Would it be illegal if someone bought Microsoft for $200 Billion
then turned around and sold to Apple Computer for $1.00 ?
then turned around and sold to Apple Computer for $1.00 ?
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.
2.6GHz PowerMac G5s at MacWorld SF 2004?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Re: Cash prevents takeovers
That could be true.. that capital could be used to buy back stock and prevent a take over, but it does make a company a target for takeover in the first place.
If you google "takeover cash on hand" you'll see a load of stories about companies being take over targets for having too much cash on hand.
That could be true.. that capital could be used to buy back stock and prevent a take over, but it does make a company a target for takeover in the first place.
If you google "takeover cash on hand" you'll see a load of stories about companies being take over targets for having too much cash on hand.
There are very real reasons for someone like Intel or AMD to hold back cpu steppings. A company like Intel produces the cpus and sorts them (bins them) according to how well they function. The chips sold as 3.2 GHz generally run faster and more reliably at high frequency than the ones that get bin'ed at 2.4 GHz (although a lot of 2.4's OC very nicely).
Now, Since Intel is in direct competition with AMD, they don't need to ship a a significantly faster cpu than AMD.. they just need to (when possible) ship a processor that's a little faster. AMD is actually a better example right now. Let's say that AMD can actually ship a 2.6 GHz processor right now. That would be like a 3600+. Now, they would have a sort.. maybe 20% 2.6s, 30% 2.4s, and the rest at 2.2GHz. If AMD actually sold them now, they would have to stick to the price levels that the market would support. They would only have 20% of the chips available, or they could sell the 2.2GHz chips for the top shelf prices and have all the supply that they need.
Apple isn't in the same boat. They don't manufacture the the processors. They can't constrain supply because the pricing is set by IBM and not Apple. We have to assume that much faster processors are on the way since the .09 micron part has been announced and because Jobs wouldn't have pre-announced 3GHz unless he was pretty damn sure they could do it (or else their credibility would be totally shot).
So, Apple isn't in the position to constrain the processors (what happens when they ship 2.2GHz G5s and IBM ships 2.6GHz blades?) IBM could constrain supply of faster CPUs as Intel and AMD seem to have done in the past but what does it gain them. They could have larger volumes of the slower processors if they bin'ed more cpus lower... but there is a downside to this.
1) They aren't clearly faster than the competition. The Athlon64s are faster in a lot of benchmarks, particularly those that benefit from the low latency on-die memory controller. Prescott is coming out in Feb also..
2) G5s don't compete as directly with amd/intel as much as AMD and Intel do with each other. There are other things that affect the uptake of G5s that aren't directly related to perfomance. If Apple shipped 2.4 GHz G5s tomorrow, a significant number of PC users wouldn't go out and immediately switch to the Mac. They need to ship machines as fast as possible to ensure that they have as strong as possible an argument to cause people to migrate platforms.
3) Apple's the underdog. IBM is the sole provider of it's high end CPUs. Apple needs to show compelling reasons for people to reinvest in the Mac, or to compel people to switch. Being just slightly faster doesn't do it. IBM has a strong interest in shipping the fastest possible 970s because this is required to increase Apple marketshare and thus sell more CPUs. Also, IBM is preparing to ship their own products with the 970. IBM want's to show it's own processors in the best light against rivals like Opteron/Xeon, and even Itanium. They are much better off selling PPC 970 blades instead of selling Xeon or Opteron blades. Why loose the extra profit. Also, selling PPC blades only increases the value of their significant investment in Power chips [and by extension, very high margin Power based Servers].
You're confusing Motorola's lack of ability to develop high speed G4s with a percieved lack of interest by Apple in releasing high speed Macintoshes. Don't think for one minute that Apple wouldn't like to have all thier desktops running G5s and their pro Offering running CPUs that were so clearly superior to x86 cpus that even PC zealots couldn't manufacture excuses to bash the Mac anymore.
We'll get much faster G5s soon and we'll 3GHz by summer if Jobs has to move heaven and earth. Apple has every reason to push the platform hard and zero reason to hold back.
