Apple Hints at Product Refreshes?

[aswitcher]

I don't get the people saying that Apple don't need up update more than once a year.

It makes no sense.

With the G5 Apple just about caught up with the PC world. The PC world is effectively on a constant update process. This means that by now, Apple is behind the curve, the prices haven't changed, and PCs look much more desirable again in terms of processing power, features, etc.

So what if people only upgrade once every 3 years? I'm sure you'd like to upgrade whenever you wanted and get something that wasn't 9 months out of date at that time because your supplier of computer systems decided that it wasn't good to up the specs a little to compete.

Updates needn't be big. They don't require new cases, or new motherboards. Just a faster processor on the motherboard. A larger HD. More memory. A faster DVD-R. A small upgrade, but more often. No-one will feel bad if they buy a computer then Apple release a much much faster computer a mere two months later for the same price, because it won't happen.

The only thing that Apple do right is frequent updates to the OS, much more frequently that Windows is updated.

If you can't upgrade a computer because there is no way to upgrade it (no faster processor available, which might have been the problem with the G5) then drop the price to compete and still sell systems.

The PC market has established a pattern of slightly improved processes every few months. The effect of this is that Apple has fallen further behind over the last 8 months or so. But in recent years Apple have pretty much always been behind from what I understand until the G5 appeared. Now Apple have a new deal with IBM and are getting seriously competative, but people seem upset they aren't following the same business model as intel and amd. There could be some really smart reasons that IBM has choosen to put big gaps between chip updates. They could be saving us all money. They could be preparing to make a jump straight to 3GHz which would be pretty impressive. They could working to R&D plans for new chips over the next few years rather than putting time into pretty insignficant speed bumps. So if IBM and Apple decide that the time between updates will be 10-12 months, then that could be a really good thing in the long run for them both. Apple is not about following the PC market its about setting new standards which they emulate, so I find it odd that people keep wanting them to be more like PCs and to measure them against those standards for release dates.

As for the rest of the Hardware, sure Apple could tweak things I suppose throughout a period when no speed jumps happen. But what additionally would that add to the cost of already expensive equipment if they have to run and test new harddrives, Dvd burners etc to announce a minor upgrade. I don't mind new models/revs getting four or five changes when they get released, especially if it helps keep the price down.

As for the pricing, they are still out to recoup their expenses. Keeping prices flat is their business model. If they sold everything off cheap prior or just after a new release, then chances are that would undervalue all their lines and intriduce spending habits where many would wait for the latest thing to buy the thing that just had been the latest thing at signficant discount and Apples model would fail. I dont think any of us would want that because then Apple would be forced to follow the pc market by lowering/cheapening its standards.

So its a different business model and I can see how it would keep the quality up and the prices as they are by not following the PC market business models. Its just different. No one if forcing people to buy new macs when an upgrade is due, and they can be assured that when they do that their new machine will remain a good investment for some time.

 

[visor]

at least

this looks like I'll get a good show at wwdc. I mean honestly, one would want a good show if you travel some estimated 10000 miles just to see it, right?

 

[joeconvert]

IBM/Apple

Hmmm. Another person that seems to link Apple's inability to build new systems in a timely manner with the processor design/production of IBM.

The PC market has established a pattern of slightly improved processes every few months. The effect of this is that Apple has fallen further behind over the last 8 months or so. But in recent years Apple have pretty much always been behind from what I understand until the G5 appeared. Now Apple have a new deal with IBM and are getting seriously competative, but people seem upset they aren't following the same business model as intel and amd. There could be some really smart reasons that IBM has choosen to put big gaps between chip updates. They could be saving us all money. They could be preparing to make a jump straight to 3GHz which would be pretty impressive. They could working to R&D plans for new chips over the next few years rather than putting time into pretty insignficant speed bumps. So if IBM and Apple decide that the time between updates will be 10-12 months, then that could be a really good thing in the long run for them both. Apple is not about following the PC market its about setting new standards which they emulate, so I find it odd that people keep wanting them to be more like PCs and to measure them against those standards for release dates.

