) do that much design changes in that long, especially considering none of them are very "ground-breaking".



    Looking at other mobo makers, other than the aformentioned changes (minus gigabit ethernet), they've gone to DDR much faster (by 'bout a year), AGP 8x adoptation almost complete, USB2.0 integeration is another plus. ATA/100 and 133 are no-brainers...Lastly, most PC mobos now include ATA-RAID controllers.





    Other than ATA/100 I'm not placing a lot of blame on Apple 'cuz they have no incentive to do much of anything given how much the G4 chip has fallen behind the curve since it's introduction 3+ years ago. (and the argument "ATA drives can't possibly use 66MB/sec xfer rate" & "137GB barrier was only a recent problem" are 2 BS arguments that I'm not even going to bother to address) AMD can add an extra layer to their chip to support faster DDR, Moto relies on dye shrink to finally support a 200MHz bus...*sigh* 'bout time Apple jumped to IBM...
  • Reply 27 of 40
    engpjpengpjp Posts: 124member
    The 7457 won't be substantially upgraded, other than a die shrink and cache changes. These can be done with little research (ie, investment) and will enable Motorola to continue improving processor speed, albeit slowly, over the next year. They will "trickle down" the ladder, reaching the iBooks by the end of next year - by which time they will be sufficiently cool (temperature-wise) and power-lean for that to happen.



    The PPC970 won't be a major upset for Intel/AMD when it shows up in October/November - by that time it will be ROUGHLY on par with the latest x86es. The good news is that not only its number-crunching but (more importantly) the whole bus architecture will be so substantially upgraded that the rest of the Apple mobos will also be on par.



    The better news is that from then on (barring any substantial changes in h/w configurability on the market (for instance, a major improvement/price slide for Itanium III)), Apple will be able to keep up with (albeit conservatively) PC architectural improvements, and IBM WILL be able to scale the processor frequency faster than xx86 and roughly reach par with them (thus making the overall processor power available a good deal better than Intels).



    Whether they - Apple in particular - will DO that, is more doubtful, for reasons of economy. Improvements are almost NEVER introduced on the market unless there is a need for it: pressure from competitors (Apple doesn't have any primary competitors, which is a major reason for the slowness of their h/w plans), or simply that it has become cheaper, or equally cheap, to use the improved version. Production is motivated by market forces, not by idealism (barring the Newton, but see what happened to it!). That also explains the evolutionary, rather than the revolutionary, changes in consumer computing.



    engpjp
  • Reply 28 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    [quote]Originally posted by evangellydonut:

    <strong>





    Let's look at what Apple did in terms of R&D on the chipsets/mobo since B&W G3 ('til prior to the new mobo)...which i consider to be the last major revision prior to this new mobo. It's also the last time Apple was up-to-date with mobo design.



    ATA/66 - IEEE standard, pin-compatible with ATA/33 so no mobo revision needed

    AGP2x, AGP4x - both Intel design, both arrived 'bout a year later than Wintel. Also IEEE standard, meaning little mobo layout change from 2x to 4x other than power supply. Initial AGP implementation might've taken some effort.

    PC133 - IEEE standard? no new mobo layout

    The above required changes in the north/south bridge...

    1 extra PCI slot - a simply mobo layout revision

    Gigabit ethernet - Apple doesn't have to develop the controller chip, just integerate it...i haven't looked at the details, but probably pin compatible with 100bt controller...

    ...all that in what? 4 years? If I were given a chipset to begin with, I can (almost) do that much design changes in that long, especially considering none of them are very "ground-breaking".



    Looking at other mobo makers, other than the aformentioned changes (minus gigabit ethernet), they've gone to DDR much faster (by 'bout a year), AGP 8x adoptation almost complete, USB2.0 integeration is another plus. ATA/100 and 133 are no-brainers...Lastly, most PC mobos now include ATA-RAID controllers.





    Other than ATA/100 I'm not placing a lot of blame on Apple 'cuz they have no incentive to do much of anything given how much the G4 chip has fallen behind the curve since it's introduction 3+ years ago. (and the argument "ATA drives can't possibly use 66MB/sec xfer rate" & "137GB barrier was only a recent problem" are 2 BS arguments that I'm not even going to bother to address) AMD can add an extra layer to their chip to support faster DDR, Moto relies on dye shrink to finally support a 200MHz bus...*sigh* 'bout time Apple jumped to IBM...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    OK ...



    1st You only note the easily seen stuff, Apple has redesigned the chipsets four times since Yosemite [Sawtooth, digital audio, Quicksilver, mirrored drive doors].



