What he said was that something would be SHIPPING by this time next year. He definitely said "shipping"... which means an intro prior to WWDC 2006. I can't imagine a stealth/PR announcment for a change this big. He will announce an intel based powerbook at MWSF in Jan 2006, or at a special event help in the April/May timeframe.
I think they'll put a G5 in the powerbooks at 1.8Ghz max.
The way i always saw apple's line up spec-wise is:
*emac=mini
*imac=>ibook
*powermac=>powerbook
From top till down:
Powermac/powerbook/iMac/ibook/emac/mini
Powerbooks are supposed to be better than iMacs, so if the iMac has a G5, the powerbook should follow, not at 2Ghz because of technical problems, but i guess 1.8Ghz. This might be a high guess, but looking from a marketing point of view, the fastest G4 now tops at 1.67Ghz, so if the new G5's would top out on 1.6 or lower, then a lot of people will think it's slower than the G4.
To be really optimistic, why not 2 G5's, each clocked at 1.2Ghz? Make it a bit thicker, i wouldn't mind
Apple will not drop the price until the 10-14 Day price protection guarantee expires for pre-anouncement purchases. I picked up a Rev. C Dual 2.0 G5 last month, and I'm still happy I did - It's great, and still will be once the mactels are out.
I see Apple's line up in the same way as you "drazztikka". To answer your question "ruud", its because the Powerbook is a pro-line machine, while the iMac is a consumer-line machine. But that's just how I see it.
My plan: Unless something special happens to the Powerbooks soon (update/price drop), I'll get the next revision of the iBooks (12").
Without a major price move, I don't think Apple survives until the transition. Speed bumps do not equal great new product, and I don't see much beyond that on the horizon.
I know my reaction immediately was to pull my order on a G5 2.7 with everything via educator, just to see how things shake out...
I was hoping to move everything from G4^3s to G5 Duals running Tiger and keep my powerbook until they gave me a G5 in that too, but now, I'm just buying another 23" screen for the office.
I suspect that we will see the 970MP and GX appear in Macs over the next six months - the hard work's been done, the chips are ready to go (we're told), and there are probably contracts covering production quantities.
970MP goes in the PowerMacs as a single chip replacement for the dual FXs, with perhaps a quad core machine - if, and only if, the Intel roadmap suggests that in 2007 there will be a chip or chips that can replace it. What is the Intel desktop roadmap? The GX will probably allow the iMac to get a speedbump or two through to the end of next year.
The Powerbooks are the big imponderable. What is Intel promising Apple it will be able to deliver in the first half of next year? Again, I don't know enough about Intel's roadmap, or what it might have offered to do for Apple to sweeten the deal.
There is still a chance, I suppose, that we'll see a G5 PowerBook (if the chips are under contract), but I think that it's now more likely that we'll see the G4 continue - though a new form factor, HD screens etc, are probably required to keep sales going till the MacIntel laptops ship.
I was waiting for the G5 in a laptop to replace my (G4 upgraded) Pismo. Now my personal hardware stategy is all shot to pieces. I'll still replace the Pismo, but not until we see what Intel have offer. But in the meantime I have work to do. Perhaps an iMac? Or a Mini?
to satisfy our customers. Folks, say welcome to Intel,
from now on they are on board. From now on, we
will deliver the very best and fastes Macs ever.
From now on it doesn't matter if Intel or PPC
is under the hood. We just take the best available.
This spurs competition, right?"
I just can't believe they ditched the PPC once and
for all, leaving NO backdoor open.
I'm with you 100% too, but...
If you were a developer (yesterdays audience) and you thought that PowerPC was alive and well, what would be your incentive to go with Universal Binaries? Hell, if someone wants to use your app they'd better buy a PowerPC Mac not an Intel one. With PowerPC being 'thrown out' you'd be a killing your App by not to click the box and going for fat binaries.
Once the fat binaries start rolling out who's to say Apple won't make a statement like the one above (assuming IBM push out an nice enough upgrade) and say the 2007 PowerPC death sentence has received a pardon (backdoor opens...).
Developers who went Fat-Bin haven't lost out, customers get choice / best of both worlds etc.
"This line sucks and we're replacing it... but... you know, buy it until the new stuff comes out anyway. Thanks."
Actually Intel doesn't offer better chips (at the moment) for PowerMacs. IBM has the best (fastest) chips. The move is for the other lines (Mac mini and laptops).
