Steve Jobs on Apple, iPods, Lifestyle Brand

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Guardian Unlimited (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1575194,00.html) provides an interview with Steve Jobs during the Apple Expo in Paris. The interview offers little new information but does provide some insight into Steve Jobs and Apple.

Of most interest is the suggestion of new products in the pipe, while we are currently in a lull:

Apart from nano - which, as a replacement for the best-selling iPod mini, is a major move for the company - Apple's cupboard is fairly bare. It is a low point in the product cycle, with much of the behind-the-scenes work focusing on the Intel-based computers due next summer. But new iPods are on the way, and Jobs promises "a lot of new things in the pipeline".

Intel-based Macs are first expected in 2006, though there have been some persistent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050915204851.shtml) that Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs are in the works.

[stoid]

When he says 'new things' does he mean completely new products, or expanding ecsiting products with increased funcionality?

[Mac_Freak]

When he says 'new things' does he mean completely new products, or expanding ecsiting products with increased funcionality?

That is what I am wondering about too.

[Macaddicttt]

You know, no matter what's going on, I'm sure Steve will always say that there are new, exciting things in the pipeline...

[sky131]

What ever happened to Asteroid? I just got an M-Audio FireWire 410 audio interface because I could not hold out any longer...

I know Steve has said no video iPod or media hub device, but I know I would be a first adopter on either of those technologies from Apple. In fact, I have held on on buying a PSP because all I would really use it for is playing back videos and using the web browser (meaning - to look cool).

[~Shard~]

You know, no matter what's going on, I'm sure Steve will always say that there are new, exciting things in the pipeline...

Yeah, that's kind of a given - I think he's pretty much obligated to say that. ;)

On the one hand though, it's good to hear that so much internal effort and focus is being put on the Intel transition - it is a very key change for Apple, one that could make them or break them, so I'm glad they're taking it as seriously as they should be. :cool:

And we all know video iPods are just a matter of time, so I'm sure that's what's "in the pipeline". ;)

[lexfuzo]

Well, **** your **** iPods up your ****, Steve! How about new Powerbooks, huh? You'll never get 2000 of my precious bucks for your state-of-the-art-in-2003-boilingplates.

[commandZ]

persistent rumors[/url] that Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs are in the works.[/QUOTE]

I must say, I'm pessimistic about Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs, for a number of reasons.

For one, Apple’s attention is on Intel based Macs.

But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?

[arn]

persistent rumors that Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs are in the works.

I must say, I'm pessimistic about Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs, for a number of reasons.

For one, Apple’s attention is on Intel based Macs.

But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?

Well, if you consider the timeframe, it won't matter. If dual powerpc PowerMacs come out in late 2005 and intel-based powermacs don't come until early 2007. I think it'll make sense.

arn

[Piarco]

There *must* still be one more PPC based update for the PB's - especially as he said that the Intel roll-out was on course to start mid-2006 - around 16months since the last PB update.

Mind you I'm still chuffed about him saying new iPods are on the way - they should be here before xmas! I'll be selling my 60GB now and banking the money until that release.....

But still - c'mon Steve! One more PPC PB update!

[~Shard~]

persistent rumors[/url] that Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs are in the works.

I must say, I'm pessimistic about Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs, for a number of reasons.

For one, Apple’s attention is on Intel based Macs.

But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?

Perhaps currently outperform, but not in the future, so why would this be a bad thing? I don't see Apple releasing an Intel-based PowerMac until 2007, when the Conroe/Woodcrest chipsets are available. So, to get us by, a dual-core 970 system would be ideal. Apple could run with that for the next 14-18 months, throwing in a speed boost in mid-2006 along with other marginal upgrades, and then hit us with the new Intel machines, which at that point in time will most likely be superior to the dual-core PPC systems.

[camomac]

i agree, i also think video pods a imminent, but that is about all that i foresee because of the intel macs.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

I demand a Mac Media Center (iHome ;)) for my TV.

[longofest]

"New products in the pipeline". Yep. There always are, but just like the Pentium 4 pipeline, Apple's pipeline seems to be really, really long, and if there is an error in the pipeline, the whole pipeline must be flushed out and then restarted.

In English: I have a feeling we won't see very many of these products anytime soon. He's made these comments before.

[crap freakboy]

Doesn't he always say 'exciting things to come' or some such marketing pap everytime he gets an audience? MacIntel stuff drip fed to us over 2006-7 at inflated prices is all we have to look forward to. Yeah I'm in a grump-pumpy mood after spending 2 hours on the M4 in queues but I'm just saying it like its going to be.

[IEatApples]

Perhaps currently outperform, but not in the future, so why would this be a bad thing? I don't see Apple releasing an Intel-based PowerMac until 2007, when the Conroe/Woodcrest chipsets are available. So, to get us by, a dual-core 970 system would be ideal. Apple could run with that for the next 14-18 months, throwing in a speed boost in mid-2006 along with other marginal upgrades, and then hit us with the new Intel machines, which at that point in time will most likely be superior to the dual-core PPC systems.
Yes, and I think for Apple to wait until mid 2006 for upgrades would kill them.
We Mac users are devoted and patient, but also we have limits.

[longofest]

Well, if you consider the timeframe, it won't matter. If dual powerpc PowerMacs come out in late 2005 and intel-based powermacs don't come until early 2007. I think it'll make sense.

arn

Good call, oh Godly one.

By the way, ThinkSecret was really confusing on whether the processors used would be dual proccessor dual-core, or just one dual-core processor. Care to shed any light? I know older rumors say that it is definitely a 4-core solution, but those are just that... older rumors.

[andiwm2003]

........................... to get us by, a dual-core 970 system would be ideal. Apple could run with that for the next 14-18 months, throwing in a speed boost in mid-2006 along with other marginal upgrades, .............................


they'd better start selling the dual cores soon. otherwise people will not buy them because they rather wait for the intel macs.

there has to be a long enough time gap between the dual core g5's and the expected release of intel macs to justify the purchase of the duals.

intel powermacs will be there early 2007, many people will expect them late 2006 and will decide to wait if the dual core g5's are released only in 2006.

[duhliterate]

somebody, on another thread, asked if people were starting to get mad at apple/jobs even though we love their products. count me in that group.

