DigiTimes Reports PowerBook G5 and iBook G5 Contracts

[ScubaDuc]

In October [2004], Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO, reiterated Apple’s commitment to providing a premium product. “To date, we have chosen not to compete in the sub-$800 desktop market,” he said.

That really makes me question just how much we can trust what he says about future products.

But if you add a bit of options which are really necessary like memory, superdrive, airport/bluetooth, keyboard, etc, you are getting close to the $800 mark even with the Mac mini. The fact that it starts at $499 bears little relevance to the final price paid by customers

 

[~Shard~]

Buy a hard drive that has a pass-through port on it (many, if not most, do). Or buy a Firewire hub for a few tens of dollars.

Yep, he's right, that should work - just inform your IT department of this fact (funny how little they know sometimes, huh? ) and let us know if you go ahead now with your purchase, that would be excellent!

It's always great to hear stories of individuals and companies switching, so let's hope this is another one of those!

 

[oilhistorian]

But if you add a bit of options which are really necessary like memory, superdrive, airport/bluetooth, keyboard, etc, you are getting close to the $800 mark even with the Mac mini. The fact that it starts at $499 bears little relevance to the final price paid by customers

"Necessary"? A SuperDrive is "necessary" only if you want to burn DVDs. Bluetooth isn't "necessary" to use a keyboard, nor is an Airport card "necessary" to connect to the internet.

And my old 400MHz G4 Sawtooth runs Panther quite acceptably in 256 MB of RAM. Would I like more RAM in the Mini, Bluetooth, Airport, SuperDrive, etc. ? Heck, yeah. But they're not "necessary."

For little more than the cost of a G4 CPU upgrade for my Sawtooth, I can buy a Mini that has more power as my wife's G4 iMac. Once Tiger is out, I'm repolacing the Sawtooth with a Mini.

 

[macnews]

Duh!

To say this isn't happening or is going to happen puts you in a no win situation.

First, define "second" quarter of 2005. Apple's second quarter runs Jan-Mar. The calendar second quarter runs April-Jun. Who know's what this company's second quarter is. Could be July-Aug. And for those who say this is too late, individual business can define their own fiscal year. Mine right now is in the third quarter of 2005 (Jan-March). So if a G5 laptop comes out before Jan 2005 almost everyone could say "see it was so-and-so's second quarter they were referring to."

Second, you know a G5 will eventually end up in a powerbook and ibook. Oddes against it are very low.

Last, to debate the ibook won't have a G5 in it until long after the powerbook is going based on history. While history is good to learn from, it is no indicator of future happenings.

All that said, I think this rumor points to a G5 in a mac laptop be Dec. 31, 2005.

 

[MOFS]

Ah, for 3) you must be referring to the headless iBook! This newest example of Apple innovation has already been forecast here and here and perhaps elsewhere. Maybe "Book mini" will be BYOMKT: Bring Your Own Monitor, Keyboard, and Trackpad.

But seriously, I would very much welcome a "Book mini." I have been saying for years that Macs are out of reach financially for the average consumer. Mac mini and iPod shuffle are clearly aimed at finally reaching the average consumer's price range. And I certainly would love Powerbook and iBook G5s ASAP. But Apple would not only have to be technically able to do so, but be able and willing to make a clear distinction between the 3 laptop lines, particularly between the Powerbook and iBook if they both go G5.

I agree with autrefois regarding the "ibook mini" (iDuo?). It makes sense to have three lines at each level at each price level (an exception being possibly the eMac, which I think should go back to being an education-users only Mac to encourage G5 sales and so that Apple can specify software for it speifically). This kind of a policy works well already - look at the physical similiarities (whiteness/ halo effect) between the iBook, iPod and iMac. Similarly the metal of the Power Macs and the Powerbooks. I think the following specs are reasonable:

1.42 GHz G4
60 GB hard drive
DVD/CD-RW
2*USB, 1*Firewire 400, ethernet, modem
Built in modem (optional bluetooth/ Airport card)

For this the form could be kept really small - using plastics instead of metal - how about in a similar case as the tangerine/blue iBooks (clamshells?) but with same colours as the iPod mini? Or even the 5 "flavours" of iMac G3? Perfect for kids (and big kids who like coloured Macs! )

mofs

 

[matticus008]

I think people posting about Apple Legal jumping all over this might be missing the point. It could be that Apple can't sue in this case, if this rumor was "leaked" in an official, corporate investor-relations context. Companies are generally required full disclosure to shareholders, and it may be that no confidentiality contracts were broken, which is the main contention of the recent Apple litigation.