Once the fat binaries start rolling out who's to say Apple won't make a statement like the one above (assuming IBM push out an nice enough upgrade) and say the 2007 PowerPC death sentence has received a pardon (backdoor opens...).
Developers who went Fat-Bin haven't lost out, customers get choice / best of both worlds etc.
Just a thought.
That's my thought, too. To me, Steve did this mostly for the laptops, less so for the consumer desktops. The dual-G5's are fine for now, and multi-core G5's may well be better than Intel's offering two years from now. With Cocoa, who cares what processor you're running? Best tool for the job, once you've conned^H^H^Hvinced developers to write for both anyway.
That's my thought, too. To me, Steve did this mostly for the laptops, less so for the consumer desktops. The dual-G5's are fine for now, and multi-core G5's may well be better than Intel's offering two years from now. With Cocoa, who cares what processor you're running? Best tool for the job.
But apps take advantage of core processor features (like Altivec etc.) How will this be built in if it has to be designed for two processors. I don't think Apple can have two completely different processors beyond 2007. IBMs G5 is amazing and that's a real shame.
But apps take advantage of core processor features (like Altivec etc.) How will this be built in if it has to be designed for two processors.
Cocoa/Xcode. Apple's development strategy has been to make things more and more abstracted, and simultaneously, easier and easier to implement. I'm a very amateur developer, but it doesn't seem incredible to let Xcode - with Intel's help - handle the dirty work of turning your vector calls into either SSE2 or Altivec code. Outside of highly specialized, high-performance (scientific, etc.) computing, why should any developer get his hands dirty in processor-specific instructions anymore?
I was really hoping to see Powerbook updates today, but alas ... nothing.
It actually would have calmed the fears ever so slightly for some if they were to have released even speed-bumped versions of their iBook line or *something* today.
Direct Steve Jobs quote from CNBC interview with Ron Insana:
Quote:
Well [moving to Intel] is not as dramatic as you're characterizing it. You know we've got some great PowerPC products today, and we've even got some PowerPC machines in the pipeline which we haven't introduced yet and this is going to be a more gradual transition. I think hopefully when we meet with our developers a year from today, we'll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace. But it's going to take maybe a two year transition...
So it looks like MWSF 2006 could be the most likely target launch date for an Intel Mac.
I was really hoping to see Powerbook updates today, but alas ... nothing.
It actually would have calmed the fears ever so slightly for some if they were to have released even speed-bumped versions of their iBook line or *something* today.
Oh well
We're not going to see PowerBook updates before iBook updates. I think we'll see a minor upgrade to PowerBooks (possibly) before the Intel chips and then a more major iBook upgrade.
So it looks like MWSF 2006 could be the most likely target launch date for an Intel Mac.
Not to be a pain in the ass or anything, but how do you jump from "hopefully...a year from today, we'll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace" to a product introduction in January?
Steve's "transition" slides at the keynote all showed an iCal graphic that said "June '06" as the start of the transition. I thought the message to developers was pretty clearly "Be ready by June." And I'm just going by Apple's track record with new products in my prediction that they will have shipped five boxes the evening before the next WWDC keynote.
We're not going to see PowerBook updates before iBook updates. I think we'll see a minor upgrade to PowerBooks (possibly) before the Intel chips and then a more major iBook upgrade.
Right, because people are way more unhappy with the iBook line vs. the powerbook line.
One of the biggest reasons, if not THE biggest reasons, that Apple is switching to Intel is the laptop side of things. And let's be honest, there's nothing powerful about a powerbook right now. The iBook is still a good consumer machine, and I'm not saying it won't get an upgrade right out the gate either. But to say that the iBook line is going to get the new chips and a 'minor' update is in store for powerbooks is a bit silly.
Really, none of us know right now. But to me, the PowerBook is one of the main reasons that Apple and Intel are teaming up.
Right, because people are way more unhappy with the iBook line vs. the powerbook line.
I think that, during this transition, Apple is going to have to be less concerned with relative specs between lines and give us the best it can. The iBooks have not seen an update in almost eight months. They need a Core Image-supporting GPU, for one thing, and they still ship with 256MB of RAM. The PowerBooks have really only been on the shelves for four months, and I have no idea what, if anything, Freescale is shipping that Apple could drop into them for upgrades. I don't think we'll see any major changes to the PowerBook (and by that I mean dual-core anything, or single-core G5s) until it moves to Intel; they may get awfully long in the tooth by then. But I do think the notebooks and mini will make the jump first.
