Another point must be made. What we see now isn't what is going to be available mid 2006, and not even close to what will be out in 2007.
While the arguments are true that it's a close call now, it won't be by the time Apple moves over. Even the Intel/AMD differences will change substantionaly by then.
Intel simply has more resources than AMD, even with IBM's help, could ever muster.
At some point AMD will lose its lead. It's inevitable. I'm sure they're concerned about as well, though they, of course, can't admit it. Ergo, the lawsuits. They're hoping it will distract Intel enough to make them lose their focus.
well, i am *definitely* enjoying my AMD hardware while i can. this 90nm Venice core is bloody insane. 1.8ghz stock, now overclocked to 2.4ghz and it is pretty damn stable (eg, azureus, websurfing, playing games for a few hours at a stretch so far, no problems at all.) the Kingston ValueRam is probably helping to, it's at 421mhz on 2-2-2-5 ... heh... a bit past its pc3200 400mhz rating.
my point was: the Venice overclocability is because of additional headroom from the 'first move' to 90nm or something like that. do you think intels first 65nm chips will have this level of headroom?
Remember that we DON'T know what Apple is going to do. It could be a straight Intel board. It could be a total custom board with cpu daughterboard. Or anything in between.
There are those on both sides of the camp.
Going straight Intel would be cheapest and get out the door the fastest. Total custom might get some more features, but would be the slowest and most expensive.
Apple could use a standard (on the inside) box for the standard board, or go custom for their own.
Remember that a top of the line Intel board without cpu might cost $250-300. The same Apple board costs $1,000.
Same thing with power supplies. Most expensive hi-end supply is around $200, Apple's is over $300.
And down the line.
If the OS is Apple's, and the outside looks like a Mac, why care what's in the inside as long as it's high quality? Who knows, perhaps a top Powermac might cost $2,500. That would be worth it.
well, apple's main objectives are the following, the way i see it:
1. it has to still uniquely 'Look' and feel like a mac. that means, to the average consumer, whether powerpc or intel they couldn't tell in double-blind tests
2. cheaper production basically = apple being more competitive by offering lower-priced macs, while still maintaining their profit margins and price the higher-end stuff at the 'style/luxury' end of the computing scale
3. what is good is certainly the amount of headroom (my word of the day) this gives apple engineering and marketing to play with specs, models, prices, designs, etc. given that on the OS X side, it will handle a wider range of hardware thrown at it, from 32bit x86s to 64 bit dual g5s
well, apple's main objectives are the following, the way i see it:
1. it has to still uniquely 'Look' and feel like a mac. that means, to the average consumer, whether powerpc or intel they couldn't tell in double-blind tests
2. cheaper production basically = apple being more competitive by offering lower-priced macs, while still maintaining their profit margins and price the higher-end stuff at the 'style/luxury' end of the computing scale
3. what is good is certainly the amount of headroom (my word of the day) this gives apple engineering and marketing to play with specs, models, prices, designs, etc. given that on the OS X side, it will handle a wider range of hardware thrown at it, from 32bit x86s to 64 bit dual g5s
Sure. Also it might be possible to just swap out the cpu for another one as they do now in PCland. That isn't nearly as good as having a daughterboard swap as I just did with two digital Audios. I took out a 733MHz in one and a duall 533 in the other and replaced them with dual 1.8's. Much better than a straight cpu swap x86 style because you're limited to the same socket and chip line.
But Apple has made sure that we can't replace the cpu anymore anyway. That was always one of the best things about owning a Mac.
[B]Remember that we DON'T know what Apple is going to do. It could be a straight Intel board. It could be a total custom board with cpu daughterboard. Or anything in between.
This is basically my point.
Apple has never confirmed what they are going to do.
Can you really see Steve keeping us in suspence for a year just to reveal Mac's doing what we expected? Has that been his history?
Apple has never confirmed what they are going to do.
Can you really see Steve keeping us in suspence for a year just to reveal Mac's doing what we expected? Has that been his history?
Maybe he will.