As for the rest of the Hardware, sure Apple could tweak things I suppose throughout a period when no speed jumps happen. But what additionally would that add to the cost of already expensive equipment if they have to run and test new harddrives, Dvd burners etc to announce a minor upgrade. I don't mind new models/revs getting four or five changes when they get released, especially if it helps keep the price down.

As for the pricing, they are still out to recoup their expenses. Keeping prices flat is their business model. If they sold everything off cheap prior or just after a new release, then chances are that would undervalue all their lines and intriduce spending habits where many would wait for the latest thing to buy the thing that just had been the latest thing at signficant discount and Apples model would fail. I dont think any of us would want that because then Apple would be forced to follow the pc market by lowering/cheapening its standards.

So its a different business model and I can see how it would keep the quality up and the prices as they are by not following the PC market business models. Its just different. No one if forcing people to buy new macs when an upgrade is due, and they can be assured that when they do that their new machine will remain a good investment for some time.

 

[AidenShaw]

it doesn't sound right to me....

Hmmm. Another person that seems to link Apple's inability to build new systems in a timely manner with the processor design/production of IBM.

IMHO something's off here...

Historically, once production starts on a chip it is usual that faster chips appear over time. The longer a process runs, the better it gets and more faster chips come out.

The original story kind of assumes that IBM has one line making 1.6 GHz chips, another making 1.8 GHz chips, and a third making 2.0 GHz chips.

That's not the case - there's only one line, but due to manufacturing variability some chips are faster than others. When the chips come off the line they are tested, and put into various "bins" (a process often called "binning"):

1. Dead - these chips don't work at all, or only at low frequencies
2. 1.6 - these chips work at some frequency at least a bit above 1.6 GHz
3. 1.8 - These work at above 1.8
4. 2.0 - These work at above 2.0
5. Wow! - these are a few chips that work at significantly above 2.0

As the fab gets more experience, the percentage of chips in the faster bins grows. In fact, you'll find that after a while few of the chips are in the "1.6" bin - so that they'll label "1.8" chips with "1.6" and sell them for 1.6 prices. Sometimes, the percentage of chips in the "Wow!" bin is high enough that a 2.2 chip or even faster will be "introduced".

So, are we to believe that after nearly a year of making PPC970 chips - that IBM's fab hasn't made the normal progress?

If they haven't improved yields, then that's pretty damning. (And the fact that the only PPC970 product from IBM itself is only the 1.6 GHz chip could mean that the chip is unstable and is not improving.)

(Note that the 90nm chips would be a separate line....)

 

[aswitcher]

If they haven't improved yields, then that's pretty damning. (And the fact that the only PPC970 product from IBM itself is only the 1.6 GHz chip could mean that the chip is unstable and is not improving.)

(Note that the 90nm chips would be a separate line....)

What if they are stock piling them to make sure that a signficant number of machines are immediately available and so we dont suffer a 2 or 3 month delay after announcement...?

 

[Hiroshige]

G5 production problems

At the Apple store, I just went a couple of steps into buying dual G5 Xserve (90 nm G5).
It says
Items you have selected
Part No. Est Ship
Xserve G5 Dual 2GHz Z08Y 5-7 week


Even the single processor 2 Ghz Xserves, which Apple announced are available, have the 5-7 week delivery time.
Dudes, it looks like they can't even get yields up on the 90 nm 2 Ghz to a point where they can reliably sell the machine.
Makes me very pessimistic about even seeing a 2.5 Ghz machine. This is going to be a very long, painful wait.
Intel is having big problems with 90 nm as well. Too bad Apple couldn't take advantage of that to catch up and surpass.
It's possible we could see a 1.6 Ghz G5 iMac sooner. Maybe they can get adequate yields of the 90 nm G5 at 1.6 Ghz. [Due to heat concerns, I wouldn't expect to see a 130 nm G5 in an iMac.]

 

[aswitcher]

At the Apple store, I just went a couple of steps into buying dual G5 Xserve (90 nm G5).
It says
Items you have selected
Part No. Est Ship
Xserve G5 Dual 2GHz Z08Y 5-7 week

SNIP

Could it be that they just have a huge demand for Xserves and consequently inventory is low? That would be a good sign...

 

[Hiroshige]

possible

If they say during the Q2 results conference call that Xserve demand is huge, then you are probably right.

