No. They did better than some analysts thought. That's not the same thing. Those analysts thought that it would do worse than the original Mini. They didn't say otherwise. Just that it did better than they though it would.
Link to analysts projections please. Otherwise this is just another thing you're pulling out of your ass.
Quote:
Look, really. Without numbers, numbers that apparently Apple won't give out, no one can do more than guess.
You can guess based on the data available. Or you can guess against the data available.
Quote:
Where did you see 50k sales expectation numbers for the quarter? Those numbers would have been a disaster! I didn't see those projections anywhere. The numbers I saw were 225 to 300k expectations, and about 225 to 250k reality.
Regarding Apple's recently-released iPod shuffle and Mac mini products, PiperJaffray said it estimates that the number of units sold greatly exceeded early projections. "We estimate total shuffle units for the March quarter were approximately 1.8m, compared to our 1.0m estimate," the firm said. An NPD metric for the month of February estimates the iPod shuffle captured a staggering 43 percent of the market share for flash-based music players, up from 0 percent in December. "We estimate total Mac mini units sold in the March quarter were 138k vs. our estimate of 50k. We believe the Mac mini is benefiting from iPod carry-over."
For Amazon's market, yes. no doubt. But as we can see that Amazon's sales numbers don't corrispond to market reality, we can't say that the Apple rankings are comparable to their overall sales either. They are suggestive, I will give you that. But just how close do they come? We can't say. If the overall numbers are so far off, those may be as well. What kind of person is buying from Amazon? Does (s)he compare to the person buying from Apple? Or CompUsa? Or elsewhere? We don't know.
That all I'm saying. I love seeing those numbers, but I just don't know they they mean.
So you're going to steadfastly ignore the data that we have to believe in your completely unsupported assertion that the mini sales were lackluster in some way.
Quote:
No, it may not mean anything.
It means no less (and no more) than that the mini was popular on the one retailer that we have some visibility into. For you to say that mini sales are coming up short in some fashion goes against the data available so the burden of proof is on you to provide some compelling evidence (or any at all).
Quote:
You do this all the time, and not just with me. You use information that has no meaning for your argument, and then you insult me because I show that it doesn't. Then you get angry when I respond in kind.
The discussion is intel mini sales.
The verifiable information is the following:
* Initial mini sales exceeded expectations.
It would be logical to assume that analysts would less inclined to lowball future mini projections when they blew the estimates the first time around.
* Intel Mini sales exceeded expectations.
Piper Jaffray said this when the mini launched:
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said in a research note that Tuesday's releases were likely to be strong products, but were unlikely to materially affect Apple's growth. Future versions of the Mac Mini would likely be more specifically designed as home media hubs, he predicted."
Also while analysts were wary of intel sales the actual predictions are thus for 2Q 2006:
"Wall Street analysts are forecasting sales of roughly 1.2 million Mac units in the quarter, up just slightly from the 1.07 million Macs Apple sold in the same quarter last year."
Can you produce ANY evidence that initial intel mini sales were expected to be weak?
Especially since this particular analyst expected it as a media center offering.
"UBS analyst Reitzes, who predicts Macworld will be "a circus," agrees that a new Mac Mini could be imminent, "perhaps as a digital media device," he wrote in a recent note."
Yes, the most logical conclusion is that the analyst that raises earning estimates and thinks that the mini will be the first intel mac is also the same analyst that will project weak sales of the mini and gets surprised.
* Intel Mini ranked consistently high on Amazon until the introduction of the MacBook.
Which confirms what the analyst is saying, at least on that score.
So this information has no meaning to the dicussion and the refutation of your completely unsupported assertion that mini sales were hurt due to pricing and that they were lackluster in some undefinable fashion?
Angry? No. Frustrated? Slightly. Because calling you a pig-headed moron would be an ad hominem attack and I frown on those. Instead, I'll just provide links to refute your pig headed moronic arguments. I will continue to assume that you are an intelligent individual.
Both Conroe and Woodcrest will be used in Workstation.
Intel actually lists the Woodcrest chips as a Workstation/Server chip. The only thing that really differentiates the use is the motherboard. Server motherboards(5000P) won't have PCI-Express 16x. The workstation motherboards (5000x) will have PCI-Express 16x.