UPGRADE THE POWERBOOKS, YOU BOOB!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[mjstew33]

I think we need something new. Something to like take our breath away. We haven't had that in a while! :(



<----- HE NEEDS TO GIVE US SOME MORE! GRRRRRRRRRR
Avatar - Steve Jobs deedeedee

[Kobushi]

persistent rumors[/url] that Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs are in the works.

I must say, I'm pessimistic about Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs, for a number of reasons.

For one, Apple’s attention is on Intel based Macs.

But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?

I disagree, Apple has the uncanny ability to divide it's attention to multiple products and still be inovative. Apple is pretty good at misdirection, too (Steve, you rascal).

Also, there have been hints/rumours that Apple isn't going to go with current intel technology. You can't forget that while people are drooling over the possible performance of MacIntels using current techonology, I'm sure apple has something in the works with intel. Not reinventing the wheel mind you, but definitely making it better.

[~Shard~]

Yes, and I think for Apple to wait until mid 2006 for upgrades would kill them.
We Mac users are devoted and patient, but also we have limits.

Sure, I was just throwing that out as an example - pick your date for a 2006 upgrade. ;)

[~Shard~]

I think we need something new. Something to like take our breath away. We haven't had that in a while! :(

I don't know about you, but the iPod nano sure impressed the socks off me! Oh, you probably meant something non-iPod related... ;)

[notjustjay]

New iPods are on the way?

MORE new iPods?

I think we can see where the attention is at...

[mjstew33]

I don't know about you, but the iPod nano sure impressed the socks off me! Oh, you probably meant something non-iPod related... ;)

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of Macs. The iPod nano is fricken awesome!! w00t w00t iPod nano ROCKS ON!

[mjstew33]

New iPods are on the way?

MORE new iPods?

I think we can see where the attention is at...

I think Apple needs to cool it's jets with the iPod. My gosh. Give us some GOOD updates to the Mac, we need some. Desperatley!

[mjstew33]

I demand a Mac Media Center (iHome ;)) for my TV.
I don't see that happening any time soon. ;)

[riversky]

Mainly because who would buy a Intel based Mac without the software. I doubt Microsoft Office, Adobe products, and even Apple's own entire suite of professional products (FinalCut) will be full optimized for the Intel machine by January. Not to mention all the cool programs like Skype and the like....Emulation runs G3 class and doesn't support AltiVec so forget Photoshop on a Intel until it is native.

Software will drive the release or the Intel Macs more than the hardware timeframe.

[~Shard~]

they'd better start selling the dual cores soon. otherwise people will not buy them because they rather wait for the intel macs.

there has to be a long enough time gap between the dual core g5's and the expected release of intel macs to justify the purchase of the duals.

intel powermacs will be there early 2007, many people will expect them late 2006 and will decide to wait if the dual core g5's are released only in 2006.

Yes, I agree - Apple needs to release these dual core PMs sooner rather than later for that very reason. Another reason is simply one of $$$ - Apple would need adequate time and adequate sales to recoup their R&D costs for the systems to be profitable and not take a hit as a result.

I think a full year would be acceptable for most people, but anything shorter than that, and as you say, Apple might be pushing their luck with consumers. Let's hope we see these babies sooner rather than later.

And after all this dual core anticipation, wouldn't it just be absolutely hilarious if Apple's next PM update was simply to the infamous 3 GHz G5 that was promised 2 years ago? :eek: :cool:

[Kobushi]

But even if Apple's stereotypical users - young, fashionable and metropolitan - are sympathetic to his personal views, he insists that his politics aren't important to the company's strategy.

I've been a mac user for years as well as my whole family. I have to laugh when I look at them with thought of apple users being young, fashionable, and metropolitan. More like old, crochety, and want a computer that works.

Glad I'm not stereotypical :)

[~Shard~]

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of Macs. The iPod nano is fricken awesome!! w00t w00t iPod nano ROCKS ON!

Agreed!

Mainly because who would buy a Intel based Mac without the software. I doubt Microsoft Office, Adobe products, and even Apple's own entire suite of professional products (FinalCut) will be full optimized for the Intel machine by January. Not to mention all the cool programs like Skype and the like....

Skype is already available for Mac and PC, so I doubt there would be any problems with running it right off the bat on whatever system you might have.

[Kobushi]

Yes, I agree - Apple needs to release these dual core PMs sooner rather than later for that very reason. Another reason is simply one of $$$ - Apple would need adequate time and adequate sales to recoup their R&D costs for the systems to be profitable and not take a hit as a result.

I think a full year would be acceptable for most people, but anything shorter than that, and as you say, Apple might be pushing their luck with consumers. Let's hope we see these babies sooner rather than later.

And after all this dual core anticipation, wouldn't it just be absolutely hilarious if Apple's next PM update was simply to the infamous 3 GHz G5 that was promised 2 years ago? :eek: :cool:

I dunno, it's not like as soon as the Intel models come out, the other's will just disappear because there is a faster one out there. The PowerMac G4's hung around quite a while after the G5's came out. In fact, that's (G4) what we got for my wife simply because it was cheaper and met her needs. There is still money to be made as skeptical and/or stubborn people (see post above regarding my family) slowly take on a new concept. ;)

[~Shard~]

I think Apple needs to cool it's jets with the iPod. My gosh. Give us some GOOD updates to the Mac, we need some. Desperatley!

But you know that they're working feverishly on the video iPod despite what Steve might say - you just know it. ;)

As for good updates to the Mac, I think we will indeed see a dual-core PM, which will be a "good" update in my opinion - better than a speed bump to the existing 970 chips. And then, well, I think all the Intel Macs will bw great updates, so in that respect, we just have to be patient. We know they're coming, we just have to wait.

I would rather have Apple focus their energies and hard work on the future of the Mac ( i.e. the Intel machines) and make them amazing, than dividing their efforts and put what is perhaps unnecessary focus on the PPC. Sure Apple, utilize those dual core 970s and the low power ones as well, but don't knock yourself out on it - focus on what matters - the future - Intel. :cool:

[rdowns]

[QUOTE=lilstewart92]I think we need something new. [QUOTE]

Indeed, Steve Jobs avatars are used by a long time member of the forums. Since 'tars are the primary way members use to identify posters, you might want to consider a different one. (Hope I'm not out of line here with this suggestion)

Congrats n reaching 500 posts and getting one.

