Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by spaceballl, Jul 11, 2005.
What do you think?
Interesting. I buy it though.
Nah. I think it's just a huge coincidence that every supplier/dealer Apple deals with gets teed off with them. Has to be...
That's pretty painful to read; especially because you know it is at least partially true. The most surprising thing to me about the whole intel switch is the timing-- right when the halo effect seems to be selling more macs, wham, switch to intel. I guess (and the article does not explicitly mention this) another big factor is that there isn't much money to be made in selling computer hardware.
Seems logical. Don't know if that is what went down, but it seems logical...
Wrong. The real reason is that Apple wants to snatch the personal computer market by selling machines that can also boot Windows, while being the only ones that are able to run OSX.
This quote made me jump:
I thought Apple actually had quite a large cash balance at the moment...
And this one is just plain stupid:
How much do Apple make on Macs vs iPods? I think that the revenue is slightly higher on Macs...
This has to one of the more stupid articles I've read (about Apple) in quite a while... what a waste of air this guy is...
I have to agree. First off, we have to keep in mind that the article is not news; it is an editorial and is represented as such. Therefore, its primary function is to express an opinion and to record events. Jon Stokes is entitled to his opinion. He is clearly not a fan of Steve Jobs. Stokes gives himself away when he tries to make the clones out to be victims in Apple's diabolical schemes. From what I read in the article, Stokes accuses Jobs of behaving like darned near every other large buyer.
There are a couple of areas where Stokes's thesis breaks down. One is that Intel seemed awfully anxious to get Apple's business and darned proud of itself for making it happen. Maybe Intel needs the business. The other thing is that IBM seems pretty upset at having lost Apple's business. I suppose that IBM couldn't live with Jobs and now it can't live without him.
In its 10-Q filing to the SEC, Apple reported cash (and cash equivalents) of $2.25 billion dollars. While this is certainly a respectable figure, it isn't extraordinary for a company this size.
In the last quarter, the company collected more revenue from iPod sales than from sales of Macintosh computers. While margins are probably greater on Mac sales, iPod sales outnumber the Mac 4:1.
I love Apple and the wonderful products it makes, but that doesn't make me blind to the obvious. The facts laid out in the article are hard to dispute. Steve's encounters with Motorola have been well documented and obviously the relationship with IBM wasn't much better. You can only play two companies against each other for so long before they wise up. The bridges at Motorola have long since been burned [reportedly Steve once told a senior Motorola officer, "I can't wait until we don't need you anymore"], so that left Intel and AMD as the only true alternatives. I respect Steve a great deal, but I wish he had a more subtle way of ending partnerships with suppliers.
I read the article and I think that there are some good points and some not so good points.
I think Steve Jobs is a control freak and probably is upset with IBM as he was with Motorola.
I don't think the Cell chips are appropriate for non-game machines.
I want to see when IBM can deliver the new chip in quantity and I want to see real world watt consumption not a number estimates based on shutting down 1 processor.
I can buy the Intel inside everything argument as a possibility.
Personally, I think you've hit the nail right on the head and completely agree with you.
From Q2 2005:
Q3 2005 results will be released in just two days, then you might be right...
I totally agree with you. the Mac is not dead or going to be dead. apple would not have inked a deal with the worlds largest cpu maker if it was planning to phase out computers.
I'm afraid I agree with a lot of the artical. Apple behave like they are the big guns they were at the start of the PC era, truth is they are nobody's in a business sense. They trade with well designed attractive products and a music player. Whilst they have money they do not have the amount the likes of M$, IBM or even Dell have, as a result they cannot play hard ball.
Apple and SJ personally seem obsessed by the iPod, the halo effect has not had the world wide effect they were hoping for. The mac Mini has sold well but of late has become just another product, Apple sales depend on hype. We often see iPod ads and SJ with a new slightly different player on the front of Time magazine but what happened to the computer ads?
OS X isn't optimised as well as it could be for Apple hardware especially the dual CPU models. I don't care about the iPod, I want to see Apple earn my money with an actual computer. The move to Intel does seem primarily driven by money and wider public opinion (chasing GHz and using the Intel name). Other than the Pentium M there is nothing that grabs you about Intel chips at the moment apart from the huge power requirement of the desktop models. If IBM truly can deliver the newly announced 970 models then SJ's arguements go out of the window. All us mac faithful want to hear is the truth. If performance really was the issue they would have offered AMD a slice of the pie as well.