Apple HAS to use Woodcrest if they want to take the Mac Pro up to $3k and beyond. Everyone else will.
Conroe is going to make a very nice basic Server and Workstation CPU. You'll just give up on SMP and a bit on the FSB (1066MHz vs 1333MHz)
Absolutely!
I'm getting nervious after the tech sites seem to be moving back to thinking Apple will use Conroe in the Mac Pro. It went from Conroe to Woodcrest, and now back to Conroe.
I just don't see how Apple can compete with a Conroe Pro machine at that level.
I'm getting nervious after the tech sites seem to be moving back to thinking Apple will use Conroe in the Mac Pro. It went from Conroe to Woodcrest, and now back to Conroe.
I just don't see how Apple can compete with a Conroe Pro machine at that level.
They wont. There is probably two months before an announcement, and they (media) have plenty of time to guess every possible configuration so they can quote it, and point back at a particular date, and say "as we predicted here"
They wont. There is probably two months before an announcement, and they (media) have plenty of time to guess every possible configuration so they can quote it, and point back at a particular date, and say "as we predicted here"
I still vote Mac Pro announcement later this month... with woodcrest. I also see an Xserve announcement... at the very least one of those will be announced this month.
I just don't see how Apple can compete with a Conroe Pro machine at that level.
Given that the tech sites have no more insight than anyone outside of Apple I dunno why anyone would be worried...especially since most folks would expect both chips to get used in workstations from single CPU Conroe's to dual CPU Woodcrests.
Dell did so with thier workstation lines prior to dual core Xeons. Single processor dual core Pentium 4 EE vs dual processor single core Xeons in their Precision 690 (or was it 490?) line.
If Apple intros the Pro lineup in August, the Mac Pro towers better fuckin' be problem-free. Apple will have had 2 months to work out every problem...problems that would undoubtedly crop up if it released the Mac Pros on Woodcrest launch.
Sadly, it probably won't matter if Apple releases the Pro lineup at the end of June or late August...the computers will have their share of problems...that's why I'm hoping Apple will release these beasts on Woodcrest launch...because then I know the pros will give Apple a kick in the pants to fix the initial issues and I'll be able to buy a relatively problem-free tower in August.
Of course...the problems would probably be minor compared to laptop problems...desktop computer users don't have to worry about heat as much. Although, processor whines and buzzing would definitely not make me happy.
Dell did so with thier workstation lines prior to dual core Xeons. Single processor dual core Pentium 4 EE vs dual processor single core Xeons in their Precision 690 (or was it 490?) line.
Vinea
True but that was the opening that AMD exploited to start gaining marketshare against Intel. Athlons and opterons were just way better. It is really quite interesting to see were conroe fits into Apple's plans.
Sadly, it probably won't matter if Apple releases the Pro lineup at the end of June or late August...the computers will have their share of problems...that's why I'm hoping Apple will release these beasts on Woodcrest launch...because then I know the pros will give Apple a kick in the pants to fix the initial issues and I'll be able to buy a relatively problem-free tower in August.
Out of all the apple towers i've owned, i've never had 1 problem. I've had performa 6400, Powermac 9600, G3 Tower, Quicksilver G4 867, G4 dual 1.25, Dual 2.0 g5 (rev b). Why are you assumming they will have problems? I do know that the rev a g5's had a bit of problems... but i think that was a fluke because of a crappy cpu in the first place.
True but that was the opening that AMD exploited to start gaining marketshare against Intel. Athlons and opterons were just way better. It is really quite interesting to see were conroe fits into Apple's plans.
Yep...but since Apple is Intel only, what else would they use but Conroe for the low end single processor workstation. Dunno what you'd price it as though.
The same as a 17" iMac conroe? Trading the monitor for expansion capability?
Out of all the apple towers i've owned, i've never had 1 problem. I've had performa 6400, Powermac 9600, G3 Tower, Quicksilver G4 867, G4 dual 1.25, Dual 2.0 g5 (rev b). Why are you assumming they will have problems? I do know that the rev a g5's had a bit of problems... but i think that was a fluke because of a crappy cpu in the first place.