[~Shard~]

I dunno, it's not like as soon as the Intel models come out, the other's will just disappear because there is a faster one out there. The PowerMac G4's hung around quite a while after the G5's came out. In fact, that's (G4) what we got for my wife simply because it was cheaper and met her needs. There is still money to be made as skeptical and/or stubborn people (see post above regarding my family) slowly take on a new concept. ;)

Absolutely - there will definitely be an overlap, and Apple will not magically cease selling PPC PMs just because the Intel ones are out. Some people will prefer the PPC machines, some will not want a Rev A Intel PM - others, who despise Intel <cough>iGary<cough>, will not buy one regardless! And of course you'll have those who want to grab one as soon as possible! So yes, existence of both flavors of PMs will definitely be the case for a number of reasons.

[pubwvj]

When he says 'new things' does he mean completely new products, or expanding ecsiting products with increased funcionality?

Steve is talking about the new µMac (microMacintosh) which is a PDA/tablet/cellphone/2.4GHzphone/WiFi-VOIPphone/GPS/MP3player/mobileHome/backup/etc. It runs the new MacOS Xµ, a slightly limited version of OSX Tiger which runs all basic applications just like the current Macs but of course not power apps like X-Plane/Halo/Photoshop/etc. Just in time for Xmas! :)

[Lacero]

New iPods are on the way?
MORE new iPods?
I think we can see where the attention is at...Considering iPods are fast approaching almost half of Apple revenue by the end of 2006, I can see why they would want to keep the lead in MP3 and music download sales. Nice to be the monopoly for once. ;)

[Kobushi]

Steve is talking about the new µMac (microMacintosh) which is a PDA/tablet/cellphone/2.4GHzphone/WiFi-VOIPphone/GPS/MP3player/mobileHome/backup/etc. It runs the new MacOS Xµ, a slightly limited version of OSX Tiger which runs all basic applications just like the current Macs but of course not power apps like X-Plane/Halo/Photoshop/etc. Just in time for Xmas! :)

Mac OSX micro? Would that like Mac OS 10^(-6) (aww a wittle kitty)?

[~Shard~]

I think we need something new.

Indeed, Steve Jobs avatars are used by a long time member of the forums. Since 'tars are the primary way members use to identify posters, you might want to consider a different one. (Hope I'm not out of line here with this suggestion)

Congrats n reaching 500 posts and getting one.

It wouldn't happen to be someone mentioned in my previous post, would it? ;)

At the end of the day, he can use whatever avatar he wants, but yes, there may be some confusion as a result. For instance, one of the reasons I moved away from my Family Guy 'tars was because so many others were using (and still do!) them, so it was hard to differentiate who was who.

Anyway, back on topic...

[BRLawyer]

Well, as someone else said, Apple's pipeline seems really long as far as Macs are concerned...

Where the hell are the dual-dual core PMs? I don't even care about PBs anymore (since they depend on cool chips anyway)...but come on, you can stick whatever you want in PMs with their gigantic cases...Apple, wake up and give us some REAL Pro stuff, something we can drool about again...just like the goo' ol' G3s when they were introduced, which spanked any PCs out there at that time...COME ON!

[~Shard~]

Considering iPods are fast approaching almost half of Apple revenue by the end of 2006, I can see why they would want to keep the lead in MP3 and music download sales. Nice to be the monopoly for once. ;)

Absolutely - milk that baby for all it's worth. Extra revenue from iPod sales = more money Apple can spend on R&D and other things, which all benefit us as consumers at the end of the day. :cool:

[Fabio_gsilva]

Considering iPods are fast approaching almost half of Apple revenue by the end of 2006, I can see why they would want to keep the lead in MP3 and music download sales. Nice to be the monopoly for once. ;)

Yeah... we all see this too. iPod is great, nano is marvelous, but, it will be good to see some great nem Macs one time or another... just to be different...

By the way, what a astonishing beautiful lady in your avatar... congratulations.

Fábio.

[Jetson]

I'd be thrilled to upgrade my 2 year old eMac for a dual-core anything. I'd like to enjoy some serious power for a change. A nice surprise would be a dual core 3Ghz iMac or eMac setup. This would tide me over for another couple of years while Apple works out the bugs in it's new Intel based line. Otherwise I'll just live with what I've got for a few more years.

[nomad01]

But you know that they're working feverishly on the video iPod despite what Steve might say - you just know it. ;)

Yeah I think we'll be seeing something along these lines very soon. Somebody on here gave very specific info on the nano weeks before the release and he's stating "around Oct 7th" for a new iPod with video. I'm inclined to believe it but time will tell.

As for new Macs, I'm not sure Apple can or want to offer us anything kick ass until the Intel switch. Like Steve says, it's a lull. We just need to bear with them I guess.

[~Shard~]

I'd be thrilled to upgrade my 2 year old eMac for a dual-core anything. I'd like to enjoy some serious power for a change. A nice surprise would be a dual core 3Ghz iMac or eMac setup. This would tide me over for another couple of years while Apple works out the bugs in it's new Intel based line. Otherwise I'll just live with what I've got for a few more years.

If anything goes dual-core it will be the PM, as it is the professional machine, and also is due for an upgrade ahead of the iMac. The iMac, as it stands right now, is probably the strongest Apple computer right now in terms of power, features and price. I don't see any serious upgrades to the iMacs for a while, so I would see nothing wrong in just picking one of those up if you're in the market for a nice new system. :cool:

[~Shard~]

Yeah I think we'll be seeing something along these lines very soon. Somebody on here gave very specific info on the nano weeks before the release and he's stating "around Oct 7th" for a new iPod with video. I'm inclined to believe it but time will tell.

I don't know if they'll have them out that quickly, what with the nano just being released, but that would definitely make for some amazing Xmas sales! Mind you, then the video iPod sales would cannabalize other iPod sales too, including the nano.

For this and (many) other reasons, I don't think we will be seeing a video iPod from Apple until 2006.

