Business model for Quad G4s

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by Dunepilot, Jun 13, 2002.

  1. Dunepilot macrumors 6502a

    Dunepilot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Seeing as we're all pretty sure that there'll be no G5 any time soon, what's the likelihood that Apple moved the iMac to the G4 to increase the numbers of G4s they buy from Motorola so that they can sufficiently lower the G4 processor cost-per-unit to be able to ship quad G4s at a price that pros won't balk at?

    A policy like this [which might have been conceived at the end of last year, for instance] would have by now have had the time to trickle through, seeing as Apple can't make enough iMacs for the demand that exists, which would suggest that such an increase in the numbers of G4s used by Apple would by now have lowered their purchase cost.

    Pursuing this thinking one step further: we know that the iBook has generally been a good seller for Apple, with laptops comprising a high percentage of computers shipped. With the numbers of G3s now being used in the Gamecube, it would be reasonable to think that the G3 market cost would be very low, so Apple might be willing to sacrifice some of its margin on Powermacs because it can make up this deficit with increased iBook margins, which might explain why the iBook hasn't moved to G4 yet.

    There are a lot of 'ifs' in this business model, but I think it suggests a quad G4 as a strong possibility, even if this would mean a quad-1GHz machine alongside a dual 1.2 or 1.4, similar to what Apple did in the dual-800MHz days.
     
  2. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #2
    Hmm....

    I think you may be thinking a bit too hard...
     
  3. firewire2001 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #3
    sounds possible, but not probable...

    i think that the problem is that most common applications nowadays arent acually able to take advantage of quad processors..

    i can see the main uses of a quad machine probably for biotech purposes and for servers, but nowadays its hard becuase most biotech programs (applications) wont support 2 processors, let alone four.

    i think it would be hard for companies to incorporate a quad g4.

    i can see a field for servers running 4 processors because server loads can get high - alllowing the processors to be like overflow eliminating more servers.

    i personally think that this wont happen... the ideas you came up with were very smart, though...
     
  4. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #4
    Have you noticed the price of the dual 1GHz? Right, $3000. Well, I would imagine that it would cost a LOT more to design a quad gig chip. I am not too sure, but I do not think that it would be beneficial, even with all that power. I think it would make people think that you have to pay so much money to get the best Apple computer there is, especially if you need it. I would rather have a dual gig computer going at a medium price range so that it doesn't make the computer stand out too much as a bad thing (with regard to price).
    __________________

    Fear the King.
     
  5. Dunepilot thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Dunepilot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #5

    First off, thanks.

    A couple of things; aren't OS X and programs written for it able to scale to multiple processors regardless of how they have specifically written? I thought that OS X was natively able to navigate multiple processors as one of its advantages over OS 9.

    Secondly, I wouldn't put it past Apple to release a quad-configurationeven if it couln't fully be utilised under the most recent versions of OS X, but promised to become useful later. Their release of the dual-500 machines which only Photoshop could fully utilise under OS 9 shows the precedent for this kind of marketing practice in Apple's past actions...
     
  6. Dunepilot thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Dunepilot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    DDR

    Though time will tell, the additional bandwidth made available to AltiVec units by DDR would also argue for the possibility of such a quad configuration.

    If I'm wrong, please tell me
     
  7. firewire2001 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #7
    the whole thing with os x and processing can be a little confusing so.. basically the whole idea is that overall os x is a lot more mp (multi-processor) friendly vs. os 9, but unless a program is specially written for more than one processor, it will only utilize the first processor and when the first processor has overflow, it will go to the next processor...

    im not quite chure about your comment about ddr, as i dont know too much about memory...
     
  8. OldFaithful macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    #8
    look at all the desperate mac fanboys, pondering Quad G4's...

    essentially, all of you need to accept that the PowerMac is no longer a "Pro" machine. Apple simply sells toy-computers to people lacking any style.

    the Macintosh will never again rival the Wintel Dynasty, even if Apple hacked together a Quad G4, it would probably still perform like a Pentium 3.

    i quote John Carmack: "The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1 ghz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU's just aren't as fast as the x86 ones.