Is it possible to get these 970FX chips in the next revision of the laptops?
Any chance like by Septemeber?
If they have had them working for a month it would easily make sense why they have been waiting to update iBook and PBook. They have been waiting for this substantial of a change and were running abit late from IBM. Also, Paris deserves bid updates not minor ones. So, anyone have any news maybe concluding similariy. G5 Books in Paris Expo?
I highly doubt Intel will be bullied by Apple, like Apple did with Motorola and IBM. Whatever the circumstances for the switch to Intel, Apple finally did the right thing.
Well that still remains to be seen. SJ made it clear it was the future roadmap that prompted the move, apart from the reports we have no idea how these will pan out. While we should get solid laptop chips how desktop offerings will stack up against those from AMD and indeed IBM remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen how retail pricing, product update cycles and indeed at its most basic chip implementation will be effected.
yea that sounds quite logical, hmmm i never thought of that, it makes sense and it COULD work effectively. goooooooooooooo apple!!!!
IBM can deliver now (well, soon... theoretically), but what about the future? Remember, there are new PowerPC products coming out before the Intel switch, and the PowerMacs will probably be the last to go, so we may still see these in the Towers, and possibly even in the iMacs. If IBM can actually deliever them. But what about what comes next? Intel's future must hold something better than just a Pentium Mobile. I doubt you will see a current P4 in any Apple machine, there must be something better coming.
As far as the article is concerned, he has updated it slightly to better clarify. Don't worry, the Mac isn't going anywhere, and the tail end of the article, even with the changes, was all speculation. The iPod is only part of the overal picture. Something to get people interested in Macs before they really go all out. We've been waiting for the day Apple drops the bomb and really starts going after people. That day is coming, soon. This is only the beginning. When we start to see some more advertisements, then we will know it's time. Baby steps people, he's learned some of his lessons, and isn't going to make the same mistakes.
Though the ego thing, for better or worse, is still intact.
Hannibal sure is getting beat up over this ...
People would like to see it as anything but a decision based on money, but it may be that simple.
Seems some of those mistakes (cough clones and dead end tech) keep coming back to haunt Apple after all these years.
Apple has been on a relatively direct path lately, one that has increasingly diverged from their major CPU suppliers path.
Plus, their past history keeps getting in the way -- you want to use this, but what if you decide not to?
Maybe it's time for Apple to finally walk away from all the crap that's built up since AIM was formed, as focus on the two evolving business units (Music & Macs) instead of letting the AIM relationship continue to suck up time and money best spent elsewhere.
The PPC970 was a last ditch effort to keep the alliance together, and the PPC970 seems to have flopped in the marketplace -- Apple alone is not a big enough customer to keep it alive.
Doesn't mean AIM put out crappy chips, just that the effort fizzled out -- and the relationships failed.
In reality, it's probably best if everybody from AIM stops working together for awhile.
Edit: plus a really sweet deal at the end of a long sour relationship, can really make you jump at an opportunity when it arises.
Some of this is that it looks like a lot of it got poured over into short term investments (big jump over the last three quarters, which I didn't see in previous years).
I agree, no matter what anyone from either company says, the real goal of Apple is to unseat Microsoft from control of the PC market, hence the switch.
The only way to do that is to make it possible for Macs to run an industry standard architecture and open up the perpheral market, also being able to run a VMWare like application to run Windows apps at near native speed means there is no reason for people to run Windows anymore.
Microsoft and Apple are both downplaying the possiblity of a confrontation that has been brewing for years and is about to come to a head. Both companies are readying their weaponry...
I quite agree Intel must have shown something promising for the future. The only real issue at this stage is can they deliver, while they have more resources then most chip makers they are going to be entering new territory when they move away from the Netburst technologies. If it wasn't for the high clock speeds Intel's name would have paled compared to AMD over the last few years. Please don't get me wrong, as a life long Apple user I'm looking forward to great things from the new alliance its just that right now there are a lot of question marks. One major point being the complete lack of a decent desktop chip in Intel's current lineup (bar the small heater then call the Pentium D).
