Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM Announces New Chip Making Method
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of people worry about Mac's market share because they compare it to Dell's.
Compare Apple's to the PC business at Gateway or IBM and Apple looks pretty good. Compare the profitability of the PC business at Gateway or IBM and Apple looks VERY good.
As for developers, they sometimes forget that the average Mac buyer has significantly more disposable income than a home PC buyer. The average bloke (Bubba) that goes into a computer shop gets a commission salesman who dumps a $600 PC on them. Bubba ain't a good sales prospect for the developer. And, gee, there are only about 10,000 apps out for the Mac . . .
Apple has a very bright future and this year is going to be exciting. It's fine that Steve J said the G5 would hit 3 Gigs this year. It's more important that an IBM VP then walked on stage and said the G5 would be at 3 Gigs this year - that's a commitment from IBM, not marketing hype.
Compare Apple's to the PC business at Gateway or IBM and Apple looks pretty good. Compare the profitability of the PC business at Gateway or IBM and Apple looks VERY good.
As for developers, they sometimes forget that the average Mac buyer has significantly more disposable income than a home PC buyer. The average bloke (Bubba) that goes into a computer shop gets a commission salesman who dumps a $600 PC on them. Bubba ain't a good sales prospect for the developer. And, gee, there are only about 10,000 apps out for the Mac . . .
Apple has a very bright future and this year is going to be exciting. It's fine that Steve J said the G5 would hit 3 Gigs this year. It's more important that an IBM VP then walked on stage and said the G5 would be at 3 Gigs this year - that's a commitment from IBM, not marketing hype.
Re: (the somewhat OT) Marketshare Debate...
Overall market-share percentages may make good fodder for bad Wall Street analysis, but an astute software developer doesn't care a whit about them. They care about niches.
Here's why.
Any given software product has a target market. What is important to a developer is how big that market is, and what percentage of that market they can hope to capture.
Most software products are niche products. Accountants don't need Photoshop. Structural engineers don't need ProTools. And on and on.
If I make a unique ProTools plug in, all that matters is the number of folks running ProTools on each platform. And since the music biz is ruled by Macs, I'll make a Mac version. It doesn't matter how many millions of PCs are sold next year to the accounting department at Fingerhut, I can only sell to those ProTools people. So I'm not going to stop making my Mac version.
Same for graphics, and all the other niches. If Mac is strong in the niche, software will be developed.
"Ah! What about non-niche products!" you counter.
Let's say I decide to sell one of the few products which virtually all users use: Word processors, Email programs, and Web browsers.
The market is huge, but the percentage I can hope to capture is very small, thanks to the ubiquity (and lack of interoperability) of MS products.
Here, the fact that Mac users "think different" helps them. If I want to sell an alternative web browser, I know that every PC user has a copy of IE already. Additionally, the vast majority of those users are in a corporate environment and don't make their own software purchasing decisions--the IT department chooses (MS) for them. My likelihood of cracking that market is very small.
But I know most Mac users make their own spending decisions, spend more $ on software, and are willing to spend more $ for a better computing experience. Plus, most Mac users are glad to drop an MS program any time they can.
So even though the # of Mac users in this overall market is small, the % of them I can hope to capture is much higher and than I can of the PC folks. So I may just decide I can make money off a Mac version as well.
And this is why you see a Mac version of Opera, and Mac-only browsers like iCab and OmniWeb.
Overall market-share percentages may make good fodder for bad Wall Street analysis, but an astute software developer doesn't care a whit about them. They care about niches.
Here's why.
Any given software product has a target market. What is important to a developer is how big that market is, and what percentage of that market they can hope to capture.
Most software products are niche products. Accountants don't need Photoshop. Structural engineers don't need ProTools. And on and on.
If I make a unique ProTools plug in, all that matters is the number of folks running ProTools on each platform. And since the music biz is ruled by Macs, I'll make a Mac version. It doesn't matter how many millions of PCs are sold next year to the accounting department at Fingerhut, I can only sell to those ProTools people. So I'm not going to stop making my Mac version.
Same for graphics, and all the other niches. If Mac is strong in the niche, software will be developed.
"Ah! What about non-niche products!" you counter.
Let's say I decide to sell one of the few products which virtually all users use: Word processors, Email programs, and Web browsers.
The market is huge, but the percentage I can hope to capture is very small, thanks to the ubiquity (and lack of interoperability) of MS products.
Here, the fact that Mac users "think different" helps them. If I want to sell an alternative web browser, I know that every PC user has a copy of IE already. Additionally, the vast majority of those users are in a corporate environment and don't make their own software purchasing decisions--the IT department chooses (MS) for them. My likelihood of cracking that market is very small.