Dear god Ffakr! We have to read that! No really, good stuff Ffakr. I think Apple will release a dual 2.5GHz at the top of the range and if the bottom of the range is a single 2GHz, well thats fantastic for us who don't want to shell out much.
Re: Would it be illegal if someone bought Microsoft for $200 Billion
there are three individuals who have that kind of leverage beside bill gates
larry ellison...he owns oracle which is high tech...so he is out becuase he would be nabbed by the monopoly police
paul allen...he has a huge stake in the processor world and the linux world and he co-founded microsoft...so he is out
warren buffet...as long as he is not embedded that much in high tech...he may be our best bet for that to happen and not have the monopoly hunters go after him
but in reality, when you are warren buffet and consistently on the short list of world's richest people, you must have at least several tens of millions or hundreds of millions invested in high tech on some level...so yes, poor warren would be seen as a high tech monopolist
Originally posted by RichardCarletta
then turned around and sold to Apple Computer for $1.00 ?
there are three individuals who have that kind of leverage beside bill gates
larry ellison...he owns oracle which is high tech...so he is out becuase he would be nabbed by the monopoly police
paul allen...he has a huge stake in the processor world and the linux world and he co-founded microsoft...so he is out
warren buffet...as long as he is not embedded that much in high tech...he may be our best bet for that to happen and not have the monopoly hunters go after him
but in reality, when you are warren buffet and consistently on the short list of world's richest people, you must have at least several tens of millions or hundreds of millions invested in high tech on some level...so yes, poor warren would be seen as a high tech monopolist
First of all. Apple needs to stop updating machines with the same token 100-200 mhz per 4 months.. thats not going to hold well when intel/amd does there next mhz push. Second of all, Apple NEEDS to make a 999.00 tower. Apple has hit every market except the low cost design professionals, and people that want a decent machine that is semi upgradable and that can support any display. I don't think thats too much to ask considering dell and all them do it, and even with a grand, you can build up a pretty tight PC system yourself. Apples lineup SHOULD be.
G5 1.6 Ghz/256MB/80GB/Combo/Nvidia 5200 for 999.00.
G5 Dual 1.8 Ghz/512MB/160GB/SuperDrive/ATI 9600pro for 1799.00
G5 Dual 2.0 Ghz/1024MB/200GB/SuperDrive/ATI 9600pro for 2499.00
G5 Dual 2.4 Ghz/1024MB/250GB/SuperDrive/ATI 9800pro for 2999.00
Thats just my thoughts...
G5 1.6 Ghz/256MB/80GB/Combo/Nvidia 5200 for 999.00.
G5 Dual 1.8 Ghz/512MB/160GB/SuperDrive/ATI 9600pro for 1799.00
G5 Dual 2.0 Ghz/1024MB/200GB/SuperDrive/ATI 9600pro for 2499.00
G5 Dual 2.4 Ghz/1024MB/250GB/SuperDrive/ATI 9800pro for 2999.00
Thats just my thoughts...
If you read the rumour, it's not 100-200 MHz every 4 months, it's hopefully going to be 500-600MHz. As for a $999 PowerMac- we wish but not a chance in hell. Maybe a 999 £pounds 1.6GHz PowerMac. What's that in dollars by the way...oh about $1000,000 hehe.
just a fact
The powermac was originaly made for well users who NEED the power. Apple already has several low cost computer including the emac, ibook, and imac. Personaly I see no reason for lower cost computers.
The powermac was originaly made for well users who NEED the power. Apple already has several low cost computer including the emac, ibook, and imac. Personaly I see no reason for lower cost computers.
I disagree. There is need for a lower cost tower. Lets look at the cost computers.
emac: Built in display, not upgradable. Heavy, bulkey. Its designed for college dorms. Low priced, big, heavy, hard to steal.
iMac: Built in display, not upgadable. Ideal for home internet users.
iBook: Portable and cheap, they have this market covered.
Powerbook 12": Low end power portable, fast, can share monitors, and is more upgradable then the ibook.