But I've never seen Apple do the expected.
It depends on the direction Apple is headed. Will they they attempt to maintain the high pricing (and profits) for most of the line? Will they take the opportunity to come more in.line with PC pricing? Will they expand the differences between the pro and consumer lines so as to maintain high priced (profitable) machines and have a line of low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business?
The question here is whether Job's vision encompasses that of much greater market share or just continues the small boutique mentality.
It depends on the direction Apple is headed. Will they they attempt to maintain the high pricing (and profits) for most of the line? Will they take the opportunity to come more in.line with PC pricing? Will they expand the differences between the pro and consumer lines so as to maintain high priced (profitable) machines and have a line of low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business?
The question here is whether Job's vision encompasses that of much greater market share or just continues the small boutique mentality.
Bingo!! (the Clown-O...)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
so you and melgross are hoping that apple will find a good common ground, ie, increased marketshare while still being a profitable, desirable brand ???
so you and melgross are hoping that apple will find a good common ground, ie, increased marketshare while still being a profitable, desirable brand ???
no, it would be awesome. *sigh* almost sounds too good to be true. they can kiss the pro market goodbye for about 1 year though, until end of 2006, when PowerMacIntels start peeking out from behind the curtains...
no, it would be awesome. *sigh* almost sounds too good to be true. they can kiss the pro market goodbye for about 1 year though, until end of 2006, when PowerMacIntels start peeking out from behind the curtains... [/QUOTE]
I'm hoping that Apple will make their last PPC Powermacs worthwhile enough. I'm looking to buy my last PPC machine. If they do it justice it will be worthwhile. Business is not terribly constrained by price on the high end. Therefore I'm hoping for an Express based machine with two duals, at least four slots, four internal drive bays, and two external ones.
If Apple does this right, they could use it as the basis for their Macintels as well by just changing some cosmetics, thus keeping the cost down.
Less expensive machines don't need the heavy aluminum treatment. I'm sure Apple could come up with a way of designing a less expensive case that works well and looks good without using expensive hard to work materials. A simpler version of the G4 cases, arguably the best cases ever designed, could be used. They don't need polycarbonate.
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
There are pluses and minuses to either way.
Marketshare is important but it is only one variable out of many. I think too much emphasis is placed on it.
Apple is currently making money hand over fist with its current business model and its current marketshare.
How much do you want to tinker with that?
Depends on what needs to be accomplished for future growth.
It seems many people assume Apple's aim should be to take on Microsoft and Dell. I disagree.
For various reasons it is impossible for Apple to become a Dell or Microsoft. Mostly because there already is a Dell and Microsoft.
Along with that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to being Dell and Microsoft. Notably the bigger you grow the more difficult it becomes to move, change, or adjust. That is the reason many companies such as Sony, Microsoft, and Dell just throw products out there to see if they sell or not. If they sell great if they don't the company can take it as a loss.
Apple being the way it is now cannot afford to invest in too many products that bomb. Which forces Apple to design great products. Those great products bear fruit and produce revenue.
The larger you are the more difficult it becomes to service the needs of all of your customers. This is evidenced by the complaints about Microsoft and the ease of use of its products as well as Dell's customer service.
Being a wide commodity distributor has the up side of more money but comes with the down side of being a mediocre giant.
As Dell and Microsoft sell their products to more people there will inherently be less people to sell to in the future. Which forces them to lower prices until you come to the point that Dell has of selling products for so cheap that profit margins become really thin.
The case of Microsoft. They sold flawed products which became better with every new release. Sales of Windows is flattening, Microsoft is working to discover other areas of revenue. Is Windows XP now good enough that few people will be interested in buying Windows Vista?
Would it be good for Apple to become a large commodity computer maker? Can that even happen? IBM sold its computer division. HP currently is not making the revenue of Apple. Gateway is not currently profitable and slowly sliding. Analysts predict it will either be bought by another OEM or just go out of business.
What is the motivation of Apple to join this group?