I have had Rev A as well on many occations, and have never had a problem. Do you think we are just that lucky?
I don't. There are always fluke issues with a small percentage of anything you buy weather it be toasters, or MP3 players. I think it's usually a new guy in the line that screwed up the manufacturing process, and that's just because I see it all the time. FNG's have a tendency to let things go where experienced people correct mistakes on the spot.
If Apple intros the Pro lineup in August, the Mac Pro towers better fuckin' be problem-free. Apple will have had 2 months to work out every problem...problems that would undoubtedly crop up if it released the Mac Pros on Woodcrest launch.
Sadly, it probably won't matter if Apple releases the Pro lineup at the end of June or late August...the computers will have their share of problems...that's why I'm hoping Apple will release these beasts on Woodcrest launch...because then I know the pros will give Apple a kick in the pants to fix the initial issues and I'll be able to buy a relatively problem-free tower in August.
Of course...the problems would probably be minor compared to laptop problems...desktop computer users don't have to worry about heat as much. Although, processor whines and buzzing would definitely not make me happy.
It's PC hardware made by a good company, none of that "Rev. A is worthless" bullshit. Apple has less control over the hardware design, it'll mostly be Intel. And since it's a standard ATX PC, milions of which have been manufactured for years, there probably won't be any novel form-factor induced problems.
It's PC hardware made by a good company, none of that "Rev. A is worthless" bullshit. Apple has less control over the hardware design, it'll mostly be Intel. And since it's a standard ATX PC, milions of which have been manufactured for years, there probably won't be any novel form-factor induced problems.
I know...I'm usually a "Rev. A is just as good as any rev"-proponent. But I guess the recent wave of heat issues and processor whines got to me (although I hear they aren't as widespread as they seem.)
But you're right that desktop PCs should generally have zero problems considering these are all standard parts in standard form factors with lots of breathing space.
That said, bring on the Woodcrests, Apple! My credit card is ready.
It's PC hardware made by a good company, none of that "Rev. A is worthless" bullshit. Apple has less control over the hardware design, it'll mostly be Intel. And since it's a standard ATX PC, milions of which have been manufactured for years, there probably won't be any novel form-factor induced problems.
That is about the most anti truth you could have posted.
Yep...but since Apple is Intel only, what else would they use but Conroe for the low end single processor workstation. Dunno what you'd price it as though.
The same as a 17" iMac conroe? Trading the monitor for expansion capability?
Vinea
I may be misunderstanding your arguement. I envision Conroe as a prosumer level processor. IE in the iMac and perhaps an entry level workstation only. That may be stretching it a bit as even Apple's entry level workstation still fetches $1999. The more I think about it and see the performance numbers, MacPros really ought to be powered by Woodcrest.
[B]Conroe will max out @ 2.93 Ghz atleast for a Quarter, i bet it will be in iMac
If iMac gets Conroe, and I think it should, it won't be the 2.9 ghz version. That chip is $999. I think (hope) the entry level iMac gets the 2.4 ghz conroe($316) and the 20 in gets the 2.6 ghz conroe($530). These would still be impressive machines given the performance numbers posted at Anandtech. Link to Anand with prices on Conroe.
If iMac gets Conroe, and I think it should, it won't be the 2.9 ghz version. That chip is $999. I think (hope) the entry level iMac gets the 2.4 ghz conroe($316) and the 20 in gets the 2.6 ghz conroe($530). These would still be impressive machines given the performance numbers posted at Anandtech. Link to Anand with prices on Conroe.
Well perhaps I'm wrong but I thought Woodcrest was being called Xeon 5100 series. I'm under the impression that the extreme edition stuff is conroe, like the extreme edition Pent Ds. Maybe someone else can clear this up.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
No. They did better than some analysts thought. That's not the same thing. Those analysts thought that it would do worse than the original Mini. They didn't say otherwise. Just that it did better than they though it would.
Link to analysts projections please. Otherwise this is just another thing you're pulling out of your ass.
Look, really. Without numbers, numbers that apparently Apple won't give out, no one can do more than guess.
You can guess based on the data available. Or you can guess against the data available.
