Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once
And many folks seem to think Apple will wait for the new Merom chips for the PBooks.
BUT, what if they put Intel in the mini first?
Yes, the laptops would look sad. But they'd be equally sad, so there's no imbalance. A mini probably has less cooling/power consumption issues than a laptop so engineering-wise it may be an easier first machine.
The mini serves a different market than the laptops, and if it holds the $500 price point, people won't be as upset when there is a (much?) better version available in the summer when the laptops FINALLY get Intel.
The mini would make a great v1.0 machine. Pro folks might pick one up to play with. Small time developers could pick one up to work on porting to Intel. The Windows crowd would gobble them up once the l33t hackers get Windows running on it. The "masses" wouldn't know the difference, anyway.
How's this sound?:
mini first - in January;
iBook & PBook in the Spring along with a mini speed bump;
iMac goes Intel by Fall of '06, speed bumps in all the other machines
You may now shoot holes in my speculation.
- Jasen.
I agree with you! I already said the same thing. The mini seems a logical choice.
The years bring different perspectives. In 1992, earnings per share was 4.33$. That was a high point. In 1993, earnings per share was .73$ per share, and it was one of the declining years for Apple, less gross margins. This according to Owen Linzmayer's book, that good book.
Now Apple's stock is at a high point again, in valuation. .
As macbidouille.com says, the introduction of a single macintel mini would hurt the PPC Macs sales very badly, since people will think these machines are a dead end. The mac mini is cheap, offers a low margin and is clearly not the most popular mac (compared to the iMac or the iBook).
Apple will most likely put pentiums in its laptops first, maybe in the Powerbooks and iBooks (and mac minis?) at the same time, or in the powerbook first since people who can't afford such a high end laptop will always have to buy a less expensive PPC iBook (or wait). The first portable intel Macs will be a huge success, that can compensate a decrease in the other mac sales. I'm not sure a Mactel mini can achieve that.
It would indeed be a major "switch machine", but don't forget that apple has to sell other macs.
Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once
I don't see the problem with the PBooks outperforming the iBooks. And the recent upgrades to the PowerMacs mean that they'll still have the performance advantage.
Quote:
Originally posted by photoeditor
... looking at a 32-bit dual core 1.67GHz Pentium-M (Yonah) that lacks Altivec and otherwise runs at 80 percent of PPC speed per core in Rosetta and has advantages in high bandwidth applications, and a single core 1.67GHz G4 that has Altivec and an established track record on floating point performance but is hobbled by its single core-ness and FSB.
While this sounds feasible, you're still talking about 80% per core IN ROSETTA... so the native Intel apps would FLY right? as would preloaded OSX, iTunes, Safari, etc.....
As macbidouille.com says, the introduction of a single macintel mini would hurt the PPC Macs sales very badly, since people will think these machines are a dead end. The mac mini is cheap, offers a low margin and is clearly not the most popular mac (compared to the iMac or the iBook).
Apple will most likely put pentiums in its laptops first, maybe in the Powerbooks and iBooks (and mac minis?) at the same time, or in the powerbook first since people who can't afford such a high end laptop will always have to buy a less expensive PPC iBook (or wait). The first portable intel Macs will be a huge success, that can compensate a decrease in the other mac sales. I'm not sure a Mactel mini can achieve that.
It would indeed be a major "switch machine", but don't forget that apple has to sell other macs.
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.
I am not convicend that Apple will release intelmac has soons the Yonah chip will be ready. Apple have to deal with software issue, like recompiling all the I apps and others for the X86 OS X.
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.
I am not convicend that Apple will release intelmac has soons the Yonah chip will be ready. Apple have to deal with software issue, like recompiling all the I apps and others for the X86 OS X.
Some people here have argued that Apple is already prepared with its OS and iApps.
It's also likely that Apple's pro apps aren't ready now either, though they could be fairly well on their way.
The thing that surprises me most about Rosetta is that you can't have a PPC binary running in emulation with some branching done to Intel code. If that was possible they could find the bits that were slow in the PPC version and just recompile those sections (same as with the 680x0 to PPC switch).
I guess Apple may have written version of Pro apps that ONLY work on 10.4 - taking advantage of the hardware-abstracted vector commands and coreVideo etc, so emulation of any "10.4-only" apps may be rather fast...
The thing that surprises me most about Rosetta is that you can't have a PPC binary running in emulation with some branching done to Intel code. If that was possible they could find the bits that were slow in the PPC version and just recompile those sections (same as with the 680x0 to PPC switch).
I guess Apple may have written version of Pro apps that ONLY work on 10.4 - taking advantage of the hardware-abstracted vector commands and coreVideo etc, so emulation of any "10.4-only" apps may be rather fast...