Quote:
Originally posted by danielandrews
But to me, the PowerBook is one of the main reasons that Apple and Intel are teaming up.
Comments
I think they'll put a G5 in the powerbooks at 1.8Ghz max.
The way i always saw apple's line up spec-wise is:
*emac=mini
*imac=>ibook
*powermac=>powerbook
From top till down:
Powermac/powerbook/iMac/ibook/emac/mini
Powerbooks are supposed to be better than iMacs, so if the iMac has a G5, the powerbook should follow, not at 2Ghz because of technical problems, but i guess 1.8Ghz. This might be a high guess, but looking from a marketing point of view, the fastest G4 now tops at 1.67Ghz, so if the new G5's would top out on 1.6 or lower, then a lot of people will think it's slower than the G4.
To be really optimistic, why not 2 G5's, each clocked at 1.2Ghz? Make it a bit thicker, i wouldn't mind
Again..., who am I heh...one may have a dream :-)
Originally posted by drazztikka
Powerbooks are supposed to be better than iMacs
says who?
My plan: Unless something special happens to the Powerbooks soon (update/price drop), I'll get the next revision of the iBooks (12").
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
Without a major price move, I don't think Apple survives until the transition. Speed bumps do not equal great new product, and I don't see much beyond that on the horizon.
I know my reaction immediately was to pull my order on a G5 2.7 with everything via educator, just to see how things shake out...
I was hoping to move everything from G4^3s to G5 Duals running Tiger and keep my powerbook until they gave me a G5 in that too, but now, I'm just buying another 23" screen for the office.
Originally posted by ruud
says who?
I'm not saying anything but:
iBook/iMac
Powerbook/Powermac
970MP goes in the PowerMacs as a single chip replacement for the dual FXs, with perhaps a quad core machine - if, and only if, the Intel roadmap suggests that in 2007 there will be a chip or chips that can replace it. What is the Intel desktop roadmap? The GX will probably allow the iMac to get a speedbump or two through to the end of next year.
The Powerbooks are the big imponderable. What is Intel promising Apple it will be able to deliver in the first half of next year? Again, I don't know enough about Intel's roadmap, or what it might have offered to do for Apple to sweeten the deal.
There is still a chance, I suppose, that we'll see a G5 PowerBook (if the chips are under contract), but I think that it's now more likely that we'll see the G4 continue - though a new form factor, HD screens etc, are probably required to keep sales going till the MacIntel laptops ship.
I was waiting for the G5 in a laptop to replace my (G4 upgraded) Pismo. Now my personal hardware stategy is all shot to pieces. I'll still replace the Pismo, but not until we see what Intel have offer. But in the meantime I have work to do. Perhaps an iMac? Or a Mini?
Bugger this new world of uncertainty.
Pip pip!
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
I wished S.J. had stated something like:
"From now on we have more options than ever
to satisfy our customers. Folks, say welcome to Intel,
from now on they are on board. From now on, we
will deliver the very best and fastes Macs ever.
From now on it doesn't matter if Intel or PPC
is under the hood. We just take the best available.
This spurs competition, right?"
I just can't believe they ditched the PPC once and
for all, leaving NO backdoor open.
I'm with you 100% too, but...
If you were a developer (yesterdays audience) and you thought that PowerPC was alive and well, what would be your incentive to go with Universal Binaries? Hell, if someone wants to use your app they'd better buy a PowerPC Mac not an Intel one. With PowerPC being 'thrown out' you'd be a killing your App by not to click the box and going for fat binaries.
Once the fat binaries start rolling out who's to say Apple won't make a statement like the one above (assuming IBM push out an nice enough upgrade) and say the 2007 PowerPC death sentence has received a pardon (backdoor opens...).
Developers who went Fat-Bin haven't lost out, customers get choice / best of both worlds etc.
Just a thought.
I don't think we will ever see a G5 powerbook, even at 1.8Ghz. just look at the imac. there is still significant heat issues even at that speedpoint.
The powerbook will likely go to 1.8 or 2.0 with freescale this year and then Intel mobile pentium D or better in Feb/March.
Originally posted by groverat
"This line sucks and we're replacing it... but... you know, buy it until the new stuff comes out anyway. Thanks."
Actually Intel doesn't offer better chips (at the moment) for PowerMacs. IBM has the best (fastest) chips. The move is for the other lines (Mac mini and laptops).