So what they need is a low cost tower to fill the gap, for people that don't want to be limited by built in displays, and want a semi upgradable computer. Dell and Gateway have towers for 599.00. Come on, you can't tell me that a low cost tower would be a bad thing. If people want "Power" then they should be a high end dual processor G5.
emac: Built in display, not upgradable. Heavy, bulkey. Its designed for college dorms. Low priced, big, heavy, hard to steal.
iMac: Built in display, not upgadable. Ideal for home internet users.
iBook: Portable and cheap, they have this market covered.
Powerbook 12": Low end power portable, fast, can share monitors, and is more upgradable then the ibook.
So what they need is a low cost tower to fill the gap, for people that don't want to be limited by built in displays, and want a semi upgradable computer. Dell and Gateway have towers for 599.00. Come on, you can't tell me that a low cost tower would be a bad thing. If people want "Power" then they should be a high end dual processor G5.
I mostly agree with you but Apple would want to use all .09 micron parts as they are smaller and will cost much less to make when the .09 micron process yield comes up (if it hasn't already).
Because of this, I don't think we'd see a 1.6 micron part. Apple would have to intentionally lower the clock speed.
The answer would probably be to go 2GHz single on the low end because I'd be really surprised if the new chips are sorting slower than that.
Apple could do $999 for a 2GHz but margins would be pretty thin and they don't have Dell volume to live on thin margins.
The other issue would be low end, low margin sales cutting into high end, high margin sales. How many people would buy the $999 machine (which would be pretty damn fast) instead of buying a $2000 or $3000 machine?
I'm guessing the other end of the matrix would be something like your machines but with slightly faster CPUs. How about:
dual 2 GHz - $1899
Dual 2.3 GHz - $2399
Dual 2.6 GHz - $3000
So, the question is, does this make sense? Would people buy dual 2GHz machines or singles? It's almost twice as much for not quite twice the horsepower (SMP doesn't provide 2X efficiency).
Also, what does a nice $999 tower do to other product sales? You don't want to sell $999 boxes instead of $899 emacs if you make more profit on the emacs.
Personally, I think they could tweak something like this to make sense.. but only if the inclusion of such a machine actually increased sales and preferably market share.
I think Apple could lower the prices of the G5 Towers, even duals, to make a low end more feasible though. The new 970s should be cheaper.. probably quite a bit cheaper than previous 970s, and a lot cheaper than G4s. Apple still has high margins on some components like SATA drives and the pricy ATI 9800 video cards but they have to be paying down the G5 R&D by now and the rest of the stuff in the G5 is pretty standard... DDR400 and such.
In a perfect world, Apple would bring in a low cost desktop, but they would also prevent it from gutting higher margin machines by being able to bring the higher end machines to market for less yet still keep decent margins. I think that Apple could bring in a dual 2GHz, a dual 2.6 and something in the middle and price them at $1599, $2099, and $2599 but they don't offer the expensive Radeon 9800 as standard equip on any of these because blazing fast 3d Cards don't help with 2d design work.
If Apple want's to compete better on price, they need to follow the lesson laid out by companies like Dell.. Offer the cheap-o machine but don't let people realize that it is woe-fully under accessorized until after they decide they want it. ;-)
Well, I'm not sure what the unit or bulk purchasing prices are for the G5. So we don't know how slim margins could be. I've heard that it's cheaper to produce then the G4 and the G4 is in the basic consumer models. If they have the processor in mulitple models, they'll be purchasing more units, which usually equates to a steeper discount, but I have no idea what kind of deal Apple has with Big Blue.
I think people that buy the G5 PowerMacs have reason for doing so. They're not purchasing the top end just because. So I'm not worried about the cannibalization of sales to the lower end. I do agree the high end should be faster.
From everything I've gathered over the years, I've learned that Apples profit margins are higher per unit then any other PC manufacturer. They don't sell as many units, but make more per unit. The PowerMacs being Apples biggest cash cow makes sense when you're selling a headless computer and you competitor is selling the whole package for the same or a bit less. Argue what you will, but Apple could lower prices quite a bit and still comeout OK. But why woudl they do that when they have a nice little niche that's willing to pay their prices?