I can't help but feel for those that have heavily invested in PPC Apple products the next few years are going to be rough and confusing, far more so then was made out at the WWDC. I think it is clear that Apple want to be playing with the bigger boys again, the iPod has got the name back into the market place they are going to use the Intel tie in to push hardware sales using the superior OS as leverage. Apple is a business and loyalty is just a figment of a hardcore users imagination but I do feel they are prepared to hang their current users out to dry if it gets them further down the line in the short term at least. I think the change we are going to see goes far deeper than a simple CPU switch, this could be the birth of a new Apple. If after all is said and done we see the same old; iPod ads, every 8 month product updates, performance which lags behind the current (whoever it maybe) x86 performance leader and lack of variety in areas such as graphics cards then it will be asked what was the point of the switch.
Regardless of Apple's politics I just hope they aren't so close minded as to forget about AMD altogether. I also think the Longhorn launch will be interesting, M$ have worked a lot on the security side of things and while the initial launch maybe underwhelming future versions should offer a stiff competitor to Apple. Apple will never make in roads as far as corporations go and general purpose servers these are the areas M$ target and do well in. The creative and home markets are where Apple should do well in especially when they can use CPU's that give that all important Intel and high GHz figure on the spec sheet.
The question is do Apple do well in the creative markets because; OS X is the best available (although a lot of businesses use OS 9 apps because flashy OS X features are unnecessary), Apple provide world leading media software (if this is the case any Intel move should not effect sales), the mac environment is free of viruses/spyware etc (M$ could improve in this area dramatically and should do with Longhorn) or because the mac was the orignal computer design tool and this has follwed on almost as a tradition (in which case as long as the key mac basics remain sales should continue)? Despite all the publicity Apple's market share isn't really moving, it is hard to see how Apple can really make in roads in to this. The majority of personal PC buyers look for price and price only, so many family buyers that I know have bought a Dell or built there own because even with the mac mini the perceived value isn't there. If Apple keep the same product ranges they will have to continue to limit certain features to prevent over lap, a mac Mini will have to have a slower CPU poorer GPU compared to an iMac if the price points stay even remotely similar they are playing straight back in to the hands of the big PC companies.
We all accept through experience that the mac platform is better, to an average family who just want a computer OS X does not offer the features they want and the hardware is alien and expensive. This is where Apple need to target there advertising, the iPod halo effect will not work without massive changes to the products and consumers understading of their benefits over the competition.
Except Apple really doesn't have any leverage anymore, they played their Ace, it's gone. If they are looking to use the XScale in the iPod, they will end up w/ the volume and Intel-only discounts. However, their only recourse to Intel is "We will switch to AMD", to which Intel can say..."Go ahead, but you will lose your discount." Which will HOSE their margins on their iPod, which would fun for Jobs to explain at the next quarterly earnings release, how their gross margins took a sharp hit.
Apple could very well box itself in more than it has ever been before.
I've always contended that Jobs is the best and worst thing about Apple, I think that is still the case, mainly because he seems to let his ego get the best of him, and we all get to pay the price.
My take on it is that there are 2 elements to Apple's decision.
1. It's not about what chips is IBM releasing or just about to release. It's all about what will IBM have in TWO YEARS' time. Obviously Jobs has IBM's road map, and he seems to think there is no future past the G5. To equal the Intel stuff, IBM will have to spend billions on the G6, and work on that should already be well advanced for a release in 2006/7. Not much seems to be happening on G6 research. The Cell stuff is for games etc, and people have said it's hard to program on. Apple's sales of a hypothetical G6 processors obviously won't be enough to finance research on the scale of Intel.
2. People seem to be dissing the Pentuim 4. Apple aren't interested in the Pentium 4. It's all about the Pentium M. Just the Pentium M. I seem to recall that over half of Apple's computer sales are laptops. Probably far more in terms of motherboards now that both the iMac and the Mini are based on laptop motherboards. The Pentium M is the world' best laptop chip, and it works so well that Intel's future desktop chips are gonna be based on it. Guess when these are coming out? 2006/7. Starting to see something here?
The Pentium M is available right now, so we will probaby see a deritative go into mac Minis and iMacs, and laptops. Meanwhile, G5 Powermacs are still the best at what they do, so they will stick around a bit longer, especially in their new dual core version, but eventually Intel will create somthing Pentium M-based that will overtake them. That's when the PowerMacs will switch over to Intel.
I fully understand why Apple is making this move. I brought my PB because of os X, not what chip is in it.
My take is if you have paying work to do that needs a PowerMac (or even any apple), buy it now. You'll get many years of useful, bill-paying work out of it. When the Intel Macs come out, it'll be time for an upgrade anyway.