But I know most Mac users make their own spending decisions, spend more $ on software, and are willing to spend more $ for a better computing experience. Plus, most Mac users are glad to drop an MS program any time they can.
So even though the # of Mac users in this overall market is small, the % of them I can hope to capture is much higher and than I can of the PC folks. So I may just decide I can make money off a Mac version as well.
And this is why you see a Mac version of Opera, and Mac-only browsers like iCab and OmniWeb.
You all have to be kidding, Do you Honestly believe that because IBM has "Created a new process, that it will be delivered in a month. Forget it, there will no doubt be updates to the Powermac line and Displays maybe. But do not be stupid, they do not have the technology to cool(still) a G5 Powerbook, the technology as of six months ago was still over a year away( i am referring to water cooled Processor technology) i would guess that a new powerbook g5 would launch around August at best. The same goes for a new imac(g5) would have to wait for a cooler chip. As for Emac G5's, don't count on it. I would love to get my hands on a powerbook g5, but i am being realistic.
Isn't the change to 90nm considered architectural? Anyway, you do have a point. Let's stop this discussion of slower PPC970FX right here before it spreads.
Re: Re: Regarding software
I'm not talking about flight sims. Of course I know about Xplane, but this is not a good soaring sim. The sim that soaring pilots use is SFSPC - http://www.sfspc.de. Though, it's not as nice as expected nowadays, it's very "real".
But the major application that I use is flight analysis and replication app called SeeYou - http://www.seeyou.ws
This partly runs in VirtualPC, but not in 3D mode, which is serious setback.
I'm not talking about flight sims. Of course I know about Xplane, but this is not a good soaring sim. The sim that soaring pilots use is SFSPC - http://www.sfspc.de. Though, it's not as nice as expected nowadays, it's very "real".
But the major application that I use is flight analysis and replication app called SeeYou - http://www.seeyou.ws
This partly runs in VirtualPC, but not in 3D mode, which is serious setback.
Re: Re: (the somewhat OT) Marketshare Debate...
This is one of the smartest things I've seen written on here in a long time. Look at Apple's mission statement, it mirrors this idea. "Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world..." Notice the priority they place on students, educators, and creative professionals. Niche markets work. Your never going to convince the Walmart masses that an extra $500 for a computer is worth it...so don't waste your time and effort (read $$$) trying.
Cheers,
hughdogg
This is one of the smartest things I've seen written on here in a long time. Look at Apple's mission statement, it mirrors this idea. "Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world..." Notice the priority they place on students, educators, and creative professionals. Niche markets work. Your never going to convince the Walmart masses that an extra $500 for a computer is worth it...so don't waste your time and effort (read $$$) trying.
Cheers,
hughdogg
I do not claim to know when Apple will grace us with the PowerBook G5. But the power numbers given for the 970FX are quite comfortable for a laptop, and comparable to the G4. All the talk of the Cooligy liquid-cooling stuff was based on the notion that the G5 was a giant power hog, and would require extraordinary cooling measures in a laptop. The 970FX is not a power hog, at least at sub-2 GHz speeds. While Apple may indeed be looking to use the Cooligy technology, it is not inherently a gating item for a G5 PowerBook.
The status of the system controller chip is another matter altogether. Has it been produced at 90nm? What is its power consumption? Has Apple produced a reduced-feature, lower-power version of it for portables and/or consumer machines? Are they waiting for such a device, which is still under development?
We shall see... eventually.
Not that anyone is gonna believe me here, but the G5 laptop protos are out there in numbers or so I hear from a friend with a parent working for Apple.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Trouble is....
I agree, and such situations have caused many heated meeting and threats of breach of contract issues, however, when it all boils down, we are forced to take what they give us or spend millions all over again to go with another company that will most likely do the same to us.
"Well, we don't have the budget right now to support Macs as well as the larger Windows instalation. If you cede part of your budget over to us for support we'll see waht we can do." If they get the budget it goes to what they want rather than what you wanted and its all OK'd by somebody farther up the chain who doesn't care one way or another and sicne you've given them the money they are in charge of the project and you have to go with what they decide is the best "for the entire organization".
From my experience, both hospitals and universities are not like companies where things go from the top down like a kingdom. Rather they are like a collection of little feifdoms that all fight for budget and power and the larger ones bully the smaller ones and there is no effective ruler to settle such disputes. Even the IT department is its own little feifdom that takes its power and wields it like a stick.
I agree, and such situations have caused many heated meeting and threats of breach of contract issues, however, when it all boils down, we are forced to take what they give us or spend millions all over again to go with another company that will most likely do the same to us.