Where did you see 50k sales expectation numbers for the quarter? Those numbers would have been a disaster! I didn't see those projections anywhere. The numbers I saw were 225 to 300k expectations, and about 225 to 250k reality.
Regarding Apple's recently-released iPod shuffle and Mac mini products, PiperJaffray said it estimates that the number of units sold greatly exceeded early projections. "We estimate total shuffle units for the March quarter were approximately 1.8m, compared to our 1.0m estimate," the firm said. An NPD metric for the month of February estimates the iPod shuffle captured a staggering 43 percent of the market share for flash-based music players, up from 0 percent in December. "We estimate total Mac mini units sold in the March quarter were 138k vs. our estimate of 50k. We believe the Mac mini is benefiting from iPod carry-over."
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1000
For Amazon's market, yes. no doubt. But as we can see that Amazon's sales numbers don't corrispond to market reality, we can't say that the Apple rankings are comparable to their overall sales either. They are suggestive, I will give you that. But just how close do they come? We can't say. If the overall numbers are so far off, those may be as well. What kind of person is buying from Amazon? Does (s)he compare to the person buying from Apple? Or CompUsa? Or elsewhere? We don't know.
That all I'm saying. I love seeing those numbers, but I just don't know they they mean.
So you're going to steadfastly ignore the data that we have to believe in your completely unsupported assertion that the mini sales were lackluster in some way.
No, it may not mean anything.
It means no less (and no more) than that the mini was popular on the one retailer that we have some visibility into. For you to say that mini sales are coming up short in some fashion goes against the data available so the burden of proof is on you to provide some compelling evidence (or any at all).
You do this all the time, and not just with me. You use information that has no meaning for your argument, and then you insult me because I show that it doesn't. Then you get angry when I respond in kind.
The discussion is intel mini sales.
The verifiable information is the following:
* Initial mini sales exceeded expectations.
It would be logical to assume that analysts would less inclined to lowball future mini projections when they blew the estimates the first time around.
* Intel Mini sales exceeded expectations.
Piper Jaffray said this when the mini launched:
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said in a research note that Tuesday's releases were likely to be strong products, but were unlikely to materially affect Apple's growth. Future versions of the Mac Mini would likely be more specifically designed as home media hubs, he predicted."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,3...9254951,00.htm
Also while analysts were wary of intel sales the actual predictions are thus for 2Q 2006:
"Wall Street analysts are forecasting sales of roughly 1.2 million Mac units in the quarter, up just slightly from the 1.07 million Macs Apple sold in the same quarter last year."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/18/tech.../apple_walkup/
Can you produce ANY evidence that initial intel mini sales were expected to be weak?
Especially since this particular analyst expected it as a media center offering.
"UBS analyst Reitzes, who predicts Macworld will be "a circus," agrees that a new Mac Mini could be imminent, "perhaps as a digital media device," he wrote in a recent note."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/20/technology/mac_preview/
AND he raised his price target and earning estimates and issued a "buy" recommendations.
http://www.security-protocols.com/mo...ticle&sid=3064
Yes, the most logical conclusion is that the analyst that raises earning estimates and thinks that the mini will be the first intel mac is also the same analyst that will project weak sales of the mini and gets surprised.
* Intel Mini ranked consistently high on Amazon until the introduction of the MacBook.
Which confirms what the analyst is saying, at least on that score.
So this information has no meaning to the dicussion and the refutation of your completely unsupported assertion that mini sales were hurt due to pricing and that they were lackluster in some undefinable fashion?
Angry? No. Frustrated? Slightly. Because calling you a pig-headed moron would be an ad hominem attack and I frown on those. Instead, I'll just provide links to refute your pig headed moronic arguments. I will continue to assume that you are an intelligent individual.
No matter how difficult.
Vinea
Originally posted by hmurchison
Both Conroe and Woodcrest will be used in Workstation.
Intel actually lists the Woodcrest chips as a Workstation/Server chip. The only thing that really differentiates the use is the motherboard. Server motherboards(5000P) won't have PCI-Express 16x. The workstation motherboards (5000x) will have PCI-Express 16x.