Yeah, you see that all the time. FCP 4.5 won't even run on the Express Macs. You need 5
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC., the top U.S. maker of cable television set-top boxes, has been for sale since early spring and has drawn interest from a range of technology companies including CISCO SYSTEMS INC., SONY CORP. and APPLE COMPUTER INC., according to tech research firm Gartner Inc. Scientific-Atlanta approached Cisco and ALCATEL last spring about whether they were interested in buying the company, Gartner analyst Patti Reali said in a Tuesday research note. While Alcatel has "apparently passed" on a deal, Cisco is still in the running, along with Sony, SAMSUNG CORP., Panasonic and Apple, which has held recent talks with Scientific-Atlanta, Gartner said, citing industry insiders. Cisco already has a strong foothold in the cable television market, and a takeover of Scientific-Atlanta would give it access to the cable set-top business and more expertise in video systems and software, Reali said. Consumer electronics companies Sony, Samsung and Panasonic may be anxious to bolster their cable technology business as well. But Gartner warned that cable industry customers, who are already critical of the control over the cable market held by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, might oppose any type of deal. (Reuters 12:23 PM ET 11/09/2005)
...You may soon have "Apple Inside" your set top box!
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC., the top U.S. maker of cable television set-top boxes, has been for sale since early spring and has drawn interest from a range of technology companies including CISCO SYSTEMS INC., SONY CORP. and APPLE COMPUTER INC., according to tech research firm Gartner Inc. Scientific-Atlanta approached Cisco and ALCATEL last spring about whether they were interested in buying the company, Gartner analyst Patti Reali said in a Tuesday research note. While Alcatel has "apparently passed" on a deal, Cisco is still in the running, along with Sony, SAMSUNG CORP., Panasonic and Apple, which has held recent talks with Scientific-Atlanta, Gartner said, citing industry insiders. Cisco already has a strong foothold in the cable television market, and a takeover of Scientific-Atlanta would give it access to the cable set-top business and more expertise in video systems and software, Reali said. Consumer electronics companies Sony, Samsung and Panasonic may be anxious to bolster their cable technology business as well. But Gartner warned that cable industry customers, who are already critical of the control over the cable market held by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, might oppose any type of deal. (Reuters 12:23 PM ET 11/09/2005)
...You may soon have "Apple Inside" your set top box!
Yeah, that's interesting. Apple hasn't been interested in biting off that large a company. Their market cap is over $5.8 billion.
If Apple did want to spend more than $6 billion (they would have to buy at a premium), what exactly would they do with them? I have the 8300. What service could Apple add that the cable companies would want?
If Apple did want to spend more than $6 billion (they would have to buy at a premium), what exactly would they do with them? I have the 8300. What service could Apple add that the cable companies would want?
An interesting question. I imagine there are a few options Apple could have. I mean cable is doing lots of stuff - HDTV, IPTV, cable internet. Apple could make a simple set top box that was also a wireless airport connection to the internet (and allow iTunes or video to be played from the Mac to the TV)
These guys also do DVD recorders that record off cable programs, and they do a lot of head end video management (H264 compression, program distribution etc)... take a look at http://www.sciatl.com/products/customers/index.htm for starters.
An interesting question. I imagine there are a few options Apple could have. I mean cable is doing lots of stuff - HDTV, IPTV, cable internet. Apple could make a simple set top box that was also a wireless airport connection to the internet (and allow iTunes or video to be played from the Mac to the TV)
These guys also do DVD recorders that record off cable programs, and they do a lot of head end video management (H264 compression, program distribution etc)... take a look at http://www.sciatl.com/products/customers/index.htm for starters.
Anyway, who knows if it's worth Apple's while...
I wonder if that could possibly be worth it to Apple. Doesn't seem like a $6 billion question. More if there's multiple bidding.
These other services would have to offer the cable company an advantage. Something they could make money from. I can get Time Warner, and only Time Warner (yes, of course satellite). I can get the boxes they offer me. How many would pay extra for wireless to the tv?
I'm wonder if this just another rumor about Apple. They were going to buy some other company a short while back. The name escapes me.
Comments
What actually came first? The Mac mini or the Intel Mac mini?
Hmmmmm....looky here. Anyone remember this?
That was shown at the Computex Trade Show in Taiwain back at the end of May.
Wired Article
What a rip-off, or is it? The plot thickens...
Originally posted by jasenj1
Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once
And many folks seem to think Apple will wait for the new Merom chips for the PBooks.
BUT, what if they put Intel in the mini first?
Yes, the laptops would look sad. But they'd be equally sad, so there's no imbalance. A mini probably has less cooling/power consumption issues than a laptop so engineering-wise it may be an easier first machine.
The mini serves a different market than the laptops, and if it holds the $500 price point, people won't be as upset when there is a (much?) better version available in the summer when the laptops FINALLY get Intel.