Personally, I've been waiting a year for a G5 PowerBook to make my triumphant return to Apple hardware since I'm in the market for a new notebook. This isn't to say I wouldn't buy a new G4 provided there were some major advantages over the current, 9 month old models. I think a price cut is equally unlikely, because then they'd have to raise prices again when the G5 finally was ready...although the current crop is pretty insanely overpriced.

 

[3Memos]

First time posting, long time reading

If you read the Digi times article you will see that in the chart displayed at the bottom lists two types of ibooks - ibook/ibook G5 leading me to believe that - as someone mentioned earlier there may be two line ups for the ibook - the ibook G4 and a top of the line iBook with a G5. (With more price reductions on the G4 . . . and all next tuesday! lol

More likely the high-end iBook line gets renamed the PowerBook line?

 

[ebally]

Apart from the G5 processor, I just hope that Apple is working on some new screen technology for their upcoming PowerBook revisions. Apple has started to significantly fall behind the likes of Sony when it comes to this department, both in screen resolutions and the clarity of the X-Brite technology.

 

[3Memos]

Apart from the G5 processor, I just hope that Apple is working on some new screen technology for their upcoming PowerBook revisions. Apple has started to significantly fall behind the likes of Sony when it comes to this department, both in screen resolutions and the clarity of the X-Brite technology.

Absolutely. Some of the screens on PC laptops look brighter and sharper than those on the languishing PowerBooks. Apple needs to increase screen resolution while keeping the screen sizes as they are.

 

[Porshuh944turbo]

can't believe mr is posting this... bad info..

I posted about this 2 days ago.. it is obviously a misprint / typo... get real

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/105157/

and there is a story here from ars about it (they found it before anyone here did)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050114-4524.html

 

[aafuss1]

According to Apple's Peter Oppenhemier-"it would be mother of all thermal challenges" to put a G5 into a PB/iBook.

 

[GFLPraxis]

- Every release of a new OS from Apple also comes with a new release of the GCC compiler. Apple, then, releases these changes to the open source community. IBM has a new compiler for the G5 chip. The GCC compiler still has room for improvement. So, we can expect that the next OS will be faster across-the-board for the G4 and G5. ( Well, that's my opinion anyway. )

- Apple may have some contractual arrangement with IBM to use so many of the G5 chips. So, a Powerbook G5 might come before a Dual-Core Powerbook. IBM, should be directing, at least their AIX( Unix ) developers to buy Apple Powerbooks, with the release of a G5 Powerbook.

- When I compare a G4 1.5 to the G5 1.8 in the IMac, the G4 holds up well, except for the FSB. But, the new DualCore chip should have a much faster bus.

- I personally Still Hope to see a Dual-Core G4 Powerbook for sale.

- Question: Does Apple sell enough laptops, now, to come out with Both?
A Dual-Core G4 Extreme Powerbook and a single Core G5 Powerbook?
Although I can't understand why you'd want a single core G5 over a dual-core G4, the G5 advocates are still moaning for one. So, Apple, if you can, sell both.

Ooh! iBook G5 @ 1.6 GHz, PowerBook dual core G4 @ dual 1.5 GHz! w00t!

 

[3Memos]

According to Apple's Peter Oppenhemier-"it would be mother of all thermal challenges" to put a G5 into a PB/iBook.

Here's a solution to the problem of heat dissipation, run micro cooling tubes throughout the chassis and lid, so the case becomes like one giant radiator. No more hot laps.