    Game Over, *****ers.
     
  9. 748s macrumors 6502a

    748s

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    Tiger Bay
    #9
    that the best you got old faithful. yawn. put it away, we've all seen it before.
     
  10. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #10

    are you completely insane?

    Professionals use macs because they can rely on them to work!!

    Even under OS 9 they are more stable than Wintel Boxes.

    The Amount of times i've spoken to recording studio guys about this sort of thing, they say they can't afford to be in a session with a paying customer for the afternoons work to be lost in a system crash, they tried wintel and they regularly lost hours of time that the customer was not too happy about paying for again.

    I know this is off topic, but you can't really say macs are for ppl who lack style, thats just a complete lie. You would think that media professionals and designers would have more style than your average wintel IT technician wouldn't you? (he he, no offence)

    I've seen how stylish a PeeCee can be, all those "stylish" case mods you can get, is that what you define as stylish? its like those boy racers with ****ty old fords with 17" alloy wheels added and an exhaust the size of a melon on the back, it may be fast but is it as stylish as a Jaguar XK8 or a Mercedes S-Class?

    anyone else wanna do some more flamin?:D :D
     
  11. sunder macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #11
    Multi Processor Support in Mac OSX

    Greetings,
    I just wanted to clear up your discussion on how Mac OSX supports multiple processors.

    Programs do not have to be written specifically to use multiple processors. The only thing the OS requires, for multi processor support, would be multi threading. If a program is multi threaded, which most Mac OSX applications are, than it can take full advantage of multiple processors. That holds true for any amount of processors installed. The OS just allocates a separate thread for each processor to complete. If a programmer uses cocoa to develop the software, I believe multi threading is built in. So with a quad processor system, all four processors can process separate threads at the same time at almost 4 times the speed of a single processor system. With a dual processor machine, thats how you can do multiple things at the same time without any slowdown what so ever. For example, watching a movie and loading web pages (OmniWeb of course because Internet Explorer is not multi thread where as OmniWeb is fully multi threaded) where you would not see any slowdown or skips in the video because each processor is handling a separate task at the same time; one processor handling the video, the other handling page loading and GUI support.

    I hope this has cleared things up.

    Go Apple :)
     
  12. Dunepilot thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Dunepilot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    I read some time ago that the G4 wasn't fully MESRI compliant. Does this mean a quad is impossible and that I'm barking up the wrong tree?
     
  13. D*I*S_Frontman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #13
    If multiple processor systems under the current OSX version are supported for any multiple-thread program/tasks as well as for multiple program usage, wouldn't this provide a decisive advantage over the competition, even if during normal usage the Quad system wouldn't always be "four times faster" than the single or dual machines?

    I could see Steve Jobs running his typical Photoshop filter render on a Mac and top-of-the-line PC, having them finish at the same time...and then reveal that the Mac was also generating a Postscript file from InDesign of a four color 24 page catalog layout--in the background at the same time. Yikes--how many publishing joints would love that kind of reliable horsepower in one machine.

    And BTW--Could the new Jaguar OSX capitalize on this and be even better optimized for a 4, 6, or 8 progessor machine?

    I know these scenarios always bring up the heat dissipation issue. Perhaps a new case with an active fluid cooling system would make all of this possible, not to mention the smaller/cooler chips we are anticipating soon.

    I say who needs the "phantom" G5 chip if a new motherboard/case can facilitate MPs beyond duals. Every publishing house, independent filmmaker and recording studio in the country would pony up $5k without blinking an eye for a quad unit that works reliably and saves them time. Screw the "Mgz myth" talk--let's completely upset the applecart and hit the competition in a way they would struggle to compete with.
     
  14. Moxiemike macrumors 68020

    Moxiemike

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #14
    While I think the idea of quads is probably a ways off, I do think that perhaps Apple might move its entire line to duals to differentiate VERY radically from the iMac....I had the opportunity to a/b a dual 800, a dual gig (which I bought) and an iMac 800... the dual really smoked the iMac...