"Well, we don't have the budget right now to support Macs as well as the larger Windows instalation. If you cede part of your budget over to us for support we'll see waht we can do." If they get the budget it goes to what they want rather than what you wanted and its all OK'd by somebody farther up the chain who doesn't care one way or another and sicne you've given them the money they are in charge of the project and you have to go with what they decide is the best "for the entire organization".
From my experience, both hospitals and universities are not like companies where things go from the top down like a kingdom. Rather they are like a collection of little feifdoms that all fight for budget and power and the larger ones bully the smaller ones and there is no effective ruler to settle such disputes. Even the IT department is its own little feifdom that takes its power and wields it like a stick.
It is true....look at the G5 server with the 950FX it has huge fan intake holes in the front to help cool it...it might be hard to add those to a laptop without it looking strange
"chip is expected to consume about 24.5 watts of power when clocked at 2.0GHz, according to internal IBM documents and analysts. This is about half of the power consumed by the PowerPC 970 chip at a slower clock speed."
this makes it very probanle for laptps or desktops at higher speeds
this makes it very probanle for laptps or desktops at higher speeds
Originally posted by mpopkin
You all have to be kidding, Do you Honestly believe that because IBM has "Created a new process, that it will be delivered in a month. Forget it, there will no doubt be updates to the Powermac line and Displays maybe. But do not be stupid, they do not have the technology to cool(still) a G5 Powerbook, the technology as of six months ago was still over a year away
Originally posted by Moonlight
It is true....look at the G5 server with the 950FX it has huge fan intake holes in the front to help cool it...it might be hard to add those to a laptop without it looking strange
I don't even need to reply, I just need to quote the front page...
According to Richard Doherty, research director at Envisioneering, "It's logical that Apple would select the flexibility of this chip for a next-generation notebook computer."
Month may be too short, but Apple KNEW these chips were coming, so they could have had time to design a new PB. They ARE feasable for laptops, so if the design is completed, they could stick them in. And if there is ANY year that Apple would surprise the Macintosh community with something amazing, guess what year it would be?
Tyler
Earendil
-Still not placing bets on a G5 before summer...but before Christmas? you bet.
yeah this is what confuses me about the possibility of the G5 PBook. Look at the existing athlon64 notebooks! They have been out for a while now, so i see no physical reason for the G5 Pbook not to come in this year (certainly not this Q, maybe late Q2, but more likely Q3of2004).
The athlon64 isn't even that efficient power wise and must throttle down to 800mhz to even have a long battery life. I'm sure Apple will find a way to both use a G5 and have a considerable battery life.
The athlon64 isn't even that efficient power wise and must throttle down to 800mhz to even have a long battery life. I'm sure Apple will find a way to both use a G5 and have a considerable battery life.
As I think has been pointed out here before, it might help to remember that technological reasons are almost certainly not the only factors Apple is using to time the release of a G5 PB.
We do not know anything about their contractual arrangements with Mot for example. Or about their existing stocks. Or whether they feel they have passed the point at which the PB G4 is profitable.
Business reasons are important too.
We do not know anything about their contractual arrangements with Mot for example. Or about their existing stocks. Or whether they feel they have passed the point at which the PB G4 is profitable.
Business reasons are important too.
Hmmm...
I think you all have this backwards. These chips were designed for Apple portables. Apple has major involvement with the G5. They are having IBM make processors for their needs. The G4 was dead over 2 years ago and Apple knew that, so they went to IBM and started working on the G5. They created it to be able to be used in a Workstation and eventually in a portable. Do you think that Apple is just keeping tabs on the G5 and making products based on what IBM comes up with. Apple is centering future products around the G5, not trying to take what IBM throws at them and work it into their current designs. This processor really seems amazing, being able to swap speed for power with the same fab and architecture. They make it sound like a buffet line where you can choose the attributes of the chip based on what your appetite is on a given day. I know power vs. speed is a natural occurrence, but this seems to stand out more than the G4 or P4.
I think you all have this backwards. These chips were designed for Apple portables. Apple has major involvement with the G5. They are having IBM make processors for their needs. The G4 was dead over 2 years ago and Apple knew that, so they went to IBM and started working on the G5. They created it to be able to be used in a Workstation and eventually in a portable. Do you think that Apple is just keeping tabs on the G5 and making products based on what IBM comes up with. Apple is centering future products around the G5, not trying to take what IBM throws at them and work it into their current designs. This processor really seems amazing, being able to swap speed for power with the same fab and architecture. They make it sound like a buffet line where you can choose the attributes of the chip based on what your appetite is on a given day. I know power vs. speed is a natural occurrence, but this seems to stand out more than the G4 or P4.