The word was, it was cheaper to produce the G5 (PPC 970 chip) than the G4 (PPC 745x chip) mainly due to the fact that Motorola's yields were pretty bad and they made a lot of useless but expensive slabs of silicon.
I don't think that the G5 [computer] is cheaper to make than the G4 [computer] because: the mother board is much bigger, the chipset is bigger [more complex], there are more 'bits' like fans per case, the case its self is a monster chunk of etched and anodized aluminum, it uses pricy SATA hard drives..
I think prices will come down though. Selling 500,000 SATA based machine in a little over 1 quarter has to help nudge up production... and the chipset is purported to move to .09 micron with the PPC 970s so that should get smaller and decrease in price too. The expensive stuff is probably the nice case and the pricy peripherals which Apple has much less control over.
people buy towers for a lot of reasons.. they are easier to secure in labs (and tougher), they are more upgradeable, they allow for more internal storage, they can use large (comparably inexpensive) CRTs that have better color control..
There are people who feel compelled to buy a tower for a variety of reasons (over buying an iMac or eMac) but they don't need a high margin, high cost machine. I could see this being the case with an individual designer (as opposed to a designer who's company buys the machine), various groups in Edu would likely go this route also.. where they need features but not a large price tag. These are the potential buyers who would buy lower margin machines like a $999 tower over a higher margin machine.
The problem is, a single 2GHz would perform so well for most tasks that it may disuade too many people from spending a lot more for a dual 2.2GHz. Of course, the pattern of sales with the 1.6 GHz seems to argue against this, but it wasn't $999.
This is true, but when you starting talking about selling a similar machine for $700 less than what they offer now, thats a lot of margin to slice into. I think at best, Apple makes less than 25% margin.
Well I hope your right about the cost of production Ffakr, that would be great (I'll believe it cos I have no faith in Motorola). Where do you get all your information from? Maybe you should have a column hehe.
How do you know that the cpu is cheaper still than the G5? I haven't read anything about price reduction and they're still bumping up speeds. Remember with .90 process IBM can get more units per wafer. In addition they have the fishkill plant that they use to produce third party chips, so costs of production are spread throughout different customers. Obviously they're not making the G5 for everyone, but they are producing a variety of chips in the plant.
True for the most part. SATA prices are dropping fast...
This goes back to my point on different users for different reasons.The problem is, a single 2GHz would perform so well for most tasks that it may disuade too many people from spending a lot more for a dual 2.2GHz. Of course, the pattern of sales with the 1.6 GHz seems to argue against this, but it wasn't $999.
I have no idea other than they do better than most.
well i heard the same about the PC970 being cheaper than the G4 before the powermac G5 was introduced (not so much after that of course ;-) )
i can't remember the exact percentage wich was mentioned but it was more than 20% cheaper than G4 as i remember perhaps even more...
either are the motherboards so much more expensive...or apple is holding prices up because they haven't anything for the low end machines... buts that just speculation
anybody knows more on production costs ?
I think Apple hold the prices up because they know they can. I think they feel that even if they lower the prices of the power macs, they wont get more switchers... So they keep the high margins and fewer customers and hope to steal people based on a better expereince. That may work, but not with too many people... Many consumer are very price conscience of prices and most think a computer is a computer...
G5 iMac for 20th Anniversary
No word on speed or LCD size yet . Prices and shipping dates not known. Expected to be announced on January 24th after announcement of New PowerMacs . Top speed for PowerMacs is dual 2.6 GHZ . Low speed is 2GHZ single . Prices and shipping dates not known.
No word on speed or LCD size yet . Prices and shipping dates not known. Expected to be announced on January 24th after announcement of New PowerMacs . Top speed for PowerMacs is dual 2.6 GHZ . Low speed is 2GHZ single . Prices and shipping dates not known.
Re: G5 iMac for 20th Anniversary
All Dual
2.3
2.0
1.8
interesting with the slip of the 2.3Ghz Xserve Grapphic and the lowering of the dual 2.8, I'd imagine that the lineup would look like the following:
All Dual
2.3
2.0
1.8
- Status