    So i think you might see a dual 800 make its comeback as the low end, with 256 DDR ram and a 60 gb hd, etc. for $1699, a dual 1 gig with 256mb DDR and an 80 gig HD for $2399 and a dual 1.3 ghz with 512mb and 120gb HD for $3199.

    That's based off of nothing but an idea... and I think it's one Apple could implement to great success.

    But quads? Probably not.

    Just my .02
     
  15. Smurfman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #15
    Quad+ Processors PLEASE!

    We are going to purchase 2 of whatever new Powermac comes out this summer and am hoping beyond hope that Apple will have a Quad processor model.

    Our department produces architectural animations and renderings using Cinema4D, ElectricImage, Photoshop and AfterEffects. We NEED this kind of speed.

    We have put off upgrading our machines for a year now because Apple has not put out anything worthy enough to upgrade. Sure, the dual 800 and 1GHz machines are a ton faster than our B&W G3 350MHz, but with a limited budget that has to be approved by the head IT guy (who hates Macs), we want to make sure we get something exceptional that will "kick-butt" for a long while.

    I'll be happy with a dual 1.2 or 1.4 machine with DDR, but I would MUCH rather have a Quad 1.0 or 1.2 GHZ machine with DDR!! I hope Apple uses this Macworld Expo to introduce such machines. Here's to hoping...

    HSMM Imaging Studio
     
  16. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #16
    Xserve

    Although it seems very likely that there will be 1ghz+ at MWNY, wouldn't apple have to update the Xserve line as it will no longer be the fastet mac available? That would make sense but they're not even shipping the Xserve yet!!
     
  17. rice_web macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #17
    Actually, the XServe isn't intended to be Apple's fastest Mac. Rather, it's supposed to be a fast Mac, but in a 1U configuration.

    Try pricing out servers from other companies. The fastest servers are not found in 1U configurations, or even 2U for that matter.
     
  18. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #18
    I rele dont think that Apple would even think about doing such a thing as a quad-CPU G4. I think that it's gunna stick with the dual CPU layout for many years to come. But, for a server idea, maybe. I mean, 10 years ago, no one EVER thought the gigahertz barrier was possible in a home rig, and now look at us. I guess no one knows exactly what Apple has instore for us.

    Also, off the subject, what are some good, native OSX games?
    I just got OSX and I want some games. Feel free to email me with suggestions.
     
  19. Ensign Paris macrumors 68000

    Ensign Paris

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Europe
    #19
    I have a 12u Compaq server which is less that 2 years old and it isn't even half as powerful as the xServe and it cost more than my house (it cost including two 480gb raids about £140000)

    Ensign
     
  20. Dunepilot thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Dunepilot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    140K!

    Ensign, what did you need the 140 grand server for?!

    To the suggestion of the XServe being eclipsed by a quad G4 PowerMac, this wouldn't really be a problem since the whole point of 1U servers is that it allows scalability. Once you've bought a dual G4 Mac, you have a dual G4 Mac. We shouldn't be looking at servers through the same pair of glasses.

    I also agree that the quad G4 would provide an effective PMac/iMac differentiation, something Apple have been worried about recently.
     
  21. rice_web macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #21
    Couldn't they offer another (yes, another) line of Macs?

    They could offer the following:
    - eMac
    - iMac
    - PowerMac
    - ProMac (or something to the same effect)

    The PowerMac would feature dual-processor configurations, while the ProMac would feature Quad. The two professional lines could also vary the tower size, the DDR RAM speed, and several other factors, such as DVD-R speed and hard drive configurations.
     