Re: Regarding software
EDA applications are one of these niche markets, the fact is SUN is most dominent here. With the introduction of opteron the EDA companies have completly changed thier roadmaps to rewrite thier toolsets for Opteron, this was due to user demand. If the Linux API is true it wont change anything in my opinion as far as EDA tools are concerned the software would again have to be rewritten, recompiled and recertified right from the begining.
EDA applications are one of these niche markets, the fact is SUN is most dominent here. With the introduction of opteron the EDA companies have completly changed thier roadmaps to rewrite thier toolsets for Opteron, this was due to user demand. If the Linux API is true it wont change anything in my opinion as far as EDA tools are concerned the software would again have to be rewritten, recompiled and recertified right from the begining.
Re: Dare I Say It (Does The Dr Evil Finger To Mouth) Quad..?
QUAD machines, er i dont think so, way too expensive and far to speciallist and costly to implement, the cost is not linear to go from 2-4 CPUS but very very high, think $15000++
QUAD machines, er i dont think so, way too expensive and far to speciallist and costly to implement, the cost is not linear to go from 2-4 CPUS but very very high, think $15000++
Any positive knew about the G5 is positive news for Mac users. The sooner they are in the more products the better. So every advancement is good news. I am sure Apple knew they were coming and have already been designing around them. Do you think they wait for IBM to give them a chip and then say, "Hmm... a G5 you call it? We'll see what we can do."?
I was in Target today and I had a brainstorm. Someday soon Apple will release the iMac/eMac in G5 form (be next week or next year). If they can get a models below the $1000 pricepoint, why not use the new added iPod resellers (Target for example) to carry it. Shipped with iLife (and *fingers crossed* 21st century version of AppleWorks) you could sell it as a complete home computing solutions and a "digital hub" into which most of the digital products you already own (camcorder, camera, iPod) perfectly integrate.
Now that would grow market share!
I was in Target today and I had a brainstorm. Someday soon Apple will release the iMac/eMac in G5 form (be next week or next year). If they can get a models below the $1000 pricepoint, why not use the new added iPod resellers (Target for example) to carry it. Shipped with iLife (and *fingers crossed* 21st century version of AppleWorks) you could sell it as a complete home computing solutions and a "digital hub" into which most of the digital products you already own (camcorder, camera, iPod) perfectly integrate.
Now that would grow market share!
US Market Passe?
Apple may not be able to penetrate the US market, this one is fairly saturated with AOL users running Win95 on PIIIs. However, I hope not only does Apple continue to hold onto its choice markets, photo, video, graphic design, but continues to reverse its decline in education, especially colleges. Furthermore, putting an Apple store in the Ginza shopping district and another in London speaks to a much larger and more available market. Europe and Asia could become much greater markets for Apple.
Bobby Joe and Joe Ann down in Greenville aren't buying a new computer right now and that market is not worth persuing in Apple's case because it dominated by the Wal-mart sensibilities of Dell and Gateway which Apple cannot hope to penetrate much.
Furthermore, PalmSource's decision appears based on the fairly useless statistict of market-share.
Market-share does not cover installed base, nor future market-share gains, but rather is an overly simplistic number that I wish everyone would stop using; at least without more data to back up those conclusions. Apple sold more computers last year than they had before, they have 7% market-share in portables a significant increase from the year before. PalmSource and others need to recongize that their target market may not follow the larger trends. In Palm's case professionals are buying their stuff, not those people from Greenville or the cold-call farms who are buying large inventories of Dells.
Apple may not be able to penetrate the US market, this one is fairly saturated with AOL users running Win95 on PIIIs. However, I hope not only does Apple continue to hold onto its choice markets, photo, video, graphic design, but continues to reverse its decline in education, especially colleges. Furthermore, putting an Apple store in the Ginza shopping district and another in London speaks to a much larger and more available market. Europe and Asia could become much greater markets for Apple.
Bobby Joe and Joe Ann down in Greenville aren't buying a new computer right now and that market is not worth persuing in Apple's case because it dominated by the Wal-mart sensibilities of Dell and Gateway which Apple cannot hope to penetrate much.
Furthermore, PalmSource's decision appears based on the fairly useless statistict of market-share.
Market-share does not cover installed base, nor future market-share gains, but rather is an overly simplistic number that I wish everyone would stop using; at least without more data to back up those conclusions. Apple sold more computers last year than they had before, they have 7% market-share in portables a significant increase from the year before. PalmSource and others need to recongize that their target market may not follow the larger trends. In Palm's case professionals are buying their stuff, not those people from Greenville or the cold-call farms who are buying large inventories of Dells.