Apple HAS to use Woodcrest if they want to take the Mac Pro up to $3k and beyond. Everyone else will.
Conroe is going to make a very nice basic Server and Workstation CPU. You'll just give up on SMP and a bit on the FSB (1066MHz vs 1333MHz)
Absolutely!
I'm getting nervious after the tech sites seem to be moving back to thinking Apple will use Conroe in the Mac Pro. It went from Conroe to Woodcrest, and now back to Conroe.
I just don't see how Apple can compete with a Conroe Pro machine at that level.
Originally posted by melgross
Absolutely!
I'm getting nervious after the tech sites seem to be moving back to thinking Apple will use Conroe in the Mac Pro. It went from Conroe to Woodcrest, and now back to Conroe.
I just don't see how Apple can compete with a Conroe Pro machine at that level.
They wont. There is probably two months before an announcement, and they (media) have plenty of time to guess every possible configuration so they can quote it, and point back at a particular date, and say "as we predicted here"
Originally posted by onlooker
They wont. There is probably two months before an announcement, and they (media) have plenty of time to guess every possible configuration so they can quote it, and point back at a particular date, and say "as we predicted here"
That's true. Cover all the angles.
Originally posted by melgross
I just don't see how Apple can compete with a Conroe Pro machine at that level.
Given that the tech sites have no more insight than anyone outside of Apple I dunno why anyone would be worried...especially since most folks would expect both chips to get used in workstations from single CPU Conroe's to dual CPU Woodcrests.
Dell did so with thier workstation lines prior to dual core Xeons. Single processor dual core Pentium 4 EE vs dual processor single core Xeons in their Precision 690 (or was it 490?) line.
Vinea
Sadly, it probably won't matter if Apple releases the Pro lineup at the end of June or late August...the computers will have their share of problems...that's why I'm hoping Apple will release these beasts on Woodcrest launch...because then I know the pros will give Apple a kick in the pants to fix the initial issues and I'll be able to buy a relatively problem-free tower in August.
Of course...the problems would probably be minor compared to laptop problems...desktop computer users don't have to worry about heat as much. Although, processor whines and buzzing would definitely not make me happy.
Originally posted by vinea
Dell did so with thier workstation lines prior to dual core Xeons. Single processor dual core Pentium 4 EE vs dual processor single core Xeons in their Precision 690 (or was it 490?) line.
Vinea
True but that was the opening that AMD exploited to start gaining marketshare against Intel. Athlons and opterons were just way better. It is really quite interesting to see were conroe fits into Apple's plans.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Sadly, it probably won't matter if Apple releases the Pro lineup at the end of June or late August...the computers will have their share of problems...that's why I'm hoping Apple will release these beasts on Woodcrest launch...because then I know the pros will give Apple a kick in the pants to fix the initial issues and I'll be able to buy a relatively problem-free tower in August.
Out of all the apple towers i've owned, i've never had 1 problem. I've had performa 6400, Powermac 9600, G3 Tower, Quicksilver G4 867, G4 dual 1.25, Dual 2.0 g5 (rev b). Why are you assumming they will have problems? I do know that the rev a g5's had a bit of problems... but i think that was a fluke because of a crappy cpu in the first place.
Originally posted by backtomac
True but that was the opening that AMD exploited to start gaining marketshare against Intel. Athlons and opterons were just way better. It is really quite interesting to see were conroe fits into Apple's plans.
Yep...but since Apple is Intel only, what else would they use but Conroe for the low end single processor workstation. Dunno what you'd price it as though.
The same as a 17" iMac conroe? Trading the monitor for expansion capability?
Vinea
Originally posted by emig647
Out of all the apple towers i've owned, i've never had 1 problem. I've had performa 6400, Powermac 9600, G3 Tower, Quicksilver G4 867, G4 dual 1.25, Dual 2.0 g5 (rev b). Why are you assumming they will have problems? I do know that the rev a g5's had a bit of problems... but i think that was a fluke because of a crappy cpu in the first place.
I have had Rev A as well on many occations, and have never had a problem. Do you think we are just that lucky?