 

[LaMerVipere]

Apple has to do something big, and something FAST to rekindle the G5 flame, because at the moment, it is all but burnt out.

I remember after the PM G5 came out, it was well known throughout even the PC world that Apple now had something huge and powerful to compete with.

Case(s) in point, in the first week of my video class where we use iMacs, the teacher announced that the school would be purchasing G5's for the vid editing room, and in a class full of windows people (and not even tech obsessed windows people, mind you) they all immediately were like "oh hell yea man, that apple from the commercial, where it like blows through the side of the house, it's fast as hell!"

Just last week i was talking with my friend (i convinced her to switch, and she is now the proud owner of a 12" PowerBook G4) about the PowerMacs and one of the same windows people overheard and actually asked "what's a G5?" Add to that, the fact that my school was waiting until PM G5's hit Rev. B before they bought them, so we are still using iMacs.

Apple has lost the "WOW!" factor, and has lost sales, and at this point, it may be irreversible.

 

[aswitcher]

Apple has to do something big, and something FAST to rekindle the G5 flame, because at the moment, it is all but burnt out.
SNIP

Apple has lost the "WOW!" factor, and has lost sales, and at this point, it may be irreversible.

Well yeah...but I don't think its that gloomy.

iMacs and Powerbooks are probably suffering worse that the PMs at the moment.

Give Steve until WWDC end of June and then we can discuss whether the wait was worth it before predicting Apples doom...

 

[stefanski]

Just too bad they fell behind again

Well, I was sooo close to buy a G5, but I was hoping to get a faster machine for less money. Didn't happen. Apple has lost the momentum and they missed the chance to make something out of their 20th birthday. You can't just release a few more IPODs in fancy colours to keep up with the market. Here in Australia a G5 is still so much overpriced, it's a shame. Dealers have started offering things like digital cameras and software to keep the buyers coming. It's scary to see how quickly Apple has fallen behind with price and techology again. A true 64bit OS and a 2.5 GHz G5 would be the least to keep up with the world. Nope. Nothing like it happened. In fact, check out the apple webpage www.apple.com.au. They are still listing the long gone Macworld SF as latest news. How much worse can it get?

I'm frustrated to say the least.

The US$ was falling and PC prices have reached new lows. Has Apple dropped the price? Nope. They still expect me to pay AU$5299 for a dual G5 2Ghz in its basic configuration with outdated graphics capability.

 

[aswitcher]

I'm frustrated to say the least.

The US$ was falling and PC prices have reached new lows. Has Apple dropped the price? Nope. They still expect me to pay AU$5299 for a dual G5 2Ghz in its basic configuration with outdated graphics capability.

Apple Australia is a slightly different animal. The papers and magz have been hammering them about their pricing for a few months now. This is more an issue of profiteering because they have a controlled market where everyone has to buy from them in Australia. If retailers could buy even retail from the States it would likely be worth it for high end machines. If they could buy direct wholesale, Apple Australia would sell almost no machines and just be there for tech support.

I am hoping that WWDC sees new machines across almost the entire range which in turn leads to more reasonable prices in Australia with new machines as the excuse...2 more months

 

[stefanski]

Apple Australia

You're really thinking that 2 more months is a short time frame to wait for new products? Well, think again. 2 bloody months is a very, very long time to wait just to come up with something that will not be able to catch up with Intels 3GHZ fleet. Don't tell me they will release anything close to 3GHz in the G5 line. That's as likely as winning the powerball. The number of fans would exceed the number of chips used on the entire board.

If I was to "switch", it would cost me around AU$12200 and that doesn't include any "special" software. Just a pumped up dual G5 with 1GB of RAM and 2x250GB SATA and a decent video card to power the 23" display. Ok, the Ipod would be included as well. Just discovered that you can get a $800 mail in rebate. What a ripper!!

Strange enough these mail in rebates are valid until 26 June... When was that dev conference again? What? 2 days later? Must be coincidence ;-)

Go Apple!

 

[stefanski]

Before I get flamed:
I'm really keen to switch. The fact that I can't afford it is what makes me soooo angry. Believe me, I'll be the first to buy the newest G5 when it hits the streets. Even if it is only a small increase in speed. The fact that one can't upgrade without buying a new system is probably the biggest reason why people (including me) are waiting anxiously for news from Apple.

