I don't buy that at all. All of Apple's evidence has already been gathered over YEARS. And since Nick claims to have such high journalistic standards, I find it doubtful he would want to do that.
Unless something is glactically and catastrophically wrong in IBM land over the last month or two, the 970MP (2.8Ghz, same source--Morpheus) should be available now in the necessary shippable quantities should Apple want to use them.
I like this view, so I will believe it. Thank you for the optimism.
I remember similar platitudes from when we were all waiting for Motorola's mythical 8400 G5. The Register even had articles on Moto's new G5 beast, that was supposedly going to be on Hypertransport muthaboard and would have a fast on-die memory controller.
The Motorola G5 was NEVER ready. What if Apple's IBM relationship has taken a turn down the same road? What if the reason IBM won't deliver a dual-core CPU to Apple is that it's not worth the investment because the Apple's volumes are too tiny?
This is why I hope TS's reputation craters with the release of new Powermacs.
Bingo. Mac Sales total around a million for the quarter. Sales of PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution will be about 40 million per quarter. They may be cheaper chips, but IBM will still end up making about ten times more on video game chips. IBM probably found out what motorolla did: with only one user, making consumer desktop PowerPCs isn't cost effective. It's not like IBM is a charity for Apple or us, They're in business to make money.
Keep in mind that the Operton and Pentium 4 are far larger than the 970, and die area is the leading factor in pricing. Even bumping the 970's cache to 1 MB will keep it much smaller than the single core version of Intel's core, nevermind the dual core version. The is part of the reason that those chips are faster in most benchmarks -- they throw more transistors at the problem. At 66 million transistors the 970FX is a comparative lightweight, and even a dual core version with more cache ought to be reasonably priced ... especially in light of recent reports that IBM has gotten the yield problems well under control.
As for IBM's dual core expertise, please keep in mind that it is on chips for big servers with expensive cooling systems, high prices component, and relatively low clock rates! The issues with these machines are going to be keeping them cool and cheap at reasonable noise levels, and much of that will fall to Apple.
Keep in mind that volume also factors into pricing.
Keep in mind that volume also factors into pricing.
Yes, and AMD doesn't expect huge volumes right away so their prices are sky-high, whereas Intel is expecting greater volumes so their prices are lower. As for Apple & IBM, this is why I would expect Apple to go all MP in the PowerMac line when the chip is available instead of having a mix.
As observed earlier (or was it elsewhere?) the PowerMac has substantial margins, and that gives Apple plenty of room to hide the price of the MP chips.
Yes, and AMD doesn't expect huge volumes right away so their prices are sky-high, whereas Intel is expecting greater volumes so their prices are lower. As for Apple & IBM, this is why I would expect Apple to go all MP in the PowerMac line when the chip is available instead of having a mix.
It would be interesting to have them extend that to the iMac line. There is great marketing value in having a consumer based dual-core system. However, it may also take sales away from the low-end PowerMac. But, sales are sales.
To offload existing inventory. If the update were killer the price drops to move existing inventory would drop below the 25% profit line. With a 200Mhz bump and no other improvements, price drops could be as low as a couple hundred bucks. Once the backlog is flushed Apple rolls out the MP which it has had locked up in the storeroom all along.
To offload existing inventory. If the update were killer the price drops to move existing inventory would drop below the 25% profit line. With a 200Mhz bump and no other improvements, price drops could be as low as a couple hundred bucks. Once the backlog is flushed Apple rolls out the MP which it has had locked up in the storeroom all along.
Yet with the disgraceful updates, PM sales are likely to fall even further.
Dave J, your #23 should really be #1. Inventory is absolutely key. From what we hear, there are stacks of PMs out there. Apple's usual approach is to call them "refurbs" and sell them thru the Special Deals page, but there's a limit to the number of machines they can move that way.