Certainly the only way Macintosh can go on as a profitable platform is to remain distinguished from the rest of the pack. Right now if you see a row of lap tops the PowerBook stands out and catches the eye. The Mac experience is different in nearly every way from the majority.
I think Apple should continue to chart its own course and not join the line and lock step of the majority.
No one is saying that Apple will or should become a Dell or MS etc. But marketshare is the lifeblood of a computer platform.
The reason why we are still losing developers and have problems using financial web sites is marketshare. Many companies weigh the cost of development and support and decide that it isn't worth it for the few percent more business they might get.
If Apple can increase it's marketshare to 6, 7 or even 8%, things might be different.
Even when we don't lose developers outright, we get no manual, less features, poor support of the OS, late upgrades, poor performance, etc. This is because it doesn't pay to develop under the OS, so they develop under Windows and then do a port. Often a lousy one. When people don't buy enough of them, it disappears altogether.
Where are all the video board manufacturers? Why are the prices higher? Why don't we get all the features?
All of what you say is true. Being independent does have its burden to bear.
But I still say marketshare is one factor of many.
Macintosh is still currently a viable and growing system even with these problems.
A twist of irony though Apple is growing marketshare because of larger OEM's being consolidated or going out of business.
Yes, of course. If you don't make a good product then the rest doesn't follow. But if you fly under the radar then you won't be seen. Thast's not good.
Apple has to continue making a good product and fly so that they can be seen.The more Macs that are out ther, the more people will see them.
Comments
Another point must be made. What we see now isn't what is going to be available mid 2006, and not even close to what will be out in 2007.
While the arguments are true that it's a close call now, it won't be by the time Apple moves over. Even the Intel/AMD differences will change substantionaly by then.
Intel simply has more resources than AMD, even with IBM's help, could ever muster.
At some point AMD will lose its lead. It's inevitable. I'm sure they're concerned about as well, though they, of course, can't admit it. Ergo, the lawsuits. They're hoping it will distract Intel enough to make them lose their focus.
well, i am *definitely* enjoying my AMD hardware while i can. this 90nm Venice core is bloody insane. 1.8ghz stock, now overclocked to 2.4ghz and it is pretty damn stable (eg, azureus, websurfing, playing games for a few hours at a stretch so far, no problems at all.) the Kingston ValueRam is probably helping to, it's at 421mhz on 2-2-2-5 ... heh... a bit past its pc3200 400mhz rating.
my point was: the Venice overclocability is because of additional headroom from the 'first move' to 90nm or something like that. do you think intels first 65nm chips will have this level of headroom?
There are those on both sides of the camp.
Going straight Intel would be cheapest and get out the door the fastest. Total custom might get some more features, but would be the slowest and most expensive.
Apple could use a standard (on the inside) box for the standard board, or go custom for their own.
Remember that a top of the line Intel board without cpu might cost $250-300. The same Apple board costs $1,000.
Same thing with power supplies. Most expensive hi-end supply is around $200, Apple's is over $300.
And down the line.
If the OS is Apple's, and the outside looks like a Mac, why care what's in the inside as long as it's high quality? Who knows, perhaps a top Powermac might cost $2,500. That would be worth it.
1. it has to still uniquely 'Look' and feel like a mac. that means, to the average consumer, whether powerpc or intel they couldn't tell in double-blind tests
2. cheaper production basically = apple being more competitive by offering lower-priced macs, while still maintaining their profit margins and price the higher-end stuff at the 'style/luxury' end of the computing scale
3. what is good is certainly the amount of headroom (my word of the day) this gives apple engineering and marketing to play with specs, models, prices, designs, etc. given that on the OS X side, it will handle a wider range of hardware thrown at it, from 32bit x86s to 64 bit dual g5s
Originally posted by sunilraman
well, apple's main objectives are the following, the way i see it:
1. it has to still uniquely 'Look' and feel like a mac. that means, to the average consumer, whether powerpc or intel they couldn't tell in double-blind tests
2. cheaper production basically = apple being more competitive by offering lower-priced macs, while still maintaining their profit margins and price the higher-end stuff at the 'style/luxury' end of the computing scale
3. what is good is certainly the amount of headroom (my word of the day) this gives apple engineering and marketing to play with specs, models, prices, designs, etc. given that on the OS X side, it will handle a wider range of hardware thrown at it, from 32bit x86s to 64 bit dual g5s
Sure. Also it might be possible to just swap out the cpu for another one as they do now in PCland. That isn't nearly as good as having a daughterboard swap as I just did with two digital Audios. I took out a 733MHz in one and a duall 533 in the other and replaced them with dual 1.8's. Much better than a straight cpu swap x86 style because you're limited to the same socket and chip line.