The mini would make a great v1.0 machine. Pro folks might pick one up to play with. Small time developers could pick one up to work on porting to Intel. The Windows crowd would gobble them up once the l33t hackers get Windows running on it. The "masses" wouldn't know the difference, anyway.
How's this sound?:
mini first - in January;
iBook & PBook in the Spring along with a mini speed bump;
iMac goes Intel by Fall of '06, speed bumps in all the other machines
You may now shoot holes in my speculation.
- Jasen.
I agree with you! I already said the same thing. The mini seems a logical choice.
Now Apple's stock is at a high point again, in valuation. .
Originally posted by melgross
Dropping PCI is not like dropping the floppy, it is like dropping the NuBus.
And dropping the internal modem seems like dropping the internal floppy.
Apple will most likely put pentiums in its laptops first, maybe in the Powerbooks and iBooks (and mac minis?) at the same time, or in the powerbook first since people who can't afford such a high end laptop will always have to buy a less expensive PPC iBook (or wait). The first portable intel Macs will be a huge success, that can compensate a decrease in the other mac sales. I'm not sure a Mactel mini can achieve that.
It would indeed be a major "switch machine", but don't forget that apple has to sell other macs.
Originally posted by jasenj1
Most folks have been speculating that the Intel chips will go in the laptops first. But also point out the difficulty Apple will have in
a) putting Intel in the iBooks and making the PBooks look very bad
b) putting Intel in the PBooks making the iBooks look very bad
c) putting Intel in both which seems like too many changes all at once
I don't see the problem with the PBooks outperforming the iBooks. And the recent upgrades to the PowerMacs mean that they'll still have the performance advantage.
Originally posted by photoeditor
... looking at a 32-bit dual core 1.67GHz Pentium-M (Yonah) that lacks Altivec and otherwise runs at 80 percent of PPC speed per core in Rosetta and has advantages in high bandwidth applications, and a single core 1.67GHz G4 that has Altivec and an established track record on floating point performance but is hobbled by its single core-ness and FSB.
While this sounds feasible, you're still talking about 80% per core IN ROSETTA... so the native Intel apps would FLY right? as would preloaded OSX, iTunes, Safari, etc.....
Originally posted by french macuser
As macbidouille.com says, the introduction of a single macintel mini would hurt the PPC Macs sales very badly, since people will think these machines are a dead end. The mac mini is cheap, offers a low margin and is clearly not the most popular mac (compared to the iMac or the iBook).
Apple will most likely put pentiums in its laptops first, maybe in the Powerbooks and iBooks (and mac minis?) at the same time, or in the powerbook first since people who can't afford such a high end laptop will always have to buy a less expensive PPC iBook (or wait). The first portable intel Macs will be a huge success, that can compensate a decrease in the other mac sales. I'm not sure a Mactel mini can achieve that.
It would indeed be a major "switch machine", but don't forget that apple has to sell other macs.
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.
I am not convicend that Apple will release intelmac has soons the Yonah chip will be ready. Apple have to deal with software issue, like recompiling all the I apps and others for the X86 OS X.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.
I agree.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
As I said in the Macbidouille's forum, I doubt that Apple will introduce a single machine.
I rather see them introducing a new line, made of laptops and perhaps the Imac mini.
I see dual core Yonah for the powerbooks and single core yonah for the others.
I am not convicend that Apple will release intelmac has soons the Yonah chip will be ready. Apple have to deal with software issue, like recompiling all the I apps and others for the X86 OS X.
Some people here have argued that Apple is already prepared with its OS and iApps.
You think no, they are not ready yet?
Originally posted by NordicMan
Some people here have argued that Apple is already prepared with its OS and iApps.
You think no, they are not ready yet?
Most likely it's not most of Apple's apps, but third parties apps.
For example, Adobe said that x86 compatibility will NOT come in CS2, but rather in CS3, when it's ready.
It's also likely that Apple's pro apps aren't ready now either, though they could be fairly well on their way.
Originally posted by melgross
It's also likely that Apple's pro apps aren't ready now either, though they could be fairly well on their way.
The thing that surprises me most about Rosetta is that you can't have a PPC binary running in emulation with some branching done to Intel code. If that was possible they could find the bits that were slow in the PPC version and just recompile those sections (same as with the 680x0 to PPC switch).
I guess Apple may have written version of Pro apps that ONLY work on 10.4 - taking advantage of the hardware-abstracted vector commands and coreVideo etc, so emulation of any "10.4-only" apps may be rather fast...
Originally posted by GregAlexander
The thing that surprises me most about Rosetta is that you can't have a PPC binary running in emulation with some branching done to Intel code. If that was possible they could find the bits that were slow in the PPC version and just recompile those sections (same as with the 680x0 to PPC switch).