[shamino]

I must say, I'm pessimistic about Dual Core PowerPC based PowerMacs, for a number of reasons.

For one, Apple’s attention is on Intel based Macs.
But it's a multi-year transition. And Steve did say (at the WWDC conference) that Apple will continue to release PPC-based Mac until that transition is complete.
But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?
Such a machine should perform comparably to PowerMac with four single-core processors. Maybe a little faster (due to tighter integration) maybe a little slower (due to shared caches), but overall comparable.

Any fair comparison to an Intel/AMD system would have to be against dual dual-core systems or against quad single-core systems. 4-CPU motherboards for Intel (Xeon) and AMD (Opteron) processors can be purchased, but they aren't cheap.

[shamino]

New iPods are on the way?

MORE new iPods?
Why not? It's not like the iPod developers are also developing Mac hardware. Rapid iPod development is not going to slow down Mac development.

As for what these new iPods might be, I think they should sell one using 80G drives. Either leaving the others in place (20/60/80) or bump the others (maybe 30/80 or 40/80).

This would also open up a gap in the product placement for another mid-range product. Possibly a re-issued mini with a 10G microdrive (these are supposedly coming soon) or a bigger nano with an 8G capacity (these chips are also supposedly coming soon.)
I think we can see where the attention is at...
Strike while the iron's hot. If the world wants iPods, give 'em iPods. That's good business.

There's plenty of time for Mac announcements when the hardware is ready.

[SeaFox]

Jobs promises "a lot of new things in the pipeline".

You know, I seem to remember him saying something like this at every keynote, so I don't see what the big deal is.

[dirteemac2]

But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?

Considering the fact that ONE single core P4 3.6 ghz is faster than a dual 2 ghz G5, I'd have to say no, a dual dual-core G5 would NOT outperform an Intel machine.

[shamino]

Mac OSX micro? Would that like Mac OS 10^(-6) (aww a wittle kitty)?
Mac OS 10.6: Calico

[shamino]

If anything goes dual-core it will be the PM, as it is the professional machine, and also is due for an upgrade ahead of the iMac.
Or the Xserve. Doubling the capacity of cluster nodes is a really big deal for those who need clusters (supercomputing labs, render farms, etc.)

[shamino]

You know, I seem to remember him saying something like this at every keynote, so I don't see what the big deal is.
But now everybody expects him to say it. So if he ever forgets, everyone will assume he's run out of ideas and the stock will tank.

(I would append a smilie to that, but I'm afraid I might be right.)

[~Shard~]

Or the Xserve. Doubling the capacity of cluster nodes is a really big deal for those who need clusters (supercomputing labs, render farms, etc.)

Yep, asbolutely. The only reason I didn't mention the Xserve initially was due to the fact that they were just recently (although very marginally) upgraded. As a result, I'd see a dual core PM coming first, followed thereafter by a dual core Xserve perhaps at MWSF or in early '06.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

I don't see that happening any time soon. ;)

Is that "wink" a responce to mine, or a "wink" to say "you may be getting your wish soon"?

[lexfuzo]

By the way, ThinkSecret was really confusing on whether the processors used would be dual proccessor dual-core, or just one dual-core processor. Care to shed any light? I know older rumors say that it is definitely a 4-core solution, but those are just that... older rumors.

I'm quite convinced that It would be a dual-dual. Just one dual-core chip is probably even slower than two with single cores. It would have slower clock speeds due to thermal reasons.
A combined low-power-dual-core solution would be nice, though...

[longofest]

I'm quite convinced that It would be a dual-dual. Just one dual-core chip is probably even slower than two with single cores. It would have slower clock speeds due to thermal reasons.
A combined low-power-dual-core solution would be nice, though...

I've heard the opposite. Theoretically, the new chips will be able to outperform dual-processor systems because the 970MP cores can communicate more efficiently because they are on the same chip (and have cache sharing and other technology). So, you could see a 2.5Ghz 970MP system getting about the same performance with only one chip as a 2.7Ghz dually. Thats an estimate, but you get the idea...

That's why I want to know if Apple will introduce dual-chip dual-core. I believe that Apple will go with dual-dual, but it might be a little too much optimism considering what Apple has done with its pro-line as of late.

[BRLawyer]

Considering the fact that ONE single core P4 3.6 ghz is faster than a dual 2 ghz G5, I'd have to say no, a dual dual-core G5 would NOT outperform an Intel machine.

Hell no...a single P4 (or even a Dual Xeon for that matter) is busted by a Dual G5...apart from games/DirectX...this is more than obvious and has been widely demonstrated by many sites.

[longofest]

Considering the fact that ONE single core P4 3.6 ghz is faster than a dual 2 ghz G5, I'd have to say no, a dual dual-core G5 would NOT outperform an Intel machine.

Wow... you ARE a newbie. You obviously don't look at too many benchmarks. What performance meters are you looking at? OpenGL, sure. Apple's OpenGL implenentation is horrid, and has been under public scruitiny. But try encoding a 1-hour long DV movie on a P4, and see how long it takes.

A few things:
a) many tasks today like above are parallel-izable (as in, multiple cores means faster performance. NOT the case with hyperthreading all the time. Hyperthreading requires special coding, and does not guarantee simultaneous execution like multiple cores does).
b) Remember that adding 2 more cores to the G5 will make a big difference. It may not get a full 2x the performance gain, but ThinkSecret reports that a user can expect 50-80% gains off of similar configured 970FX systems are not out of the question.

[commandZ]

[QUOTE]Considering the fact that ONE single core P4 3.6 ghz is faster than a dual 2 ghz G5, I'd have to say no, a dual dual-core G5 would NOT outperform an Intel machine.[QUOTE]


Well, maybe, but…

1) A P4 3.6 ghz may indeed outperform a dual G5 2 ghz (but not on everything…it’s performance could be judged similar, with the P4 the slight leader). However, we’re talking about dual dual-core G5’s.

2) Dual dual-core G5’s will be running at 2.5 ghz, not 2.0.

3) When dual-core Pentiums are introduced, they won’t be running as high as 3.6 ghz. Who knows how far Intel will have to clock ‘em down to get the initial ones to work?