Dave J, your #23 should really be #1. Inventory is absolutely key. From what we hear, there are stacks of PMs out there. Apple's usual approach is to call them "refurbs" and sell them thru the Special Deals page, but there's a limit to the number of machines they can move that way.
That's not actually a fact, but I am the one that came up with that theory, but I only suspected that was what they were doing. I had no proof.
Dave J, your #23 should really be #1. Inventory is absolutely key. From what we hear, there are stacks of PMs out there. Apple's usual approach is to call them "refurbs" and sell them thru the Special Deals page, but there's a limit to the number of machines they can move that way.
It still doesn't address why all those PowerMacs are sitting their in the first place. They'd end up with an even bigger stack.
I havn't seen anyone with info that inventory is really out of hand, Apple usually shoots for about 5-weeks inventory throughout the channel. They want that down to nearly zero weeks when they do an update. So they may not be manufacturing many more standard config boxes, but those that are in the channel already are moving slowly because most folks want more oomph than is currently available at the current cost. Relative to what they would like in the channel before an update it is high, relative to steady state they would seem fine.
Apple has held off launches before because they wanted to sell down. But they usually have some decent bundle deals when they are trying to do that, especially in the edu store. They don't seem to be having any of those specials now. That might be an indication there aren't any immediate plans to announce anything PM-wise, or Apple is willing to eat the pricing difference on remaining inventory if they do.
To offload existing inventory. If the update were killer the price drops to move existing inventory would drop below the 25% profit line. With a 200Mhz bump and no other improvements, price drops could be as low as a couple hundred bucks. Once the backlog is flushed Apple rolls out the MP which it has had locked up in the storeroom all along.
I'm going to disagree with you, from a business point of view. Wouldn't it be better to get the dual core machines out ASAP to boost sales and revenue? Dual core Power Macs could justify a little price premium too, for a period of time.
The inventory problem, if there is one, wouldn't be difficult to handled. Continue to sell them along with the dual core G5s, the way Apple continued to sell the G4 Power Mac after the G5 introduction. With a price cut, plus a little premium on the dual cores, the difference would be more substantial. With this strategy, the old stock may begin to move faster than it does today.
So we're all in agreement then? Apple should have just went to intel ;-) Somedays i really wish they had, because at least then there would never been anything about the mac being slower. And in fact it would always be "faster, slicker" because of the os on same hardware that somebody had windows on......
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Keep in mind that volume also factors into pricing.
So we're all in agreement then? Apple should have just went to intel ;-) Somedays i really wish they had, because at least then there would never been anything about the mac being slower. And in fact it would always be "faster, slicker" because of the os on same hardware that somebody had windows on......
OMG you should be taken outside ...beaten senselessly and then fed 10lbs of haggis
Intel, in my opinion, has been a very poor performer.
Itanium- Dud
P4- Netburt architecture imploded in less than 4 years
P4 D- worst DC design EVAR!! Won't improve at 65nm either.
LCoS- Bailed
I'm more impressed with AMD but then again AMD is basically what we have with the G5. Your PC buddies are filling your head garbage man.
While I think that the inventory story has merit, let's not forget that Apple are selling more units now than when they started the deal with IBM, so they're buying more chips ... I think the inventory angle has been been skewed slightly in Apple's favour of late.
While I think that the inventory story has merit, let's not forget that Apple are selling more units now than when they started the deal with IBM, so they're buying more chips ... I think the inventory angle has been been skewed slightly in Apple's favour of late.
While iMac G5 sales have skyrocketed, PowerMac sales are have almost halved since since the G5's first quarter. Sales are worse than even the dark days of the PMG4. That either means that while Apple has become more desireable in the consumer market, it has become les desirable in the pro market, or because of the lackluster updates, nobody seems compelled to upgrade their machines. Either way this is bad for Apple.
That either means that while Apple has become more desireable in the consumer market, it has become les desirable in the pro market, or because of the lackluster updates, nobody seems compelled to upgrade their machines.