  22. D*I*S_Frontman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #22
    I would like to see that marketing scheme:

    Education: G4 eMacs, iBooks

    Home: G4 iMacs (19" 16x9 display--think extra wide 15")

    Business: Dual G4 PowerMacs, TiBooks

    Design Professionals: Dual & Quad G5s,
    new G5 Laptop (onyx black--deadly looking)

    ..and why would announcing G5 technology kill the business model? Just give the G5 specs, announce a release date of Sept 1 or Oct 1, 2002, and offer presales on the Apple Store web site!

    Think about it--if Steve told you a 1.5 G5 quad system was soon available with 10 GB RAM, screaming new bus speeds, dual upgraded video chips, Jaguar OS, and a new slick case well designed to silently shed the heat, what video production house, print shop, recording studio or graphics design studio wouldn't pony up close to $8K sight unseen to have it shipped Sept 1? Or even Oct 1? Those kinds of places make huge cash per hour/minute of computer time and do processor-intensive stuff. Crushing video render times, Postscript file output, and 48 tracks simultaneous of 96k/24 bit audio with plug-ins galore--that all translates into money very quickly. Most music studios of high caliber charge $100/hr studio time--how long would it take to pay for the expense of a new, susbstantially faster Mac? Months? A quarter? Half a year, tops? And the cluster boys doing the biotech work? What would five of those babies clustered to a gigabit hub do for genetic research? Beats renting supercomp time.

    Heck, its always nice to have folks buy gear before you've even made it yet--helps pay for materials and assembly up front! Jobs would have several million in cash in advance before the first production model was ever assembled--and once they hit, the buzz would be deafening.

    The Wintel crowd, I suppose, would have a few months to cobble their own new competing mp systems, but Apple's software/handware integration, usability, stability and reliability would crush all comers hands down.

    I know I'm dreaming here--but does all that sound too unreasonable?
     
  23. DavPeanut macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland
    #23
    I would be wonderful, for everyone but me

    I am a student. My parents were unhappy to fork over the 2k to get this sweet iMac G4. 8k???? The ONLY people who could buy it would be businusses. It's still nice to come into school and say something to make those peecee user's mouth's drop.
     
  24. Cappy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    #24
    Re: I would be wonderful, for everyone but me

    8k for a decked out system for professional work was not unheard of 5-10 years ago. Every top of the line system does not need to be priced for the home user.
     
  25. D*I*S_Frontman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Lombard, IL
    #25
    $7999. for what I've described would be a CHEAP BARGAIN for the clientele I listed. Yes, only the most affluent PowerMac users would actually have one in their homes--but the Dual G4 Prosumer units w/next generation motherboards/RAM/FireWire/USB would still scream through most applications and likely hold the same price point the current units do now. Your current Dual 1ghz units would be heavily discounted to empty the supply chain. Everybody is happy up and down the product line and no unit cannibalizes the sales of another.

    I like the current Apple marketing push. About a year ago my mom bought a new computer. I BEGGED her to get a Mac, but she said she needed flawless PC compatability for her job and wanted to take classes to learn how to use the thing better. So she bought a Gateway because they offered beginner classes free @ their retail store. Now her unit is in the shop for the next 10 days because it constantly freezes up. I know it is likely a host of software bugs and incompatabilities stemming from Windows ME, her OS, or hardware conflicts with the host of Frankenstein-like appendages to her motherboard. She has had glitches, hang-ups, and start-up failures since she bought the thing. Big surprise. NOW she is finally listening to me regarding the value of a stable and dependable OS and seemless hardware/software integration. And BTW--her Gateway store stopped offering those enticing "beginner" classes, and she no longer works for the same employer for whom PC compatability was crucial.

    I could teach her how to do everything she would ever need to do on an iMac in 20 minutes, and she would never EVER have to call SOS-APPL for support. It seems to me that literally tens of THOUSANDS of people have had the same experience--choosing PC instead of Apple and paying the price--and these people need to find their way back to Apple.

    Is it so hard to understand that if you buy a computer system in which the chip, motherboard design, and operating system are ALL DESIGNED AND TESTED BY THE SAME COMPANY that you'll have 10x less downtime?

    Sorry for the off-subject rant.
     

Share This Page