    2nd These redesigns included integrating new chip sets, removing old ones [obviously], removing latency points [the southbridge chip set was substancially shrank when the Quicksilvers were released], improving memory bandwidth, and PCI bandwidth.



    3rd That takes some engineering ... of course from your claim that several items only take "simple motherboard layout" you must have a degree in eletrical engineering and CS. The fact that no existing hard drive can flood an ATA/66 bus [see XLR8yourmac.com for details putz] let alone ATA/100 bus tells me that getting ATA/133 onboard is not all that useful yet and is just an added expense. Your claim that "most PC motherboards" have AGP 8x [not that any cards use that], ATA/133, DDR-RAM at twice the speed of the Power Macs, and RAID controllers is also simply false. I don't doubt that you could find one meeting that description but it is not the run of the mill PC, it is by no means mainstream.



    4th And still no one can answer my original question ... Why?
  • Reply 29 of 40
    drboardrboar Posts: 477member
    Upgrades yes

    New "generations" no



    The current towers that really is the smurf towers on steroids. I can not imagine what they can add more apart from front mounted USB & FW ports.My guess is that these towers is what they keep until the 970 arrives. In my opinion the most useful additon in the latest revison was the dual optical drive. The DDR really does not seem to add anything and the added HD support can be added to an old tower with a IDE PCI card for less than 100 dollars.



    Assuming that Apple will use the 970 they have new motherboard and towers and this is were the efforts should go. Why tweek the current MBs if they are a dead end that will be replaced in less then a year?



    2003 will be a boring year of two or so revisions that will be less substantial than the last one.

    Apple tower:

    Add 200 MHz, 10 GB, 128 MB stir in one hot graphical card for flavour!

    Before starting the next batch add printers and RAM to clear out the pot.

    Repeat until the 970 blast through the doors



  • Reply 30 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by evangellydonut:

    <strong>

    ATA/66 - IEEE standard, pin-compatible with ATA/33 so no mobo revision needed

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It runs at higher frequencies, and if the original mainboard was only designed to handle UDMA-33 frequencies, changes will be necessary.





    [quote]<strong>

    AGP2x, AGP4x - both Intel design, both arrived 'bout a year later than Wintel. Also IEEE standard, meaning little mobo layout change from 2x to 4x other than power supply. Initial AGP implementation might've taken some effort.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is just so utterly wrong it's not even funny. Do you really think all it takes to implement AGP is to get "it" from Intel and stick "it" onto your motherboard?

    AGP4x is much more complex than AGP2x, both feature-wise and in regards to circuit layout concerns.





    [quote]<strong>

    PC133 - IEEE standard? no new mobo layout

    The above required changes in the north/south bridge...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Again, getting a mainboard design to stably run at 100 or 133 MHz rather than 66 MHz involves quite a bit more than just doing some minor changes in the northbridge and increasing the clock rate.





    [quote]<strong>1 extra PCI slot - a simply mobo layout revision

    Gigabit ethernet - Apple doesn't have to develop the controller chip, just integerate it...i haven't looked at the details, but probably pin compatible with 100bt controller...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I really wonder from where you get the misconception that anything that's "pin compatible" is completely trivial to integrate into a design. If life was that easy, and all it takes to go to higher frequencies was just speeding up an oscillator a bit, we would have had 133MHz system buses, GHz CPUs and all the other goodies right from the original IBM PC on.





    [quote]<strong>...all that in what? 4 years? If I were given a chipset to begin with, I can (almost) do that much design changes in that long, especially considering none of them are very "ground-breaking".[/QB<hr></blockquote>



    Sorry, but you very clearly have very little understanding of the issues involved in PCB and chip design.



    Besides, if you go to developer.apple.com and have a look at the hardware documentation (especially "block diagram and buses"), you'll note that you conveniently chose to ignore the fact that there have been 3 generations of CPUs in that time span, two different front side buses, several revisions of the north and southbridge, and ton's of other stuff.





    [quote][QB]Looking at other mobo makers, other than the aformentioned changes (minus gigabit ethernet), they've gone to DDR much faster (by 'bout a year), AGP 8x adoptation almost complete, USB2.0 integeration is another plus. ATA/100 and 133 are no-brainers...Lastly, most PC mobos now include ATA-RAID controllers.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Going by your argumentation, all the above changes except DDR are trivial as they all are pin-compatible to the previous incarnations. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and all sorts of high-frequency effects do have to be taken into account in mainboard design.





    [quote]<strong>AMD can add an extra layer to their chip to support faster DDR</strong><hr></blockquote>



    'nuff said, I guess...



