All we can really go by there (currently) is die size. And there's nothing outrageous about the 970's die size -> </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, we've got one other indicator: Yields. If the manufacturing process is going so well that their lowest rated processor is 1.8GHz - which they said would be the highest rating on release - then they've got to be swimming in saleable 970s.
I really don't think this puppy will cost all that much. Muahahahahaha.
<strong>No, we've got one other indicator: Yields.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we can add "Expected sales volume" too, in that IBM does seem to be positioning to sell these suckers across all their product lines. If they _have_ to they can suck the profit from the 32x eServers (or whatever) where a couple extra $k won't be missed.
They seem to be lining up for a big *SMACK* to Intel -> price not the overriding object, size of SMACK is!
It's all getting pretty clear why MOT said they weren't going to make a G5, They couldn't match what IBM was putting together and proposing to Apple. Therefore, all the MOT bashing had nothing to do with them not wanting to supply Apple, they just coudn't keep up with the technology that IBM was implementing. Not to say MOT didn't have their own problems.
No, we've got one other indicator: Yields. If the manufacturing process is going so well that their lowest rated processor is 1.8GHz - which they said would be the highest rating on release - then they've got to be swimming in saleable 970s.
I really don't think this puppy will cost all that much. Muahahahahaha.
Sorry, I didn't mean cost of the 970 chip, I meant cost of the PM with a 970 in it. Apple has been (is) greedy; they could charge double even if the 970 costs them less than a 7455. I just mean I have no info on what Apple will charge for a 970 PM.
As for the chip price, we also have the 300mm factor. When I gave the production info for the 970 a while back, it was to start production on the existing 200mm fab, not the new 300mm fab in EF NY. When it does go to the 300mm fab, it will get cheaper (for IBM at least). IBM probably averages the cost out to Apple??
I hope Apple keeps prices in line with current PM's and just tosses in dual 970's throughout the line-up.
All I meant to say earlier was that the chipset will make us , and even has some goodies that we didn't even know we wanted. :cool:
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>Sorry, I didn't mean cost of the 970 chip, I meant cost of the PM with a 970 in it. Apple has been (is) greedy; they could charge double even if the 970 costs them less than a 7455. I just mean I have no info on what Apple will charge for a 970 PM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The issue isn't whether Apple is greedy, but whether they're smart about it. Henry Ford was a greedy bastard too, and that's why he paid his workers well. Smart greedy people will not hesitate to invest money if they know there'll be a good return. Frankly, I'm not sure how greedy they are, given that they run their enterprise just above break-even.
The PowerMacs are quite pricey, and they're apparently cheaper for Apple to make than the LCD iMac is. I have no trouble believing that, since the iMac is quite a piece of work. They have room to absorb any excess CPU cost and still make a tidy profit, especially if they restore (or move back toward) the old middle and high end price points.
They should see an immediate spike in PM sales when this thing rolls out, and another spike once QXP 6 (actually, 6.0.1 ) appears. Quark should see a spike too, since OS X and the 970 will finally give people the reason to upgrade QXP 3 and 4 that Quark itself never could. I doubt it will dissuade would-be InDesign customers, either.
Then there are the sales to markets that Apple has never had a chance in: 3D, high-end video and film, enterprise server duties, etc.
In other words, I don't think Apple will have any trouble selling this thing. If they restore the $3500 "best" price point it will raise a stink on these boards, but it will look like a steal to people accustomed to pricing IBM, Sun and SGI workstations and servers, and it won't look bad at all relative to high-end dual Xeon and Itanium NT workstations, once Apple can claim performance to match the price.
I think Apple should learn their lesson this time and play it shrewder.
They've got 95% of the PC market to aim at.
If they could put 1.8-2.5 dual 970s in the fall 'POWER'Macs at current pricing levels then the demand would be insatiable! That's how to get their growth targets. Wanna see POWERMacs roll out of the stores come the fall? They know what to do.
I can see an alternative. Now Apple has 1.8-2.5 to aim at. The current 'power'Mac pricing levels could be kept for single 970s at 1.8-2.5 gig.