But Apple has made sure that we can't replace the cpu anymore anyway. That was always one of the best things about owning a Mac.
So this would be better than nothing.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Who's to say Apple won't solder the cpu on the board, just to be dicks?
It can't be done with these chips.
By the way, catchy name.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]Remember that we DON'T know what Apple is going to do. It could be a straight Intel board. It could be a total custom board with cpu daughterboard. Or anything in between.
This is basically my point.
Apple has never confirmed what they are going to do.
Can you really see Steve keeping us in suspence for a year just to reveal Mac's doing what we expected? Has that been his history?
Maybe he will.
But I've never seen Apple do the expected.
Originally posted by TenoBell
This is basically my point.
Apple has never confirmed what they are going to do.
Can you really see Steve keeping us in suspence for a year just to reveal Mac's doing what we expected? Has that been his history?
Maybe he will.
But I've never seen Apple do the expected.
It depends on the direction Apple is headed. Will they they attempt to maintain the high pricing (and profits) for most of the line? Will they take the opportunity to come more in.line with PC pricing? Will they expand the differences between the pro and consumer lines so as to maintain high priced (profitable) machines and have a line of low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business?
The question here is whether Job's vision encompasses that of much greater market share or just continues the small boutique mentality.
Originally posted by melgross
It depends on the direction Apple is headed. Will they they attempt to maintain the high pricing (and profits) for most of the line? Will they take the opportunity to come more in.line with PC pricing? Will they expand the differences between the pro and consumer lines so as to maintain high priced (profitable) machines and have a line of low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business?
The question here is whether Job's vision encompasses that of much greater market share or just continues the small boutique mentality.
Bingo!! (the Clown-O...)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
Originally posted by MacRonin
Bingo!! (the Clown-O...)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share
At least that's what I'm hoping.
Originally posted by melgross
At least that's what I'm hoping.
Heh! You got it before my edit... But I would think we are still on the same page...
Originally posted by MacRonin
Heh! You got it before my edit... But I would think we are still on the same page...
I hope Jobs is reading this!
Originally posted by MacRonin
Bingo!! (the Clown-O...)
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
so you and melgross are hoping that apple will find a good common ground, ie, increased marketshare while still being a profitable, desirable brand ???
Originally posted by sunilraman
so you and melgross are hoping that apple will find a good common ground, ie, increased marketshare while still being a profitable, desirable brand ???
Like that would be a bad thing...?
no, it would be awesome. *sigh* almost sounds too good to be true. they can kiss the pro market goodbye for about 1 year though, until end of 2006, when PowerMacIntels start peeking out from behind the curtains...
Originally posted by sunilraman
Like that would be a bad thing...?
no, it would be awesome. *sigh* almost sounds too good to be true. they can kiss the pro market goodbye for about 1 year though, until end of 2006, when PowerMacIntels start peeking out from behind the curtains... [/QUOTE]
I'm hoping that Apple will make their last PPC Powermacs worthwhile enough. I'm looking to buy my last PPC machine. If they do it justice it will be worthwhile. Business is not terribly constrained by price on the high end. Therefore I'm hoping for an Express based machine with two duals, at least four slots, four internal drive bays, and two external ones.
If Apple does this right, they could use it as the basis for their Macintels as well by just changing some cosmetics, thus keeping the cost down.