Originally posted by onyx-pb
Once the fat binaries start rolling out who's to say Apple won't make a statement like the one above (assuming IBM push out an nice enough upgrade) and say the 2007 PowerPC death sentence has received a pardon (backdoor opens...).
Developers who went Fat-Bin haven't lost out, customers get choice / best of both worlds etc.
Just a thought.
That's my thought, too. To me, Steve did this mostly for the laptops, less so for the consumer desktops. The dual-G5's are fine for now, and multi-core G5's may well be better than Intel's offering two years from now. With Cocoa, who cares what processor you're running? Best tool for the job, once you've conned^H^H^Hvinced developers to write for both anyway.
Originally posted by Towel
That's my thought, too. To me, Steve did this mostly for the laptops, less so for the consumer desktops. The dual-G5's are fine for now, and multi-core G5's may well be better than Intel's offering two years from now. With Cocoa, who cares what processor you're running? Best tool for the job.
But apps take advantage of core processor features (like Altivec etc.) How will this be built in if it has to be designed for two processors. I don't think Apple can have two completely different processors beyond 2007. IBMs G5 is amazing and that's a real shame.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
But apps take advantage of core processor features (like Altivec etc.) How will this be built in if it has to be designed for two processors.
Cocoa/Xcode. Apple's development strategy has been to make things more and more abstracted, and simultaneously, easier and easier to implement. I'm a very amateur developer, but it doesn't seem incredible to let Xcode - with Intel's help - handle the dirty work of turning your vector calls into either SSE2 or Altivec code. Outside of highly specialized, high-performance (scientific, etc.) computing, why should any developer get his hands dirty in processor-specific instructions anymore?
Originally posted by StealthRider
Tomorrow is Tuesday.
I was really hoping to see Powerbook updates today, but alas ... nothing.
It actually would have calmed the fears ever so slightly for some if they were to have released even speed-bumped versions of their iBook line or *something* today.
Oh well
Well [moving to Intel] is not as dramatic as you're characterizing it. You know we've got some great PowerPC products today, and we've even got some PowerPC machines in the pipeline which we haven't introduced yet and this is going to be a more gradual transition. I think hopefully when we meet with our developers a year from today, we'll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace. But it's going to take maybe a two year transition...
So it looks like MWSF 2006 could be the most likely target launch date for an Intel Mac.
Originally posted by danielandrews
I was really hoping to see Powerbook updates today, but alas ... nothing.
It actually would have calmed the fears ever so slightly for some if they were to have released even speed-bumped versions of their iBook line or *something* today.
Oh well
We're not going to see PowerBook updates before iBook updates.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
So it looks like MWSF 2006 could be the most likely target launch date for an Intel Mac.
Not to be a pain in the ass or anything, but how do you jump from "hopefully...a year from today, we'll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace" to a product introduction in January?
Steve's "transition" slides at the keynote all showed an iCal graphic that said "June '06" as the start of the transition. I thought the message to developers was pretty clearly "Be ready by June." And I'm just going by Apple's track record with new products in my prediction that they will have shipped five boxes the evening before the next WWDC keynote.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
We're not going to see PowerBook updates before iBook updates.
Right, because people are way more unhappy with the iBook line vs. the powerbook line.
One of the biggest reasons, if not THE biggest reasons, that Apple is switching to Intel is the laptop side of things. And let's be honest, there's nothing powerful about a powerbook right now. The iBook is still a good consumer machine, and I'm not saying it won't get an upgrade right out the gate either. But to say that the iBook line is going to get the new chips and a 'minor' update is in store for powerbooks is a bit silly.
Really, none of us know right now. But to me, the PowerBook is one of the main reasons that Apple and Intel are teaming up.
Originally posted by danielandrews
Right, because people are way more unhappy with the iBook line vs. the powerbook line.
I think that, during this transition, Apple is going to have to be less concerned with relative specs between lines and give us the best it can. The iBooks have not seen an update in almost eight months. They need a Core Image-supporting GPU, for one thing, and they still ship with 256MB of RAM. The PowerBooks have really only been on the shelves for four months, and I have no idea what, if anything, Freescale is shipping that Apple could drop into them for upgrades. I don't think we'll see any major changes to the PowerBook (and by that I mean dual-core anything, or single-core G5s) until it moves to Intel; they may get awfully long in the tooth by then. But I do think the notebooks and mini will make the jump first.
Originally posted by danielandrews
But to me, the PowerBook is one of the main reasons that Apple and Intel are teaming up.
Agreed.