Duals? Apple at dual 1.8-2.5 gig 970s would have truly arrived at the Workstation market (what was that about 60% of 3D/workstation companies going to add a Mac to their pipeline...?) then charging the old premium and then a bit more for an 'uber'Mac workstation range would be the fairest solution all round.
Apple would get the workstation market.
Apple would get the Tower (x86) switchers who've been dying for 'X' but wanted a matress thumper to convince them. They'd also get 'power'Mac customers who've been gagging for it.
Realstically, Apple have always been a bit on the greedy side. I can see them bumping the towers to old price points on singles only and have a single dual tower at the top for a ridiculous price. No imagination there.
The shining light is what Apple have done to the laptop range.
There's hope that the coming home party for the POWERMacs could be something truly special.
In other words, I don't think Apple will have any trouble selling this thing. If they restore the $3500 "best" price point it will raise a stink on these boards, but it will look like a steal to people accustomed to pricing IBM, Sun and SGI workstations and servers, and it won't look bad at all relative to high-end dual Xeon and Itanium NT workstations, once Apple can claim performance to match the price.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the key will be balancing the desire to make lots of dough versus the desire to grow their market share. From a business point of view, Apple needs to charge whatever it takes to keep sales equal to manufacturing capacity. I suspect the price points based on that equaiton would be higher than most of us would like to see, but as you said, the demand will be there in spades. I hope Apple charges whatever they can get away with. If they can charge $5000 for a maxed out dual 2.5 gig machine and still sell them as fast as they can make them, they'd be crazy not to do so. We Maclots will bitch about the prices no matter what they are!
Apple won't get stupid. If this level of performance comes back to the mac desktop, then Apple will be fine with the prices they have now, but they cannot raise prices, they must never raise prices unless they're going to offer a machine with so much performance that it simply destroys everything in it's path, and even then, they cannot raise prices too much. There's probably room for a 5000+USD QUAD 970 machine.
Apple, for the love of all that is holy, take a single 970 in the 1.8-2.5Ghz range and plunk it into a sub 1500 tower or a 1200ish cube-redux/slab/phone book/pizzabox. I will have 1 ordered before Steve gets off the stage.
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>
Sorry, I didn't mean cost of the 970 chip, I meant cost of the PM with a 970 in it. Apple has been (is) greedy; they could charge double even if the 970 costs them less than a 7455. I just mean I have no info on what Apple will charge for a 970 PM.
As for the chip price, we also have the 300mm factor. When I gave the production info for the 970 a while back, it was to start production on the existing 200mm fab, not the new 300mm fab in EF NY. When it does go to the 300mm fab, it will get cheaper (for IBM at least). IBM probably averages the cost out to Apple??
I hope Apple keeps prices in line with current PM's and just tosses in dual 970's throughout the line-up.
All I meant to say earlier was that the chipset will make us , and even has some goodies that we didn't even know we wanted. :cool:
I have a funny feeling that the 970 machines won't resemble the current PowerMacs too closely. The current ones are designed around the current architecture - a single, shared pool of RAM, a shared bus, and a generally static, inflexible board.
And although we know a fair amount about the 970 by now, we know nothing about the chip that is its interface to the world. We have hints about onboard DSP-like capabilities, and s, and names like "Apple PI", associated technology like HyperTransport to weave fabrics out of inexpensive, high-speed connections, and stray bits about kernel-level clustering.
This will not be your father's PowerMac.
*blink*
You know... this is the Year of the Laptop. The 970 can go into blade configurations, and Apple is entering the server market. The current laptops - G4 and all - have enough power to serve as workstations for a lot of Apple's customers. They can even be used as desktop workstations with the aid of an external monitor. So... what if Apple took full advantage of this, and Airport Extreme, and pushed the idea of laptops and iMacs communicating with dense farms of servers, administered via the slick tools already present in OS X Server? Some sort of PCI would have to hang around, but FW3200 means you can hot-plug a PCI chassis into your laptop! Or even your iMac! (Not the current models, obviously.) Steve demonstrated a PowerMac G3 netbooting iMacs years ago, and he's said that the first iMacs were initially diskless, but the world wasn't ready for that. Well, I don't think the world will ever be ready for the "dickless workstation" or the sort of too-thin client that Larry Ellison's always going on about, but Apple's current offerings are powerful enough to be workstations in their own right - or will be shortly after getting a 970.