These advancements are really not a huge surprise. The thing to keep in mind is that the "G5 line" is really just an outgrowth of the Power4 clustering chip. As you may have read from my post over on the VT article response, the original chip Virginia Tech was considering for their super computer was a tossup between the Power4 and Itanium2 (from IBM and Intel respectively) -- the IBM deal fell through due to IBM wanting their new chip to be in 'half U' size racks and they were working on cooling, which put the timeframe beyond that of Tech's. But the obvious point is this:
IBM was working on lowering the Power4's heat and improved cooling methods for it. The G5 is just a 'stripped' Power4... So if IBM masters a new way to cool the 4 then the G5 should be easy to make take advantage of the technology.
So if you want to know what IBM will do with the 5 in the future; look at the server version of the chip. I saw this coming as soon as I saw the new Power4s. (Not trying to do an "I told you so" here, a lot of people have been predicting G5 PowerBooks)
Now; it's not exact but the XServe is 1U, and from what I've seen is about the size of a 17" PowerBook. A lot heavier, true (a LOT heavier) -- but I think that if Mac really wants to make some waves they could try and release a "fully scaled" laptop -- as in introduce a 2.5 GHz dual PowerMac... and a 2.5 GHz dual PowerBook.
The price premium would be doubtlessly high but I still think it might be a nice claim while Intel has all its heat problems with Itanium/Prescot to be able to cool the fastest Desktop PowerPC chip in a laptop.
EDIT EDIT: I just checked, unfortunatly my look at the Serves was limited to height/width and not depth --
Power Book compared to XServe:
1 inch vs 1.73 inch
15.4 inch vs 17.6 inch
10.2 inch vs 28 inch <-- ewww >.<
That's double size so a single proc laptop is reasonable, a dualie while fun wouldn't be as easy as I was thinking. ah well.
The G5 is not (and never conclusively was) the fastest Desktop out there; but it could /easily/ be the fastest laptop if they pull this off. The question is if they think the market is there.
Now, I'm a *huge* desktop replacement fan; so I'm heavily in support of this of course. But a lot of PC magazines I've been reading have been talking about the odds of a desktop-replacement becoming the 'big' market. Ultraportables are nice; and have their place, but the replacement is often desired by Gamers, Programmers, Artist, "Rich boys who want toys," and a few other rather large markets (these markets, I might add, are the big pushers for 'stronger, faster, better').
IBM was working on lowering the Power4's heat and improved cooling methods for it. The G5 is just a 'stripped' Power4... So if IBM masters a new way to cool the 4 then the G5 should be easy to make take advantage of the technology.
So if you want to know what IBM will do with the 5 in the future; look at the server version of the chip. I saw this coming as soon as I saw the new Power4s. (Not trying to do an "I told you so" here, a lot of people have been predicting G5 PowerBooks)
Now; it's not exact but the XServe is 1U, and from what I've seen is about the size of a 17" PowerBook. A lot heavier, true (a LOT heavier) -- but I think that if Mac really wants to make some waves they could try and release a "fully scaled" laptop -- as in introduce a 2.5 GHz dual PowerMac... and a 2.5 GHz dual PowerBook.
The price premium would be doubtlessly high but I still think it might be a nice claim while Intel has all its heat problems with Itanium/Prescot to be able to cool the fastest Desktop PowerPC chip in a laptop.
EDIT EDIT: I just checked, unfortunatly my look at the Serves was limited to height/width and not depth --
Power Book compared to XServe:
1 inch vs 1.73 inch
15.4 inch vs 17.6 inch
10.2 inch vs 28 inch <-- ewww >.<
That's double size so a single proc laptop is reasonable, a dualie while fun wouldn't be as easy as I was thinking.
ah well.The G5 is not (and never conclusively was) the fastest Desktop out there; but it could /easily/ be the fastest laptop if they pull this off. The question is if they think the market is there.
Now, I'm a *huge* desktop replacement fan; so I'm heavily in support of this of course. But a lot of PC magazines I've been reading have been talking about the odds of a desktop-replacement becoming the 'big' market. Ultraportables are nice; and have their place, but the replacement is often desired by Gamers, Programmers, Artist, "Rich boys who want toys," and a few other rather large markets (these markets, I might add, are the big pushers for 'stronger, faster, better').
Is it just me, or does that statement "It's logical that Apple would select..." sound like he's defending something that Apple has already done? Which would suggest then, that G5 Powerbooks are indeed on their way.