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 31 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by engpjp:

    <strong>IBM WILL be able to scale the processor frequency faster than xx86</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What makes you think so? The Power4's scalability so far certainly does not lead to this conclusion.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 32 of 40
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    Originally posted by Bogie:



    "No, that argument doesn't work. Dell competes with every PC OEM, as does Gateway, as does Acer, etc ... therefore they are in the same shoes [as an OEM] as Apple. Now as an OS maker they are not, but we are not talking about OSes we are talking about hardware OEMs. Noting Intel and AMD as you did is unrelated.



    So, what PC companies meet your criteria for a "good" upgrade system? Claiming that the entire "Windows PC OEM industry" together meets your criteria is a cop out because as I said, your topic is about hardware OEMs not about OS companies, not about platforms but about refresh cycles of hardware."

    ---------------

    Yes, apple must compete against all the windows world. They have to compete against Intel, Microsoft, Dell, sony, Gateway, etc. They have to have a better OS to separate them from windows. Which they do. They need to have equal hardware to make themselves look desirable, which they don't.



    \tThe average PC user says, "I really don't enjoy using windows, but those macs are just such a bad deal compared to this sony laptop...ummm I guess I can live with windows." The truth is that PC users are used to windows and many of them have never used a mac before. Apple has cool computers which help draw people in, they have a good OS which helps inspire people to switch, but when it comes down to it they just don't have good hardware.

    \t

    \tBogie I can't answer your question. I don't know which PC company meets my criteria because I don't research PC makers. All I know is that apple's current plan is not the best one. They are behind, their hardware is over priced, and their products don't look good when compared to each other. Apple needs to either up the pace or get out of the race. I don't care about excuses! I no motorola sucks, but that isn't an excuse for the position apple is in.



    \tBogie if you care so much about your question why don't you go find the answer. So bogie which PC manufacturer doesn't meet your requirements? goshh...but I'm glad people are enjoying my thread.
  • Reply 33 of 40
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    [quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:

    <strong>



    What makes you think so? The Power4's scalability so far certainly does not lead to this conclusion.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>



    One point, the POWER4 was designed for super reliable use and some compromises were made that limited its speed in exchange for high clock cycles. But the I would estimate based on the pipeline depth compared to that of the other x86 chips that it will scale somewhere in between the Athlon and Pentium4. IMHO.
  • Reply 34 of 40
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    worst...thread...ever...



    I want my two minutes back
  • Reply 35 of 40
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    It only took you two minutes to read this whole thread? Oh and don't bash my thread dip-sh#t. Thats Bogie's job.
  • Reply 36 of 40
    hookhook Posts: 42member
    One of the big things that drives the way Apple currently does business is the importance of not having excessive inventory at any given time. This has had been a big reason for their financial stablility in recent years.



    Apple can't afford to eat their own hardware that is made obselete by new updates. If you look at the current PB situation, you see a clear example (according to some reports) of Apple delaying an update in order to clear inventory of existing PBs. They simply can't afford to toss the unsold stuff in the garbage.



    Most other companies (Dell, etc.) are in a completely different situation. Comparitively small R&D and design budgets (guessing). A variety of hardware vendors to choose from. Also, an operating system that isn't really optimized for any specific hardware. Of course these reasons are also what makes Windows boxes such a nightmare. Generic uninspired operating system with a ton of different hardware that must be somewhat supported. Ranging from crap to ...



    Also, somebody mentioned the update process on for Windows & the MS website. Talk about a nightmare. 98% of windows users don't have the slightest idea of what version their using. MS puts piecemeal updates out there and hardly goes public with it. "Yeah our OS sucks. We just fixed one tiny little thing, but we don't really want to admit that anything was ever wrong so, check our website every now and then and you might find something that you need. But don't tell too many people." What a bunch of a**holes!
  • Reply 37 of 40
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    [quote]Originally posted by Algol:

    <strong>

    Bogie I can't answer your question. I don't know which PC company meets my criteria because I don't research PC makers. All I know is that apple's current plan is not the best one. They are behind, their hardware is over priced, and their products don't look good when compared to each other. Apple needs to either up the pace or get out of the race. I don't care about excuses! I no motorola sucks, but that isn't an excuse for the position apple is in.



    \tBogie if you care so much about your question why don't you go find the answer. So bogie which PC manufacturer doesn't meet your requirements? goshh...but I'm glad people are enjoying my thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, you finally addressed it honestly, and I can respect that. Apple could use improvement in their upgrade cycle. My only problem is that we don't know the constraints they are under so we can't really come up with solutions when we don't know the problems.
  • Reply 38 of 40
    kukukuku Posts: 254member
    honestly, can't people separate their fruits and their veggies.