Am I completely crazy, or is this viable? I'm trying to think of another way that Apple could realize Steve's goal of 50% laptop sales by the end of the year, and I think I found something.
It's discussions like this that that make me REEEEEEELY scared that things could go horribly, horribly mundane when the "new" stuff is released. There's a lot of exciting, promising ideas floating around here....hope this balloon holds air.
My poor old B&W is starting to get nervous that it might not be here much longer.....
You know something is wrong when Amorph and I start to agree on too much, but yes, FAST FAST firewire would make a suitable replacement for PCI for 99% of the uses out there, but to be any good, such a mac would really be better off with 2 independent firewire buses. That way we could plug drives into one without effecting the bandwidth available to do some of the other nifty things Amorph is talking about.
Come on Apple, put a 970 daughtercard and a PCI-express GPU (or 8X AGP) in a small case with twin FW3200 links (I'll settle for FW1600 and a NEWCARD slot. Small, stylish but no fancy convection cooling gimmicks or buttonless power buttons. Slap a tray in ti and two HDD bays and presto, new age cube.
One note, Applw cannot afford to go super expensive on this unless they introduce a new tier of performance (4 CPU's), the SP and DP configs MUST NOT get any higher in price.
Another opportunity to beat the competition with a cool consumerable CPU won't come along in a long time, if ever again. THIS IS the one chance Apple is going to get to climb back to 6-10% marketshare range. If they don't do it now, they never will. Not only because the 970 offers big performance but also because it frees Apple to drop the fastest G4's into the consumer desktops (possibly with L3 cache). If it's hot, who cares, drop ina bigger fan and heat sink and you don't really need to increase the noise. BIG fan, slow speed = much CFM, little noise. Small fan, high speed = much CFM but also much noise.
Steve, whatever ridiculous price you're thinking of dropping on these things, lower it by 20%. NO excuses, just make it happen,
If there aren't enough 970's to go around, drop them into the 3000 USD machine and drop the FASTEST DUAL G4 into the low end PM.
This is the last chance Apple may ever see to get marketshare back into a safe range.
<strong>Another opportunity to beat the competition with a cool consumerable CPU won't come along in a long time, if ever again. THIS IS the one chance Apple is going to get to climb back to 6-10% marketshare range. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So... how _low_ can they go? Sales of the low end tend to outweigh sales in the high end. There _are_ enough people to justify a 'high' price for a dual ppc-970 @ 2.5GHz.
But how low can they go and still be persuasive? That's the question. I think even single 1.4 GHz ppc 970s in a 'tower' config for $1200-1400ish would sell as fast as Apple could make them.
This is the arguement that the 'headless imac' or the Cube-redux etc are all aimed at: make something cheap _and_ compelling. With the towers sucking so bad, the consumer level stuff can't be compelling. Now maybe...
Definitely, having a legitimate high-end desktop chip should make it much easier to stratify the rest of the line-up, but Apple can't afford to go nuts on price. Prices STILL have to come down, regardless of performance.
<strong>Prices STILL have to come down, regardless of performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In base models yes, definately. If they plunk a 970 in a new PB later this year or early next year, they can stay the same - I really have no problems with their laptop lineup and pricing. Desktop world is a totally different ballgame, and I hope Apple realizes that market share gains are not made by laptops. Businesses use desktops for 95% of the work to be done.
<strong>Definitely, having a legitimate high-end desktop chip should make it much easier to stratify the rest of the line-up, but Apple can't afford to go nuts on price. Prices STILL have to come down, regardless of performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree with you on that. If Apple can sell all they can make for the next 6 months at a price of $2000, why should they sell them for $1500? It's simple supply and demand. As long as demand outstrips supply, the price should remain high. If their manufacturing capacity is maxed out, they're not going to gain any marketshare at the lower price. Its simply throwing money away that could be used for more R&D, etc. Those who are willing to pay the higher price can have them first. After the initial feeding frenzy is over, bring on rev. B of the 970 systems at the lower price points to keep the juggernaut rolling. They owe it to their shareholders to maximize their profits.