Less expensive machines don't need the heavy aluminum treatment. I'm sure Apple could come up with a way of designing a less expensive case that works well and looks good without using expensive hard to work materials. A simpler version of the G4 cases, arguably the best cases ever designed, could be used. They don't need polycarbonate.
high priced (profitable) pro machines = small boutique mentality (old school Silicon Graphics)
low cost (not so profitable but much more widly saleable) machines for the general public and business = greater market share (modern day Dell)
There are pluses and minuses to either way.
Marketshare is important but it is only one variable out of many. I think too much emphasis is placed on it.
Apple is currently making money hand over fist with its current business model and its current marketshare.
How much do you want to tinker with that?
Depends on what needs to be accomplished for future growth.
It seems many people assume Apple's aim should be to take on Microsoft and Dell. I disagree.
For various reasons it is impossible for Apple to become a Dell or Microsoft. Mostly because there already is a Dell and Microsoft.
Along with that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to being Dell and Microsoft. Notably the bigger you grow the more difficult it becomes to move, change, or adjust. That is the reason many companies such as Sony, Microsoft, and Dell just throw products out there to see if they sell or not. If they sell great if they don't the company can take it as a loss.
Apple being the way it is now cannot afford to invest in too many products that bomb. Which forces Apple to design great products. Those great products bear fruit and produce revenue.
The larger you are the more difficult it becomes to service the needs of all of your customers. This is evidenced by the complaints about Microsoft and the ease of use of its products as well as Dell's customer service.
Being a wide commodity distributor has the up side of more money but comes with the down side of being a mediocre giant.
As Dell and Microsoft sell their products to more people there will inherently be less people to sell to in the future. Which forces them to lower prices until you come to the point that Dell has of selling products for so cheap that profit margins become really thin.
The case of Microsoft. They sold flawed products which became better with every new release. Sales of Windows is flattening, Microsoft is working to discover other areas of revenue. Is Windows XP now good enough that few people will be interested in buying Windows Vista?
Would it be good for Apple to become a large commodity computer maker? Can that even happen? IBM sold its computer division. HP currently is not making the revenue of Apple. Gateway is not currently profitable and slowly sliding. Analysts predict it will either be bought by another OEM or just go out of business.
What is the motivation of Apple to join this group?
Certainly the only way Macintosh can go on as a profitable platform is to remain distinguished from the rest of the pack. Right now if you see a row of lap tops the PowerBook stands out and catches the eye. The Mac experience is different in nearly every way from the majority.
I think Apple should continue to chart its own course and not join the line and lock step of the majority.
The reason why we are still losing developers and have problems using financial web sites is marketshare. Many companies weigh the cost of development and support and decide that it isn't worth it for the few percent more business they might get.
If Apple can increase it's marketshare to 6, 7 or even 8%, things might be different.
Even when we don't lose developers outright, we get no manual, less features, poor support of the OS, late upgrades, poor performance, etc. This is because it doesn't pay to develop under the OS, so they develop under Windows and then do a port. Often a lousy one. When people don't buy enough of them, it disappears altogether.
Where are all the video board manufacturers? Why are the prices higher? Why don't we get all the features?
Marketshare.
Where are all the video board manufacturers? Why are the prices higher? Why don't we get all the features?
Marketshare.
All of what you say is true. Being independent does have its burden to bear.
But I still say marketshare is one factor of many.
Macintosh is still currently a viable and growing system even with these problems.
A twist of irony though Apple is growing marketshare because of larger OEM's being consolidated or going out of business.
Originally posted by TenoBell
All of what you say is true. Being independent does have its burden to bear.
But I still say marketshare is one factor of many.
Macintosh is still currently a viable and growing system even with these problems.
A twist of irony though Apple is growing marketshare because of larger OEM's being consolidated or going out of business.
Yes, of course. If you don't make a good product then the rest doesn't follow. But if you fly under the radar then you won't be seen. Thast's not good.
Apple has to continue making a good product and fly so that they can be seen.The more Macs that are out ther, the more people will see them.