Look, don’t get me wrong, I’d love to get my hands on a dual dual-core G5 ASAP. I’m a professional user in need of a new powerful Mac!

I just think Apple may be afraid the dual dual-core G5 may take the shine off their future Intel Macs, and therefore has been reluctant to introduce them (how many months has it been since IBM announce the availability of the dual-core G5?).

[lexfuzo]

I've heard the opposite. Theoretically, the new chips will be able to outperform dual-processor systems because the 970MP cores can communicate more efficiently because they are on the same chip (and have cache sharing and other technology). So, you could see a 2.5Ghz 970MP system getting about the same performance with only one chip as a 2.7Ghz dually. Thats an estimate, but you get the idea...

OK, but I doubt that you could clock a dual-core at 2.5GHz. But, let's wait and see.

That's why I want to know if Apple will introduce dual-chip dual-core. I believe that Apple will go with dual-dual, but it might be a little too much optimism considering what Apple has done with its pro-line as of late.
I'm quite sure that there will be dual-dual in the top-model. The lower end of the line will probably be castrated as usual, meaning single-dual or dual-single :rolleyes:
Whatever, I'm prepared to being disappointed.

[ZorPrime]

Of most interest is the suggestion of new products in the pipe, while we are currently in a lull:


Get the plunger or call the plumber... the pipeline is clogged! :mad:

[Earendil]

You know, no matter what's going on, I'm sure Steve will always say that there are new, exciting things in the pipeline...


However, it makes perfect sense for Apple to store a few big new things, and work hard on getting a few big things out the door just before, during, and right after Microsoft releases Vista. No one wants Microsoft to make press and ask "where is Apple?". We want Microsoft to release Vista and have the press go "Yeah, Vista is good, but did you see what Apple just did?!".

If that means a lull in the next year, that's fine by me. As long as it means Apple does its darndest to blast Microsoft when they try and get some good press come next year ;)

~Earendil

[drewyboy]

Just an ordinary day at Apple HQ...

Apple Engineer#1:"Hey bob, i know we've only been working today for about an hour, but everyone is going to Choch-kee's to get some coffee.. wana come?"
Apple Engineer#2:"I suppose I could. Those new mactels dont need to be ready till about a week before WWDC... eh why not.. we've got plenty of time."
As lights are being turned off and Steve is locking the doors up....
Steve Jobs:" CHOCH-KEE'S IS ON ME TODAY GUYS!!!"

[Bregalad]

Apple certainly needs to put a lot of effort into the Intel transition and doesn't want to send mixed messages, but pro users won't be able to benefit from the new platform for years. Adobe's Creative Suite is due in January 2007; pro audio will be months after that.

Apple would do well to get some updated pro machines (PowerMac, PowerBook) into the marketplace ASAP. When the public knows about the PPC970MP and the PPC7448 it's even harder to keep flogging old technology at top prices.

At this store PowerBook sales are unusually slow for this time of year and tower sales are almost non-existant. Of course sales overall are unusually slow for September, but we can't get stock of iBooks or 4GB nanos and supplies have been tight for a while on Mac minis and 17" iMacs. It's hard to make sales when you don't have anything to sell.

[shamino]

OK, but I doubt that you could clock a dual-core at 2.5GHz. But, let's wait and see.
A report from July (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/07/20050707113252.shtml) says that the 970MP's top speed will start out at 2.5GHz.

[~Shard~]

Apple certainly needs to put a lot of effort into the Intel transition and doesn't want to send mixed messages, but pro users won't be able to benefit from the new platform for years. Adobe's Creative Suite is due in January 2007; pro audio will be months after that.

Apple would do well to get some updated pro machines (PowerMac, PowerBook) into the marketplace ASAP. When the public knows about the PPC970MP and the PPC7448 it's even harder to keep flogging old technology at top prices.

At this store PowerBook sales are unusually slow for this time of year and tower sales are almost non-existant. Of course sales overall are unusually slow for September, but we can't get stock of iBooks or 4GB nanos and supplies have been tight for a while on Mac minis and 17" iMacs. It's hard to make sales when you don't have anything to sell.

I totaly understand. Although I could see the PowerBooks getting updated to Intel before the PowerMacs, thanks to Merom, the fact is that it is still a ways in the future before we see Intel iterations of these machines. In the interim, Apple needs to refresh the PowerMac and PowerBook line with new 970s as you indicated, not their existing G5 and G4 offerings. Even if those updated PPC PowerMacs and PowerBooks are only out for a year until the Intel versions come along, this is still a necessity in my mind. Bring on the 7448 PowerBooks and the 970MP PowerMacs!

[solvs]

Considering the fact that ONE single core P4 3.6 ghz is faster than a dual 2 ghz G5, I'd have to say no, a dual dual-core G5 would NOT outperform an Intel machine.
HA! Maybe if you're a gamer. The G5 spanks the P4 otherwise. A dual dual-core would beat a top of the line Xeon, and maybe even give the Opteron a run for it's money.

But whatever, I want my PowerMac. G5, P4, dual core... I just want one that's fast and less than $2000. I have until Nov, then I'll have to buy a refurb if nothing new is out. Which of course means they come out with the new ones in Jan. that are twice as fast and half as much. Anyone else think they had originally planned on having new PowerMac and/or 'Books for MW, but there were some problems last minute, so they cancelled the keynote? Maybe even had the special event early instead?

[oskar]

Nice article. Little new information though. I see news on new stuff slowly drifting away as the holidays approach. The nano seems to be Apple's main focus right now. Nothing bad for them, but what about everybody who was expecting updated PowerBooks? :confused: I think the updated PowerMacs were a long shot, as we just saw updated PowerMacs about 4 or 5 months ago. The PowerBooks are in much need of getting an 8x or 16x dual layer burner, 128 MB standard video memory, maybe a higher resolution display (most unlikely) and any increase in processor speed.

[commandZ]

I fully understand why Steve felt the need to switch to Intel.

The G5 seems to have no future as a small footprint. Mobile and mini users will benefit greatly from the switch to Intel.

For power users (with a big box to house these heat monsters) the benefit is less clear. I think the G5 (and G6!) could easily kept pace with Intel, even out paced!