Look at the situation with the current PMs - it's just the opposite. Demand is dropping, and Apple has an oversupply of capacity. Prices drop to spur sales.
Comments
<strong>Ah ha. So the nature of Apple PI becomes clearer.
So I'm guessing Apple has their own companion chip (or analogous interface) ready and waiting.
Whee.
Whee indeed.
Like I've said:
We should all be very pleased when the specs for the PM970 are released.
(unless it costs a fortune! I don't have any clue there)
<strong>
(unless it costs a fortune! I don't have any clue there)</strong><hr></blockquote>
All we can really go by there (currently) is die size. And there's nothing outrageous about the 970's die size ->
<strong>
All we can really go by there (currently) is die size. And there's nothing outrageous about the 970's die size ->
No, we've got one other indicator: Yields. If the manufacturing process is going so well that their lowest rated processor is 1.8GHz - which they said would be the highest rating on release - then they've got to be swimming in saleable 970s.
I really don't think this puppy will cost all that much. Muahahahahaha.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>No, we've got one other indicator: Yields.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we can add "Expected sales volume" too, in that IBM does seem to be positioning to sell these suckers across all their product lines. If they _have_ to they can suck the profit from the 32x eServers (or whatever) where a couple extra $k won't be missed.
They seem to be lining up for a big *SMACK* to Intel -> price not the overriding object, size of SMACK is!
Another ->
Sheesh. Too gidy, need oxygen.
<hr></blockquote>
That's kick to the jegs! A knee to the bread basket! And an elbow in the face for Intel CPUs!
:eek: <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Lemon Bon Bon
I am now buying the Mr. Sheen to polish the glass table...
<strong>
No, we've got one other indicator: Yields. If the manufacturing process is going so well that their lowest rated processor is 1.8GHz - which they said would be the highest rating on release - then they've got to be swimming in saleable 970s.
I really don't think this puppy will cost all that much. Muahahahahaha.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I didn't mean cost of the 970 chip, I meant cost of the PM with a 970 in it. Apple has been (is) greedy; they could charge double even if the 970 costs them less than a 7455. I just mean I have no info on what Apple will charge for a 970 PM.
As for the chip price, we also have the 300mm factor. When I gave the production info for the 970 a while back, it was to start production on the existing 200mm fab, not the new 300mm fab in EF NY. When it does go to the 300mm fab, it will get cheaper (for IBM at least). IBM probably averages the cost out to Apple??
I hope Apple keeps prices in line with current PM's and just tosses in dual 970's throughout the line-up.
All I meant to say earlier was that the chipset will make us
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>
<strong>Sorry, I didn't mean cost of the 970 chip, I meant cost of the PM with a 970 in it. Apple has been (is) greedy; they could charge double even if the 970 costs them less than a 7455. I just mean I have no info on what Apple will charge for a 970 PM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The issue isn't whether Apple is greedy, but whether they're smart about it. Henry Ford was a greedy bastard too, and that's why he paid his workers well. Smart greedy people will not hesitate to invest money if they know there'll be a good return. Frankly, I'm not sure how greedy they are, given that they run their enterprise just above break-even.
The PowerMacs are quite pricey, and they're apparently cheaper for Apple to make than the LCD iMac is. I have no trouble believing that, since the iMac is quite a piece of work. They have room to absorb any excess CPU cost and still make a tidy profit, especially if they restore (or move back toward) the old middle and high end price points.
They should see an immediate spike in PM sales when this thing rolls out, and another spike once QXP 6 (actually, 6.0.1
Then there are the sales to markets that Apple has never had a chance in: 3D, high-end video and film, enterprise server duties, etc.
In other words, I don't think Apple will have any trouble selling this thing. If they restore the $3500 "best" price point it will raise a stink on these boards, but it will look like a steal to people accustomed to pricing IBM, Sun and SGI workstations and servers, and it won't look bad at all relative to high-end dual Xeon and Itanium NT workstations, once Apple can claim performance to match the price.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
I think Apple should learn their lesson this time and play it shrewder.