I don't. There are always fluke issues with a small percentage of anything you buy weather it be toasters, or MP3 players. I think it's usually a new guy in the line that screwed up the manufacturing process, and that's just because I see it all the time. FNG's have a tendency to let things go where experienced people correct mistakes on the spot.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If Apple intros the Pro lineup in August, the Mac Pro towers better fuckin' be problem-free. Apple will have had 2 months to work out every problem...problems that would undoubtedly crop up if it released the Mac Pros on Woodcrest launch.
Sadly, it probably won't matter if Apple releases the Pro lineup at the end of June or late August...the computers will have their share of problems...that's why I'm hoping Apple will release these beasts on Woodcrest launch...because then I know the pros will give Apple a kick in the pants to fix the initial issues and I'll be able to buy a relatively problem-free tower in August.
Of course...the problems would probably be minor compared to laptop problems...desktop computer users don't have to worry about heat as much. Although, processor whines and buzzing would definitely not make me happy.
It's PC hardware made by a good company, none of that "Rev. A is worthless" bullshit. Apple has less control over the hardware design, it'll mostly be Intel. And since it's a standard ATX PC, milions of which have been manufactured for years, there probably won't be any novel form-factor induced problems.
Originally posted by Placebo
It's PC hardware made by a good company, none of that "Rev. A is worthless" bullshit. Apple has less control over the hardware design, it'll mostly be Intel. And since it's a standard ATX PC, milions of which have been manufactured for years, there probably won't be any novel form-factor induced problems.
I know...I'm usually a "Rev. A is just as good as any rev"-proponent. But I guess the recent wave of heat issues and processor whines got to me (although I hear they aren't as widespread as they seem.)
But you're right that desktop PCs should generally have zero problems considering these are all standard parts in standard form factors with lots of breathing space.
That said, bring on the Woodcrests, Apple! My credit card is ready.
Originally posted by Placebo
It's PC hardware made by a good company, none of that "Rev. A is worthless" bullshit. Apple has less control over the hardware design, it'll mostly be Intel. And since it's a standard ATX PC, milions of which have been manufactured for years, there probably won't be any novel form-factor induced problems.
That is about the most anti truth you could have posted.
Originally posted by vinea
Yep...but since Apple is Intel only, what else would they use but Conroe for the low end single processor workstation. Dunno what you'd price it as though.
The same as a 17" iMac conroe? Trading the monitor for expansion capability?
Vinea
I may be misunderstanding your arguement. I envision Conroe as a prosumer level processor. IE in the iMac and perhaps an entry level workstation only. That may be stretching it a bit as even Apple's entry level workstation still fetches $1999. The more I think about it and see the performance numbers, MacPros really ought to be powered by Woodcrest.
Woodcrest @ 3ghz (may be the highend model) will be in MacPro by WWDC, August.
Putting merom in the entire line, doesnot make sense
that defeat the purpose of aligning with Intel (different CPUs, Different prices, different purpose) compared to G4 & G5.
APPLE last time, not had this luxury... pricing difference will make the final say.
Originally posted by shanmugam
[B]Conroe will max out @ 2.93 Ghz atleast for a Quarter, i bet it will be in iMac
If iMac gets Conroe, and I think it should, it won't be the 2.9 ghz version. That chip is $999. I think (hope) the entry level iMac gets the 2.4 ghz conroe($316) and the 20 in gets the 2.6 ghz conroe($530). These would still be impressive machines given the performance numbers posted at Anandtech. Link to Anand with prices on Conroe.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2771&p=6
Originally posted by backtomac
If iMac gets Conroe, and I think it should, it won't be the 2.9 ghz version. That chip is $999. I think (hope) the entry level iMac gets the 2.4 ghz conroe($316) and the 20 in gets the 2.6 ghz conroe($530). These would still be impressive machines given the performance numbers posted at Anandtech. Link to Anand with prices on Conroe.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2771&p=6
I thought core 2 Extreme was woodcrest
Originally posted by emig647
I thought core 2 Extreme was woodcrest
Well perhaps I'm wrong but I thought Woodcrest was being called Xeon 5100 series. I'm under the impression that the extreme edition stuff is conroe, like the extreme edition Pent Ds. Maybe someone else can clear this up.