And that’s my point. Apple is reluctant to introduce the dual dual-core G5 that will probably outperform (at least in some areas) its new Intel Mac’s. I hope I’m wrong.

IBM announced the availability of dual-core G5’s months ago. When was last time Apple’s chip provider announced the availability (availability, not development) of its new chip before Apple?

[nomad01]

For this and (many) other reasons, I don't think we will be seeing a video iPod from Apple until 2006.

Yeah you could be right. Maybe the October date is just for a new ipod revision... bigger hard drives maybe. Like I said, time will tell.

I'm a bit of a sucker for iPods but my 60GB is enough space for the foreseeable future so I won't get too excited. :-)

[AidenShaw]

But most of all, I think a Dual Dual Core PowerPC would outperform an Intel machine! Any thoughts?
...and dual quad Intels, and dual octo Intels

[BRLawyer]

[QUOTE]Considering the fact that ONE single core P4 3.6 ghz is faster than a dual 2 ghz G5, I'd have to say no, a dual dual-core G5 would NOT outperform an Intel machine.[QUOTE]


Well, maybe, but…

1) A P4 3.6 ghz may indeed outperform a dual G5 2 ghz (but not on everything…it’s performance could be judged similar, with the P4 the slight leader). However, we’re talking about dual dual-core G5’s.

2) Dual dual-core G5’s will be running at 2.5 ghz, not 2.0.

3) When dual-core Pentiums are introduced, they won’t be running as high as 3.6 ghz. Who knows how far Intel will have to clock ‘em down to get the initial ones to work?


Look, don’t get me wrong, I’d love to get my hands on a dual dual-core G5 ASAP. I’m a professional user in need of a new powerful Mac!

I just think Apple may be afraid the dual dual-core G5 may take the shine off their future Intel Macs, and therefore has been reluctant to introduce them (how many months has it been since IBM announce the availability of the dual-core G5?).

Sorry, but are you guys on crack or what? A P4 DOES NOT bust a Dual G5, apart from games and the above-cited OpenGL thing (which affects games anyway)...in most pro app tests the Dual G5 TOTALLY BLOWS P4s, Dual Xeons and even Dual Opterons outta water...Dual-Duals will just move the bar a lot higher when they are out...get a grip, guys, please...

[~Shard~]

Yeah you could be right. Maybe the October date is just for a new ipod revision... bigger hard drives maybe. Like I said, time will tell.

I'm a bit of a sucker for iPods but my 60GB is enough space for the foreseeable future so I won't get too excited. :-)

I should hope that's enough space for you - that's bigger than some people's hard drives! :eek: ;)

[nomad01]

I should hope that's enough space for you - that's bigger than some people's hard drives! :eek: ;)

Heh heh... and who'd have thought there were THAT many showtunes??!

[~Shard~]

Heh heh... and who'd have thought there were THAT many showtunes??!

I'm not sure whether to be impressed by that fact, or concerned... ;)

[AidenShaw]

I'm not sure whether to be impressed by that fact, or concerned... ;)
Just be concerned, for the person who felt the need to make that comment....

[shamino]

I should hope that's enough space for you - that's bigger than some people's hard drives! :eek: ;)
For the record, I've got over 40G of music on my Mac at home. (Almost all of it ripped from my CDs at 128K AAC.) I could see myself exceedng 60G in a few years.

Add in photo slide shows, buffer space for voice-recordings, and camera-transfers, and I could easily see a purpose for a model 80G or larger.

I also know people who only rip their music in lossless formats. Now you've got 5M/min instead of 1M/min. If I did that, my collection would balloon up to 200G, easily filling any iPod Apple is likely to sell for several years.

(FWIW, I'm using a 4G mini. I use some smart playlists to constantly rotate random songs from my collection through it.) This is good enough most of the time.

[amholl]

I don't know if they'll have them out that quickly, what with the nano just being released, but that would definitely make for some amazing Xmas sales! Mind you, then the video iPod sales would cannabalize other iPod sales too, including the nano.

For this and (many) other reasons, I don't think we will be seeing a video iPod from Apple until 2006.

I think its a good idea because Apple would get more prophet on the video ipod. I hope it look something like a PSP, but a bigger screen, skinnier and has swappable HDDs

[shamino]

I think its a good idea because Apple would get more prophet on the video ipod.
Prophet? No wonder they're so successful. These suckers can predict the future!

[hyperpasta]

I'm pretty sure I read that the developer box running a generic Pentium at 3.6 GHz "seemed" as fast as about a Dual 2.0 GHz Mac. In fact, I think I saw it on Macrumors.

[bloogersnigen]

Well, **** your **** iPods up your ****, Steve! How about new Powerbooks, huh? You'll never get 2000 of my precious bucks for your state-of-the-art-in-2003-boilingplates.

agreed. c'mon apple make computers again, not just ipods

[bloogersnigen]

Steve is talking about the new µMac (microMacintosh) which is a PDA/tablet/cellphone/2.4GHzphone/WiFi-VOIPphone/GPS/MP3player/mobileHome/backup/etc. It runs the new MacOS Xµ, a slightly limited version of OSX Tiger which runs all basic applications just like the current Macs but of course not power apps like X-Plane/Halo/Photoshop/etc. Just in time for Xmas! :)

The sizeof the ipod nano w/ an 40 gb flash drive and a projector that projects the image on your glasses via bluetooth 3 so the computer stays in you pocket and you wear touch sensitive finger things to type and control the curser. Next tuesday

[Surreal]

new ipod = recording? :eek: :rolleyes:

[c2104338]

I think we need something new. Something to like take our breath away. We haven't had that in a while! :(


I'm one of those people who at the moment doesn't care about new and exciting things in the pipeline. I already have a perfectly functioning iPod mini, all i need is for the PB to finally get a modest upgrade- screen, HDD, graphics and better sound- whatever!

Steve Jobs can continue to pump out smaller iPods and fancy phones, but in the end there is only one thing that will get me excited:)

As a wise man once said (may of been Gene Simmons), "Give the people what they want"

[Kobushi]

I'm one of those people who at the moment doesn't care about new and exciting things in the pipeline. I already have a perfectly functioning iPod mini, all i need is for the PB to finally get a modest upgrade- screen, HDD, graphics and better sound- whatever!