They've got 95% of the PC market to aim at.
If they could put 1.8-2.5 dual 970s in the fall 'POWER'Macs at current pricing levels then the demand would be insatiable! That's how to get their growth targets. Wanna see POWERMacs roll out of the stores come the fall? They know what to do.
I can see an alternative. Now Apple has 1.8-2.5 to aim at. The current 'power'Mac pricing levels could be kept for single 970s at 1.8-2.5 gig.
Duals? Apple at dual 1.8-2.5 gig 970s would have truly arrived at the Workstation market (what was that about 60% of 3D/workstation companies going to add a Mac to their pipeline...?) then charging the old premium and then a bit more for an 'uber'Mac workstation range would be the fairest solution all round.
Apple would get the workstation market.
Apple would get the Tower (x86) switchers who've been dying for 'X' but wanted a matress thumper to convince them. They'd also get 'power'Mac customers who've been gagging for it.
Realstically, Apple have always been a bit on the greedy side. I can see them bumping the towers to old price points on singles only and have a single dual tower at the top for a ridiculous price. No imagination there.
The shining light is what Apple have done to the laptop range.
There's hope that the coming home party for the POWERMacs could be something truly special.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
In other words, I don't think Apple will have any trouble selling this thing. If they restore the $3500 "best" price point it will raise a stink on these boards, but it will look like a steal to people accustomed to pricing IBM, Sun and SGI workstations and servers, and it won't look bad at all relative to high-end dual Xeon and Itanium NT workstations, once Apple can claim performance to match the price.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the key will be balancing the desire to make lots of dough versus the desire to grow their market share. From a business point of view, Apple needs to charge whatever it takes to keep sales equal to manufacturing capacity. I suspect the price points based on that equaiton would be higher than most of us would like to see, but as you said, the demand will be there in spades. I hope Apple charges whatever they can get away with. If they can charge $5000 for a maxed out dual 2.5 gig machine and still sell them as fast as they can make them, they'd be crazy not to do so. We Maclots will bitch about the prices no matter what they are!
Apple won't get stupid. If this level of performance comes back to the mac desktop, then Apple will be fine with the prices they have now, but they cannot raise prices, they must never raise prices unless they're going to offer a machine with so much performance that it simply destroys everything in it's path, and even then, they cannot raise prices too much. There's probably room for a 5000+USD QUAD 970 machine.
Apple, for the love of all that is holy, take a single 970 in the 1.8-2.5Ghz range and plunk it into a sub 1500 tower or a 1200ish cube-redux/slab/phone book/pizzabox. I will have 1 ordered before Steve gets off the stage.
<strong>
Sorry, I didn't mean cost of the 970 chip, I meant cost of the PM with a 970 in it. Apple has been (is) greedy; they could charge double even if the 970 costs them less than a 7455. I just mean I have no info on what Apple will charge for a 970 PM.
As for the chip price, we also have the 300mm factor. When I gave the production info for the 970 a while back, it was to start production on the existing 200mm fab, not the new 300mm fab in EF NY. When it does go to the 300mm fab, it will get cheaper (for IBM at least). IBM probably averages the cost out to Apple??
I hope Apple keeps prices in line with current PM's and just tosses in dual 970's throughout the line-up.
All I meant to say earlier was that the chipset will make us
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I still remember how much I paid for my IIfx. ($6,700 w/o a HD, circa 1990 plus $3,600 for a Laserwriter)
edit: Oh, and boy was it fast compared to my MacPlus.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>
And although we know a fair amount about the 970 by now, we know nothing about the chip that is its interface to the world. We have hints about onboard DSP-like capabilities, and
This will not be your father's PowerMac.