I guess Apple may have written version of Pro apps that ONLY work on 10.4 - taking advantage of the hardware-abstracted vector commands and coreVideo etc, so emulation of any "10.4-only" apps may be rather fast...
Yeah, you see that all the time. FCP 4.5 won't even run on the Express Macs. You need 5
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, you see that all the time. FCP 4.5 won't even run on the Express Macs. You need 5
What's an Express Mac?
Originally posted by GregAlexander
What's an Express Mac?
The new PM's with the Express bus.
Originally posted by GregAlexander
What's an Express Mac?
It's the new, more emotive Mac. It laughs! It cries! It sings! It wets itself!
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC., the top U.S. maker of cable television set-top boxes, has been for sale since early spring and has drawn interest from a range of technology companies including CISCO SYSTEMS INC., SONY CORP. and APPLE COMPUTER INC., according to tech research firm Gartner Inc. Scientific-Atlanta approached Cisco and ALCATEL last spring about whether they were interested in buying the company, Gartner analyst Patti Reali said in a Tuesday research note. While Alcatel has "apparently passed" on a deal, Cisco is still in the running, along with Sony, SAMSUNG CORP., Panasonic and Apple, which has held recent talks with Scientific-Atlanta, Gartner said, citing industry insiders. Cisco already has a strong foothold in the cable television market, and a takeover of Scientific-Atlanta would give it access to the cable set-top business and more expertise in video systems and software, Reali said. Consumer electronics companies Sony, Samsung and Panasonic may be anxious to bolster their cable technology business as well. But Gartner warned that cable industry customers, who are already critical of the control over the cable market held by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, might oppose any type of deal. (Reuters 12:23 PM ET 11/09/2005)
...You may soon have "Apple Inside" your set top box!
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Incidentally...
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC., the top U.S. maker of cable television set-top boxes, has been for sale since early spring and has drawn interest from a range of technology companies including CISCO SYSTEMS INC., SONY CORP. and APPLE COMPUTER INC., according to tech research firm Gartner Inc. Scientific-Atlanta approached Cisco and ALCATEL last spring about whether they were interested in buying the company, Gartner analyst Patti Reali said in a Tuesday research note. While Alcatel has "apparently passed" on a deal, Cisco is still in the running, along with Sony, SAMSUNG CORP., Panasonic and Apple, which has held recent talks with Scientific-Atlanta, Gartner said, citing industry insiders. Cisco already has a strong foothold in the cable television market, and a takeover of Scientific-Atlanta would give it access to the cable set-top business and more expertise in video systems and software, Reali said. Consumer electronics companies Sony, Samsung and Panasonic may be anxious to bolster their cable technology business as well. But Gartner warned that cable industry customers, who are already critical of the control over the cable market held by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, might oppose any type of deal. (Reuters 12:23 PM ET 11/09/2005)
...You may soon have "Apple Inside" your set top box!
Yeah, that's interesting. Apple hasn't been interested in biting off that large a company. Their market cap is over $5.8 billion.
If Apple did want to spend more than $6 billion (they would have to buy at a premium), what exactly would they do with them? I have the 8300. What service could Apple add that the cable companies would want?
Originally posted by melgross
If Apple did want to spend more than $6 billion (they would have to buy at a premium), what exactly would they do with them? I have the 8300. What service could Apple add that the cable companies would want?
An interesting question. I imagine there are a few options Apple could have. I mean cable is doing lots of stuff - HDTV, IPTV, cable internet. Apple could make a simple set top box that was also a wireless airport connection to the internet (and allow iTunes or video to be played from the Mac to the TV)
These guys also do DVD recorders that record off cable programs, and they do a lot of head end video management (H264 compression, program distribution etc)... take a look at http://www.sciatl.com/products/customers/index.htm for starters.
Anyway, who knows if it's worth Apple's while...
Originally posted by GregAlexander
An interesting question. I imagine there are a few options Apple could have. I mean cable is doing lots of stuff - HDTV, IPTV, cable internet. Apple could make a simple set top box that was also a wireless airport connection to the internet (and allow iTunes or video to be played from the Mac to the TV)
These guys also do DVD recorders that record off cable programs, and they do a lot of head end video management (H264 compression, program distribution etc)... take a look at http://www.sciatl.com/products/customers/index.htm for starters.
Anyway, who knows if it's worth Apple's while...
I wonder if that could possibly be worth it to Apple. Doesn't seem like a $6 billion question. More if there's multiple bidding.
These other services would have to offer the cable company an advantage. Something they could make money from. I can get Time Warner, and only Time Warner (yes, of course satellite). I can get the boxes they offer me. How many would pay extra for wireless to the tv?
I'm wonder if this just another rumor about Apple. They were going to buy some other company a short while back. The name escapes me.
Rumors, rumors.