Steve Jobs can continue to pump out smaller iPods and fancy phones, but in the end there is only one thing that will get me excited:)

As a wise man once said (may of been Gene Simmons), "Give the people what they want"

Ah yes, from the wise tongue of Gene Simmons. :p <---needs longer tongue

[flowerbook]

i read a lot the last weeks about "maybe" new macs.
in several forums etc.
i´ve got the feeling apple already lost their main purpose, computer.
i like the ipod and i´m very pleased with it.
but, now i´m looking for a new laptop.
i worked now for seven years with apple computers.
at the moment i´m really thinking to switch to "the dark side".
to be honest, i´m hardly p.... about apple.
is osx really working on other computers?
it could be an alternative.

[iQuit]

The ONLY thing holding me back from buying a new PB is a update...that and I am pretty skeptical about the future of Mac with the Intel switch...and Windows is starting to get a little more stable ever since SP2. Look at the Windows Lappies....the PWN the PowerBook....it's sad.

[iQuit]

I literally laughed at this!!!!!!!


Prophet? No wonder they're so successful. These suckers can predict the future!


Here are a few things...

I like Mac because...

1.OSX

2.PPC-it really set it apart from Windows

3.The apps

Want to know what would suck? They switch to Intel and IBM starts making better processors....way better. And then maybe we switch back, and for a short period a LOT of people bought Intel and now the Intel people are screwed and Apple is a mess!

[oskar]

new ipod = recording? :eek: :rolleyes:

Integrated recording would be a nice feature. Or Apple could simply make their own microphone device and make a little more.
A feature I would like to see is an iSight-like camera integrated into an iPod. That would be cooler than simply making the iPod play video. Recording your own.

[nomad01]

I'm not sure whether to be impressed by that fact, or concerned... ;)

Be afraid... be very afraid.

It's not FULL of em though... really! There's other stuff on there too. lol

[nomad01]

Just be concerned, for the person who felt the need to make that comment....

Thanks for that. It was a joke.

[shamino]

Want to know what would suck? They switch to Intel and IBM starts making better processors....way better. And then maybe we switch back, and for a short period a LOT of people bought Intel and now the Intel people are screwed and Apple is a mess!
Or....

Apple sells both kinds of systems beyond 2007. Maybe Intel-based systems for the low-end and PPC-based systems for the high end.

If universal binaries are all Apple claims they will be, users shouldn't be affected that much.

Of course, you'd still have to deal with with bone-headed companies like Adobe that would choose one platform and flat-out refuse to ship code on the other, even in the face of tremendous customer demands. So maybe that wouldn't be such a great idea.

But the way things are going, I doubt Apple will move back to PPC ever again, once the Intel transition is completed. Apple doesn't forgive suppliers that burn them. Notice how Apple has not even considered the advanced PPC chips from Freescale, even though many of them have the potential to trounce the IBM 970 chip.

Also notice how they never shipped anything based on the 68060.

[ZorPrime]

Also notice how they never shipped anything based on the 68060.

Apple dropping the 68k line had little to do with supply, in my opinion, but had more to do with the fact Apple was moving to RISC and the 68060 was CISC, plus it had more architectural features in common with the original Pentium. Also the 060's FPU performance was crap since it wasn't pipelined.

[~Shard~]

Be afraid... be very afraid.

It's not FULL of em though... really! There's other stuff on there too. lol

Well, thanks for clarifying that at least... ;)

[shamino]

Apple dropping the 68k line had little to do with supply, in my opinion, but had more to do with the fact Apple was moving to RISC and the 68060 was CISC, plus it had more architectural features in common with the original Pentium. Also the 060's FPU performance was crap since it wasn't pipelined.
Just like Apple's decision to move away from PPC and towards Intel has little to do with supply. It was IBM's lack of desire to ship competitive processors, not their lack of production capability.

And just like Apple refused to consider another 68K box after switching to PPC, they will almost certainly refuse to consider another PPC box after they finish the transition to Intel.

[ZorPrime]

Just like Apple's decision to move away from PPC and towards Intel has little to do with supply. It was IBM's lack of desire to ship competitive processors, not their lack of production capability.

I respectfully disagree in part on that point. I think Apple's shifting to Intel has more to due with profit than IBM's "lack of desire". IBM is very comitted to the PPC architecture. I think Apple simply doesn't want to spend the R&D $$$ on processor development anymore. They'd rather shop around for third party vendors for their CPUs. I think the "iPod Profit Model" adopted by Apple is to blame for this shift. One day, we might even see Apple using AMD processors instead of Intel.


And just like Apple refused to consider another 68K box after switching to PPC, they will almost certainly refuse to consider another PPC box after they finish the transition to Intel.

Very true. It does seem to be the case for now.

[AidenShaw]

One day, we might even see Apple using AMD processors instead of Intel.
Perhaps sometime in the future....

I would expect that Apple has agreed to exclusively use Intel CPUs (for x86/x64) for a significant period of time, however.

One wouldn't expect Intel to invest in Apple (porting Intel's compilers and tools, for example) if Apple could immediately use those tools for AMD chips.

Right now, however, AMD's only clear advantage is in the single-chip dual-core area, where the tight memory coupling is an advantage over Intel's dual-cores. (In multi-chip configurations, however, AMD's NUMA architecture can lead to erratic performance.)

The new 2 MiB L2 cache Xeons seem to have caught up with Opteron on most performance fronts.

AMD's mobile lineup is weak compared to Pentium M. AMD has a better dual-core lineup, but by year's end Intel will have dual-chip capable dual-core. So, before you see any MacIntels that advantage will be gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#Xeon_.26_Xeon_MP_.2864-bit.29

Xeon & Xeon MP (64-bit)

A slightly updated core called Irwindale was released in early 2005, differing from Nocona in having twice the L2 cache and the ability to reduce its clockspeeds in situations that didn't need much processing power.

Current performance numbers are somewhat limited, though the independant tests which have been conducted show the Irwindale outperforming the Opteron.