There are many reasons why professionals would find the G5 Power Mac inadequate. One of those, I think, is the small value of the ratio ( internal expandability ) / ( case volume ) of the Power Mac, perhaps the smallest out there for this kind of machine.
Comments
Originally posted by the cool gut
I don't buy that at all. All of Apple's evidence has already been gathered over YEARS. And since Nick claims to have such high journalistic standards, I find it doubtful he would want to do that.
That's why I wrapped it like I did.
Originally posted by Hiro
...
Unless something is glactically and catastrophically wrong in IBM land over the last month or two, the 970MP (2.8Ghz, same source--Morpheus) should be available now in the necessary shippable quantities should Apple want to use them.
I like this view, so I will believe it. Thank you for the optimism.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
I remember similar platitudes from when we were all waiting for Motorola's mythical 8400 G5. The Register even had articles on Moto's new G5 beast, that was supposedly going to be on Hypertransport muthaboard and would have a fast on-die memory controller.
The Motorola G5 was NEVER ready. What if Apple's IBM relationship has taken a turn down the same road? What if the reason IBM won't deliver a dual-core CPU to Apple is that it's not worth the investment because the Apple's volumes are too tiny?
This is why I hope TS's reputation craters with the release of new Powermacs.
Bingo. Mac Sales total around a million for the quarter. Sales of PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution will be about 40 million per quarter. They may be cheaper chips, but IBM will still end up making about ten times more on video game chips. IBM probably found out what motorolla did: with only one user, making consumer desktop PowerPCs isn't cost effective. It's not like IBM is a charity for Apple or us, They're in business to make money.
Originally posted by Programmer
Keep in mind that the Operton and Pentium 4 are far larger than the 970, and die area is the leading factor in pricing. Even bumping the 970's cache to 1 MB will keep it much smaller than the single core version of Intel's core, nevermind the dual core version. The is part of the reason that those chips are faster in most benchmarks -- they throw more transistors at the problem. At 66 million transistors the 970FX is a comparative lightweight, and even a dual core version with more cache ought to be reasonably priced ... especially in light of recent reports that IBM has gotten the yield problems well under control.
As for IBM's dual core expertise, please keep in mind that it is on chips for big servers with expensive cooling systems, high prices component, and relatively low clock rates! The issues with these machines are going to be keeping them cool and cheap at reasonable noise levels, and much of that will fall to Apple.
Keep in mind that volume also factors into pricing.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Keep in mind that volume also factors into pricing.
Yes, and AMD doesn't expect huge volumes right away so their prices are sky-high, whereas Intel is expecting greater volumes so their prices are lower. As for Apple & IBM, this is why I would expect Apple to go all MP in the PowerMac line when the chip is available instead of having a mix.
As observed earlier (or was it elsewhere?) the PowerMac has substantial margins, and that gives Apple plenty of room to hide the price of the MP chips.
Originally posted by Programmer
Yes, and AMD doesn't expect huge volumes right away so their prices are sky-high, whereas Intel is expecting greater volumes so their prices are lower. As for Apple & IBM, this is why I would expect Apple to go all MP in the PowerMac line when the chip is available instead of having a mix.
It would be interesting to have them extend that to the iMac line. There is great marketing value in having a consumer based dual-core system. However, it may also take sales away from the low-end PowerMac. But, sales are sales.
(if rumors are correct)
Reason #23
To offload existing inventory. If the update were killer the price drops to move existing inventory would drop below the 25% profit line. With a 200Mhz bump and no other improvements, price drops could be as low as a couple hundred bucks. Once the backlog is flushed Apple rolls out the MP which it has had locked up in the storeroom all along.
Originally posted by Dave J
Why Apple is releasing a ho-hum PM update
(if rumors are correct)
Reason #23
To offload existing inventory. If the update were killer the price drops to move existing inventory would drop below the 25% profit line. With a 200Mhz bump and no other improvements, price drops could be as low as a couple hundred bucks. Once the backlog is flushed Apple rolls out the MP which it has had locked up in the storeroom all along.