 

[aswitcher]

You're really thinking that 2 more months is a short time frame to wait for new products? Well, think again. 2 bloody months is a very, very long time to wait just to come up with something that will not be able to catch up with Intels 3GHZ fleet. Don't tell me they will release anything close to 3GHz in the G5 line. That's as likely as winning the powerball. The number of fans would exceed the number of chips used on the entire board.

Ok, well no offense, but for the time being I'll take the CEO of Apple's word that they will appear or at least be announce for the US summer over yours, which I think is better than Powerball. Unless of course you have some engineering data etc to contradict his claim...

If I was to "switch", it would cost me around AU$12200 and that doesn't include any "special" software. Just a pumped up dual G5 with 1GB of RAM and 2x250GB SATA and a decent video card to power the 23" display. Ok, the Ipod would be included as well. Just discovered that you can get a $800 mail in rebate. What a ripper!!

Strange enough these mail in rebates are valid until 26 June... When was that dev conference again? What? 2 days later? Must be coincidence ;-)

Go Apple!

Wow. Thats some configuration you're after. What are you upgrading from?

Yeah, as for the 26 June date, if you read most of the posts on release dates you'll see that WWDC on 28 June is regarded by many as the likely date because of that offer and other indicators...

 

[stefanski]

So Steve has promised 3GHz by Summer? Can't remember seeing that statement (in which he would mention a date or time frame for a +3GHz G5). But anyway, I would be more than happy to get something like hat in June. So if you take his word over mine, I'll survive ;-).

Currently working on a dual 2.8GHz machine with 20" flat screen, but that's not really the point here. I just want to make sure that the money is invested into a top notch solution. The fact that you can't upgrade a G5 by simply swapping CPUs is the biggest worry for me. Yes, I know that Intel has many different incompatible CPU designs, but at least you can upgrade within the same family of CPUs without having to buy a completely new machine whenever you want more speed.

Why is it that Apple can't make this possible? I assume they just don't want to. Probably because it would reveal too much and people would start overclocking exisiting G5s which seems to be impossible at this stage anyway.

Enough said. I'll wait and see what good stuff comes from Apple soon. (Hopefully)

 

[aswitcher]

So Steve has promised 3GHz by Summer? Can't remember seeing that statement (in which he would mention a date or time frame for a +3GHz G5). But anyway, I would be more than happy to get something like hat in June. So if you take his word over mine, I'll survive ;-).

Well I take it your new. 2003's WWDC has the claim. Check Apple's site for a quicktime stream of it.

Currently working on a dual 2.8GHz machine with 20" flat screen, but that's not really the point here. I just want to make sure that the money is invested into a top notch solution. The fact that you can't upgrade a G5 by simply swapping CPUs is the biggest worry for me. Yes, I know that Intel has many different incompatible CPU designs, but at least you can upgrade within the same family of CPUs without having to buy a completely new machine whenever you want more speed.

Why is it that Apple can't make this possible? I assume they just don't want to. Probably because it would reveal too much and people would start overclocking exisiting G5s which seems to be impossible at this stage anyway.

Don't know. Qualility control? Warranty issues? Business model?

If you buy when the new rev comes out (Hopefully early July/Agust for Australia) then given the lag between updates it seems fair to assume it will be the leader (or next best depending on what you get) for a good 6-12 months...

+ there will hopefully be new form factor LCDs as well with hopefully better refresh and resolutions...for the same money one presumes.

 

[AidenShaw]

Are you sure that Intel's having problems, their 90nm CPUs are easy to get now

Intel is having big problems with 90 nm as well.

Can you cite any current articles on that?

The Intel 90nm CPUs (Prescott) are easy to find - over the counter as well as in systems.

Any Pentium 4 with a 1 MiB L2 cache is a 90 nm Prescott. (The ones with the 1 MiB and 2 MiB L3 caches (like the P4EE) are 130 nm based on the Xeon.)

(http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/prodbref/)

1-MB L2 Advanced Transfer Cache, 16-KB L1 data cache, and Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSE3) are available with speeds 3.40E, 3.20E, 3E, 2.80E and 2.80A GHz.