64-bit Xeon MPs were introduced in April 2005. The cheaper version was Cranford, an MP version of Nocona. The more expensive version was Potomac; a Nocona with an 8 MB L3 cache.
("Xeon MP" chips are multi-chip (quad and higher) capable, "Xeon" chips are dual-capable)

[ZorPrime]

Perhaps sometime in the future....

I would expect that Apple has agreed to exclusively use Intel CPUs (for x86/x64) for a significant period of time, however.

One wouldn't expect Intel to invest in Apple (porting Intel's compilers and tools, for example) if Apple could immediately use those tools for AMD chips.


I totally agree with you. Excellent points. I don’t see Apple moving over to AMD anytime in the foreseeable future either.

I think your explanation reinforces the reasoning behind Apple’s long-term CPU goal for their computer lineup (particularly their mobile units). Apple will no longer have such a long turnaround time between CPU R&D, implementation, and production. It’ll be painful in the short term but I think The Switch will be well worth it. :cool:

[~Shard~]

I think your explanation reinforces the reasoning behind Apple’s long-term CPU goal for their computer lineup (particularly their mobile units). Apple will no longer have such a long turnaround time between CPU R&D, implementation, and production. It’ll be painful in the short term but I think The Switch will be well worth it. :cool:

I agree. I for one welcome our new Intel overlords. ;)

I'll be due for a new Mac in 2007 anyway, so picking up a nice Intel Mac with Leopard pre-installed and a kick-ass Blu Ray drive is my plan. :cool:

[ZorPrime]

I agree. I for one welcome our new Intel overlords. ;)

Heh heh . :)


I'll be due for a new Mac in 2007 anyway, so picking up a nice Intel Mac with Leopard pre-installed and a kick-ass Blu Ray drive is my plan. :cool:

Blu-Ray is going to seriously kick some rear. :cool:

[~Shard~]

Blu-Ray is going to seriously kick some rear. :cool:

That's what I'm hoping!

[shamino]

I respectfully disagree in part on that point. I think Apple's shifting to Intel has more to due with profit than IBM's "lack of desire". IBM is very comitted to the PPC architecture. I think Apple simply doesn't want to spend the R&D $$$ on processor development anymore.
Since when is it the business of the customer to underwrite the supplier's R&D roadmap? Are you required to invest in Ford in order to buy the car you want? Of course not.

IBM was, and still is, uninterested in developing the kinds of chips that Apple wants to use. Their commitment to the PPC architecture is for the POWER series processors, which are designed for IBM's big iron, not for inexpensive desktop systems.
They'd rather shop around for third party vendors for their CPUs.
When your supplier says "pay for the R&D yourself if you want the chips", that's the business-world equivalent of saying "FU and the horse you rode in on."
I think the "iPod Profit Model" adopted by Apple is to blame for this shift. One day, we might even see Apple using AMD processors instead of Intel.
Selling products at high margin isn't some kind of new "iPod profit model". It's what all companies do when they're not in a cut-throat commodity market. It's the only way you can fund your own R&D, to allow future generations of new innovative products.

The instant you're forced into slim margins, you lose all ability to develop anything new, and are forced into just slapping together other people's products (like what all the PC makers do today.)

As for using AMD, why not? If, in the future, AMD's products better fit Apple's needs than Intel's, why shouldn't they switch?

And because AMD is software-compatible with Intel, Apple could continue to use both without clobbering themselves.

[ZorPrime]

Since when is it the business of the customer to underwrite the supplier's R&D roadmap? Are you required to invest in Ford in order to buy the car you want? Of course not.

Of course Apple “underwrote” part of the R&D. Who do you think was 1/3 or AIM, which developed the PPC and AltiVec?

IBM was, and still is, uninterested in developing the kinds of chips that Apple wants to use. Their commitment to the PPC architecture is for the POWER series processors, which are designed for IBM's big iron, not for inexpensive desktop systems.
When your supplier says "pay for the R&D yourself if you want the chips", that's the business-world equivalent of saying "FU and the horse you rode in on."

I disaggree. How do you explain IBM co-developing PPC chips for the “cheap” game consoles the Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution? Last time I checked, the game consoles are not going to cost the consumer $1K or more. ALL are using PPC chips, not to be confused with the PPC chips Apple’s currently using. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft partnered with IBM to meet a goal, multiple core and CPU systems at 3+GHz, as applied to the Xbox 360 and PS3. IBM didn’t fork over 100% of the CPU R&D. I'm asserting, given the amount of $$ Apple was investing in the custom CPUs with IBM, it felt it wasn't getting the returns desired. Apple switches to Intel, cuts it's R&D cost per CPU used and saves a grip of change in the meantime. ;)

Selling products at high margin isn't some kind of new "iPod profit model". It's what all companies do when they're not in a cut-throat commodity market. It's the only way you can fund your own R&D, to allow future generations of new innovative products.

The instant you're forced into slim margins, you lose all ability to develop anything new, and are forced into just slapping together other people's products (like what all the PC makers do today.)

As for using AMD, why not? If, in the future, AMD's products better fit Apple's needs than Intel's, why shouldn't they switch?

And because AMD is software-compatible with Intel, Apple could continue to use both without clobbering themselves.

Whatever keeps Apple in business is a good thing. :)

[Evangelion]

Here are a few things...

I like Mac because...

1.OSX

2.PPC-it really set it apart from Windows

3.The apps

I don't know about you, but I would have thought that it's the OS X (the operating system) that sets it apart from Windows (the operating system). PPC would set it apart from x86, not Windows, IMO.

[kingstontown]

Hey Steve, if you read this:
I WANT THOSE BL**DY 7448 POWERBOOKS with better graphics and better screens... AND I WANT THEM NOW !!! :(

I switched to Mac 3 years ago but I might switch back to a Vaio if this doesn't happen soon. I definitly wont buy an A rev. "Pentiumbook"...

[willyjsimmons]

AMD is crap.
AMD compatible boards are crap.

And that's all I really have to say about that.

[shamino]

AMD is crap.
AMD compatible boards are crap.

And that's all I really have to say about that.
OK everybody, out of the pool! All you millions of PC owners who are using AMD systems, stop right now and throw it all away. It's all crap, because willyjsimmons said so. No, I can't tell you why, but he said so, so you all have to obey.