Yet with the disgraceful updates, PM sales are likely to fall even further.
Originally posted by cubist
Dave J, your #23 should really be #1. Inventory is absolutely key. From what we hear, there are stacks of PMs out there. Apple's usual approach is to call them "refurbs" and sell them thru the Special Deals page, but there's a limit to the number of machines they can move that way.
That's not actually a fact, but I am the one that came up with that theory, but I only suspected that was what they were doing. I had no proof.
Originally posted by cubist
Dave J, your #23 should really be #1. Inventory is absolutely key. From what we hear, there are stacks of PMs out there. Apple's usual approach is to call them "refurbs" and sell them thru the Special Deals page, but there's a limit to the number of machines they can move that way.
It still doesn't address why all those PowerMacs are sitting their in the first place. They'd end up with an even bigger stack.
Apple has held off launches before because they wanted to sell down. But they usually have some decent bundle deals when they are trying to do that, especially in the edu store. They don't seem to be having any of those specials now. That might be an indication there aren't any immediate plans to announce anything PM-wise, or Apple is willing to eat the pricing difference on remaining inventory if they do.
Originally posted by Dave J
Why Apple is releasing a ho-hum PM update
(if rumors are correct)
Reason #23
To offload existing inventory. If the update were killer the price drops to move existing inventory would drop below the 25% profit line. With a 200Mhz bump and no other improvements, price drops could be as low as a couple hundred bucks. Once the backlog is flushed Apple rolls out the MP which it has had locked up in the storeroom all along.
I'm going to disagree with you, from a business point of view. Wouldn't it be better to get the dual core machines out ASAP to boost sales and revenue? Dual core Power Macs could justify a little price premium too, for a period of time.
The inventory problem, if there is one, wouldn't be difficult to handled. Continue to sell them along with the dual core G5s, the way Apple continued to sell the G4 Power Mac after the G5 introduction. With a price cut, plus a little premium on the dual cores, the difference would be more substantial. With this strategy, the old stock may begin to move faster than it does today.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Keep in mind that volume also factors into pricing.
Originally posted by webmail
So we're all in agreement then? Apple should have just went to intel ;-) Somedays i really wish they had, because at least then there would never been anything about the mac being slower. And in fact it would always be "faster, slicker" because of the os on same hardware that somebody had windows on......
OMG you should be taken outside ...beaten senselessly and then fed 10lbs of haggis
Intel, in my opinion, has been a very poor performer.
Itanium- Dud
P4- Netburt architecture imploded in less than 4 years
P4 D- worst DC design EVAR!! Won't improve at 65nm either.
LCoS- Bailed
I'm more impressed with AMD but then again AMD is basically what we have with the G5. Your PC buddies are filling your head garbage man.
My next PC is AMD. I'm tired of Intel.
Originally posted by hmurchison
and then fed 10lbs of haggis
Now this is simply uncalled-for cruelty! Shame on thee!
Originally posted by g::masta
While I think that the inventory story has merit, let's not forget that Apple are selling more units now than when they started the deal with IBM, so they're buying more chips ... I think the inventory angle has been been skewed slightly in Apple's favour of late.
While iMac G5 sales have skyrocketed, PowerMac sales are have almost halved since since the G5's first quarter. Sales are worse than even the dark days of the PMG4. That either means that while Apple has become more desireable in the consumer market, it has become les desirable in the pro market, or because of the lackluster updates, nobody seems compelled to upgrade their machines. Either way this is bad for Apple.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
That either means that while Apple has become more desireable in the consumer market, it has become les desirable in the pro market, or because of the lackluster updates, nobody seems compelled to upgrade their machines.
There are many reasons why professionals would find the G5 Power Mac inadequate. One of those, I think, is the small value of the ratio ( internal expandability ) / ( case volume ) of the Power Mac, perhaps the smallest out there for this kind of machine.