These Pentium 4 processors are based on Intel's next generation 90 nm process technology. The 90 nm process technology includes next generation transistor advantages, such as strained silicon lattice to deliver faster transistors and increase performance.

At one local store, a 3 GHz 90 nm is sitting on the shelf for $249 (http://www.centralcomputer.com/emerchant/products.asp?pline=HCPUI)

Dell systems offer 90nm in their BTO menus (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...S360DTPAD&m_11=WXP1&m_1=3D281&c=us&l=en&s=biz).

newegg.com has 90nm in stock (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...ufactory=1157&description=&page=2&listStyle=0)


Maybe the Intel 90 nm rollout was slower than expected, but it looks like they're widely available today.

 

[Hiroshige]

aidenshaw go haunt another house

Can you cite any current articles on that?

The Intel 90nm CPUs (Prescott) are easy to find - over the counter as well as in systems.

Any Pentium 4 with a 1 MiB L2 cache is a 90 nm Prescott. (The ones with the 1 MiB and 2 MiB L3 caches (like the P4EE) are 130 nm based on the Xeon.)

(http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/prodbref/)


At one local store, a 3 GHz 90 nm is sitting on the shelf for $249 (http://www.centralcomputer.com/emerchant/products.asp?pline=HCPUI)

Dell systems offer 90nm in their BTO menus (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellst...S360DTPAD&m_11=WXP1&m_1=3D281&c=us&l=en&s=biz).

newegg.com has 90nm in stock (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...ufactory=1157&description=&page=2&listStyle=0)

Maybe the Intel 90 nm rollout was slower than expected, but it looks like they're widely available today.

You want an article? Many articles have been written about this on tomshardware.com and theinquirer.org. Here is one from the inquirer: "Intel's Prescott may be monumental step back for chipkind" http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=13851


Here's a Tom's Hardware quote and article:
"Despite 90 nm process technology, larger caches, 13 new instructions and changes in its NetBurst architecture, the Prescott does not bring down the house."
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/index.html

Here is a quote from another article on tomshardware:
"And the Pentium 4 Prescott is not particularly helping Intel's reputation with a TDP of over a hundred Watts and with no tangible advantages compared to its predecessor, the Northwood."


The Intel 90 nm took a long time to come out (as you admit) and they are very power hungry, very hot and if you want a quiet system you have to pay big $ for a cooling solution.
Offering a 3 Ghz Prescott on those websites really doesn't impress me because 3 Ghz has been out for a very long time at 130 nm and the 90 nm are benchmarked as no faster.
Aidenshaw, I am sick of your trolling.

 

[macdong]

Before I get flamed:
I'm really keen to switch. The fact that I can't afford it is what makes me soooo angry. Believe me, I'll be the first to buy the newest G5 when it hits the streets. Even if it is only a small increase in speed. The fact that one can't upgrade without buying a new system is probably the biggest reason why people (including me) are waiting anxiously for news from Apple.

as for as PowerMac is concerned, i say give them time.
you need to remember this is a jump of vendor, not just the processor, for Apple.
they need to redesign the whole thing.
Apple computer is not made like regular PCs, which are parts thrown together.
it needs to run cool and "quiet", be beautiful and elegant.

 

[AidenShaw]

You want an article?

Had you said "Intel's 90nm Prescott isn't a big leap", those articles would support you.

Intel's shipping lots of 90nm chips...they're not having "big problems" with the 90 nm process.

The term "ramp up" is always relevant, every new process takes a while to get up to speed.

While maybe you meant to diss the Prescott - your statement about the entire 90 nm fab is way too general, and deserves to be clarified.

 

[Hattig]

Had you said "Intel's 90nm Prescott isn't a big leap", those articles would support you.

Intel's shipping lots of 90nm chips...they're not having "big problems" with the 90 nm process.

The term "ramp up" is always relevant, every new process takes a while to get up to speed.

While maybe you meant to diss the Prescott - your statement about the entire 90 nm fab is way too general, and deserves to be clarified.

How many 3.4GHz 90nm Prescotts do you see available?

Not many I'm sure.

Intel IS having problems. If you read any decent PC hardware site you'll see that many people have this opinion, and the evidence is pretty damning.