*blink*
You know... this is the Year of the Laptop. The 970 can go into blade configurations, and Apple is entering the server market. The current laptops - G4 and all - have enough power to serve as workstations for a lot of Apple's customers. They can even be used as desktop workstations with the aid of an external monitor. So... what if Apple took full advantage of this, and Airport Extreme, and pushed the idea of laptops and iMacs communicating with dense farms of servers, administered via the slick tools already present in OS X Server? Some sort of PCI would have to hang around, but FW3200 means you can hot-plug a PCI chassis into your laptop! Or even your iMac! (Not the current models, obviously.) Steve demonstrated a PowerMac G3 netbooting iMacs years ago, and he's said that the first iMacs were initially diskless, but the world wasn't ready for that. Well, I don't think the world will ever be ready for the "dickless workstation" or the sort of too-thin client that Larry Ellison's always going on about, but Apple's current offerings are powerful enough to be workstations in their own right - or will be shortly after getting a 970.
Am I completely crazy, or is this viable? I'm trying to think of another way that Apple could realize Steve's goal of 50% laptop sales by the end of the year, and I think I found something.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
My poor old B&W is starting to get nervous that it might not be here much longer.....
Come on Apple, put a 970 daughtercard and a PCI-express GPU (or 8X AGP) in a small case with twin FW3200 links (I'll settle for FW1600 and a NEWCARD slot. Small, stylish but no fancy convection cooling gimmicks or buttonless power buttons. Slap a tray in ti and two HDD bays and presto, new age cube.
One note, Applw cannot afford to go super expensive on this unless they introduce a new tier of performance (4 CPU's), the SP and DP configs MUST NOT get any higher in price.
Another opportunity to beat the competition with a cool consumerable CPU won't come along in a long time, if ever again. THIS IS the one chance Apple is going to get to climb back to 6-10% marketshare range. If they don't do it now, they never will. Not only because the 970 offers big performance but also because it frees Apple to drop the fastest G4's into the consumer desktops (possibly with L3 cache). If it's hot, who cares, drop ina bigger fan and heat sink and you don't really need to increase the noise. BIG fan, slow speed = much CFM, little noise. Small fan, high speed = much CFM but also much noise.
Steve, whatever ridiculous price you're thinking of dropping on these things, lower it by 20%. NO excuses, just make it happen,
If there aren't enough 970's to go around, drop them into the 3000 USD machine and drop the FASTEST DUAL G4 into the low end PM.
This is the last chance Apple may ever see to get marketshare back into a safe range.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Another opportunity to beat the competition with a cool consumerable CPU won't come along in a long time, if ever again. THIS IS the one chance Apple is going to get to climb back to 6-10% marketshare range. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So... how _low_ can they go? Sales of the low end tend to outweigh sales in the high end. There _are_ enough people to justify a 'high' price for a dual ppc-970 @ 2.5GHz.
But how low can they go and still be persuasive? That's the question. I think even single 1.4 GHz ppc 970s in a 'tower' config for $1200-1400ish would sell as fast as Apple could make them.
This is the arguement that the 'headless imac' or the Cube-redux etc are all aimed at: make something cheap _and_ compelling. With the towers sucking so bad, the consumer level stuff can't be compelling. Now maybe...
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Nevyn ]</p>
<strong>Prices STILL have to come down, regardless of performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In base models yes, definately. If they plunk a 970 in a new PB later this year or early next year, they can stay the same - I really have no problems with their laptop lineup and pricing. Desktop world is a totally different ballgame, and I hope Apple realizes that market share gains are not made by laptops. Businesses use desktops for 95% of the work to be done.
<strong>Definitely, having a legitimate high-end desktop chip should make it much easier to stratify the rest of the line-up, but Apple can't afford to go nuts on price. Prices STILL have to come down, regardless of performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree with you on that. If Apple can sell all they can make for the next 6 months at a price of $2000, why should they sell them for $1500? It's simple supply and demand. As long as demand outstrips supply, the price should remain high. If their manufacturing capacity is maxed out, they're not going to gain any marketshare at the lower price. Its simply throwing money away that could be used for more R&D, etc. Those who are willing to pay the higher price can have them first. After the initial feeding frenzy is over, bring on rev. B of the 970 systems at the lower price points to keep the juggernaut rolling. They owe it to their shareholders to maximize their profits.
Look at the situation with the current PMs - it's just the opposite. Demand is dropping, and Apple has an oversupply of capacity. Prices drop to spur sales.