    Apple Co. bashers for some reason can't get past the fact that you are dealing with companies that are repakagers(PC OEM) and consumer/business solutions(apple). I know it's not so clear cut, but the line can easily be seen.



    About product upgrades. Boggie is asking a very real question. WHAT are you comparing Apple Co. TO?



    There are many,many,many companies that customize PC computers from the latest parts on selection. Are they AS GOOD AS/BETTER then DELL. BETTER then Apple Co?



    They are cheaper and they are more customizable. Isn't that great?



    You better hit yourself on the head if you say yes. Because they have a turnout time of about 1week per order and at most probably 100 orders a month and has almost no comunication/understanding for the adverage Joe.



    This is compared to Dell and Apple who do 10x+ that with various techical support, warranty, field testing,etc.



    Not so clear cut is it?



    If issues can be clearly seen and fixed, everyone could do it. That's why professionals get paid the big money because no many people can.



    ~Kuku



    [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Kuku ]</p>
  • Reply 39 of 40
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bogie:

    <strong>Please contrast the image you paint of Apple with another company [PC OEM] and show that someone else has a history of releasing substancial upgrades more often.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Alienware?
  • Reply 40 of 40
    <strong>1st You only note the easily seen stuff, Apple has redesigned the chipsets four times since Yosemite [Sawtooth, digital audio, Quicksilver, mirrored drive doors].</strong>

    Supporting a new CPU does take a lot of effort... 'bout the same number of major CPU revisions took place in the Wintel world in as long...



    <strong>2nd These redesigns included integrating new chip sets, removing old ones [obviously], removing latency points [the southbridge chip set was substancially shrank when the Quicksilvers were released], improving memory bandwidth, and PCI bandwidth.</strong>

    Uh, that's what you expect from a mobo maker...That's essentially what 1/4 of Apple's all about. (rough estimate...other 1/4 marketing&HR etc, 1/2 on OS, software, case design, etc)



    <strong>The fact that no existing hard drive can flood an ATA/66 bus [see XLR8yourmac.com for details putz] let alone ATA/100 bus tells me that getting ATA/133 onboard is not all that useful yet and is just an added expense.</strong>

    If you've seen enough benchmarks from storagereview, you'll know that while the fastest IDE HDs on the market (WDxx00JB) can only sustain something like 40-50MB transfer rate over ATA/100, it sustains much less over ATA/66. In theory, there should only be upto 15% overhead with ATA due to lack of controller, that's not how things work in reality.

    Maybe if you have a Mirror G4 and a WDxx00JB drive, you can benchmark it and prove either of our statements...in the mean time, I'm sticking with mine since my WD1000BB feels significantly faster (large file copies) since I moved it from my Sawtooth to my Athlon box running ATA/100.

    While we are ont he subject of "supporting something that's not worth support", Maxtor's 160GB 5400RPM drive has been on the market what? almost half a year before Apple FINALLY half-heartedly supported ATA/100? I think it was Maxtor that claimed the 137GB problem can be resolved by a firmware flash...something I didn't see coming out of Apple. I guess with AGP4x, 'til the GeForce3Ti - Mac edition came out, there wasn't much need for it, fair enough...but the HD story is entirely different.



    <strong>Your claim that "most PC motherboards" have AGP 8x [not that any cards use that], ATA/133, DDR-RAM at twice the speed of the Power Macs, and RAID controllers is also simply false. I don't doubt that you could find one meeting that description but it is not the run of the mill PC, it is by no means mainstream.</strong>

    Sorry, let me reword my claim..."most newly released PC motherboards" have AGP8x, which IS supported by Radeon 9700, and will be supported by NV30 due to release at Comedex. Oh yeah, forgot to mention that there's at least 1 mobo (as of 1+ months ago) that supports Serial ATA as well...

    Otherwise, Intel's QDR isn't worth the time, but yes, I bought a mobo with support for PC2400 DDR-RAM almost a year and half ago...over a year earlier than Apple's implementation.



    Going a little further back, the point i'm trying to make is that Apple's upgrade cycle so far has been reasonable to the extend that Motorola can't produce enough chips fast enough for Apple to supply them to the consumer asap. As far as mobo design is concerned, it seems Apple is slightly further behind now than it was a few years ago. (even going back to PC100/PC133 era, PC mobos with memory-interleafing ability had much higher memory bandwidth than Apple's implementation, at least from simple benchmark point) The biggest concern is still Motorola, and my vote goes for ditching them for anyone else...preferably IBM.
Sign In or Register to comment.