Intel can make 2.4 and 2.8GHz Prescotts without a problem. 3GHz have appears about a month or so after the launch date. 3.2's are damned rare still.

Considering that this is at 90nm, and Northwood got up to 3.2GHz without any problems, what is the whole point of Prescott? Maybe to reduce per-chip cost, as the die will be smaller. This is at the expense of 20W or more of extra power consumption over Northwood, and LOWER performance at the same clock speed - so why not just do a straight shrink of the Northwood core and get an even smaller die and higher performance? This isn't a case of "isn't a great leap", it is a case of "stepping backwards". SSE3 isn't that major either and won't improve things over time. Also reviews have shown that Northwood still overclocks to higher speeds than Prescott does.

Intel were meant to be shipping 90nm processors in Q3 last year. As both Prescott and Dothan (P-M 90nm) are massively delayed, this doesn't suggest that it is processor design issues that are to blame.

I'm sure that Intel has solved the problem by now though (or fixed it enough). There is meant to be a D0 stepping of Prescott that solves some of the heat issues, and hence will be able to clock higher. Intel will be at 4GHz by the end of the year with Prescott.

However Intel is not shipping "lots" of 90nm processors for being 6 months into the new process ramp. AMD is sitting pretty with processors that run at only 2/3rds the speed yet outperform Intel's best, and they have headroom (with Socket 939 which will increase performance by 10% at the same clock, and with 90nm later this year to get the core to 2.8GHz or so).

Of course, IBM and AMD went with SOI. Intel did not. This looks like a miscalculation by Intel at the moment - they went from looking like being the first player to hit 90nm released processors to being 3rd or 4th. IBM beat them with the 90nm 970FX, albeit in small quantities and/or slower speeds!

 

[AidenShaw]

IBM beat them with the 90nm 970FX, albeit in small quantities and/or slower speeds!

You are right, there are lots of stories about Intel.


A search for "intel 90nm problems" on google gets lots of hits, some of them saying "no problems" like:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14923


The common thread is that the current Prescott chip tapeout has some issues, particularly with heat, but 90nm itself isn't the main issue. Intel is even bringing 65nm online (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/intel-65nm/)


And really, what's the difference between Prescott and the 970FX on this?

The 970FX is rare, and is trickling out in systems running at the same clock as the 130nm 970. IBM isn't even using the 970FX in its only 970 offering.


There's also a story that the 90nm Opteron will need 80 amps of power !! http://www.overclockers.com/tips00501/ So not even AMD is getting a free ride on the new process.

So, I'll concede that it looks like there's a rocky road to 90 nm all around, even though product is available.

 

[wdlove]

this looks like I'll get a good show at wwdc. I mean honestly, one would want a good show if you travel some estimated 10000 miles just to see it, right?

If you indeed travel the estimated 10000 miles to WWDC, then you should get a prize for traveling the farthest. I don't think that you will be disappointed.

 

[timmyOtool]

current processor clock cycles have been stuck at around the 3 Ghz level for both AMD and Intel. it has been this way for the last year. now with the prescott cpu Intel is having to rename the chips basically to conceal the actual clock speed which is not going to be breaking the 3Ghz barrier anytime soon (getting to 4+Ghz actually produces more prediction errors and weaker performance which Intel believes can be overcome with new compiler code and optimizations). IBM no doubt sees this as the opportunity to get caught up in the race. the problem is profiting from cycle increments in the meantime. Intel and AMD sell cpus in small increments. Intel marketed 3 Ghz cpus one month and then introduced 3.02 Ghz the next! thats what you call milking the yield. Apple has to do the same. the idea of jumping from 2Ghz as the top end cpu to a 3Ghz machine without trying to sell 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, or 2.8 Ghz units is not wise. all of the increments are profit potentials. no matter what promises were made about 3Ghz PPCs appearing at the end of summer, it's not going to happen. IBM will want to sell ALL the cycle yields they can get out of the chip. this means the refreshing of the professional line up is going to be stretched out over a longer period of time.

ghi

I think that they will use all of those points, just not in the same computer. They need to get to a high enough level with the powermac, then they can use those other point on consumer level products. Apple markets little different than most companies (for better or for worse)