 

[Kagetenshi]

According to Apple's Peter Oppenhemier-"it would be mother of all thermal challenges" to put a G5 into a PB/iBook.

The fact that this wasn't an explicit no makes me wonder if it isn't a bet-hedging move. That sounds a lot like the statement that historically Apple has not chosen to compete in the sub-$800 market; certainly nothing saying that they're planning to get anything by WWDC, but leaving it open that they might.

My personal guess, based on some wishful thinking, is that they've got a shot at WWDC but don't want to commit (not that they would anyway).

~J

 

[3Memos]

That sounds a lot like the statement that historically Apple has not chosen to compete in the sub-$800 market; certainly nothing saying that they're planning to get anything by WWDC, but leaving it open that they might.

I remember the earnings report they said they had no interest competing in the low-end PC market. It was definitely a ruse of their part because they must have been in the stages of actually working out a low-end model. For them to say they are still difficulties in making a PowerBook G5 could only mean one thing... POWERBOOK G5s NEXT TUESDAY!!

 

[Poff]

Wehey!!

Good thing I decided to wait ordering an iBook. I'd never imagine they'd put a G5 in it so soon!

 

[wdlove]

Here's a solution to the problem of heat dissipation, run micro cooling tubes throughout the chassis and lid, so the case becomes like one giant radiator. No more hot laps.

Wouldn't the micro cooling tube still have a lot of warmth in them? Maybe even some would miss the warmth.

Why has Apple fallen behind their LCD technology for the PowerBook & iBook? Are their similarities with the Cinema display technology?

 

[panphage]

Since my post is second to last on page 8, I doubt it'll be seen so I'll repost.

It seems to me a bad move going to G5. It also seems unrealistic. There have been NO ANNOUNCEMENTS of low voltage G5's from IBM whatsoever. On the other hand, Motorola has announced dual core 1.5 GHz G4's that run at a mere 15-25w! And single core that gets 10w at 1.5!

Can you imagine the speed boost? iBook at 1.5 GHz, with a 6-8 hour battery life (say goodbye, Centrino!). PowerBook, with a dual core 1.5 GHz and 5-6 hour battery life. That'd be an awesome lineup. And blazing fast- A dual core 1.5 G4 would probably outperform a 2 GHz G5.

Who needs 64-bit?

Just to let you know (I can't read the whole rest of that monster thread) IBM claims 12.3W @ 1.4GHz for the 970FX. That's just about identical to the Freescale claims. How much more low-voltage do you want?

Also, the dual-core Freescale chips aren't even rumored to be sampling until "2H 2005" which means anytime from July to December. I'd guess closer to december. The dual-core chips also aren't pin-compatible with the 74x7 series that apple has been using. So which do you think more likely: Apple makes a new architecture based on a RECENT chip they've been using for more than a year (and seem to have bet their future on) and had time to engineer a lower-power controller (the REAL thermal problem here, not the CPU) or that they'll release a new architecture based on a revision of a chip they left behind and that they can't even START engineering for until November of this year? Let's be vulcans about this. Logic dictates...

 

[panphage]

The mpc8461/mpc8461d is dead in the water as far as Apple is concerned. Why? Because it would require a complete redesign of the motherboard. Apple's been on the record saying they're working on a G5 PowerBook; it makes no sense that they'd move the PowerBooks to the 8461 just for a year until the G5s are ready. Unless Apple is planning to migrate the consumer line to the e600 series, those dual-core G4s are simply not for Apple.

Agreed. Why can't more people just pay attention and use some logic? Apple won't even be able to START on an 8461 mobo until late this year if the 2h 2005 sampling target is correct. Remeber, 2H doesn't necessarily mean July, it could be as late as December and they'll still be able to say they made the target.

 

[panphage]

Complete redesign of the Motherboard? So What.
- When doing a prototype to test the dual-core chip Apple would have to design a motherboard. Aside from that, the mpc8461d moves more logic into the cpu making it Easier to do this motherboard then the G5 motherboard. You'll have to come up with some other completely wrong reason to not go Dual-G4.

But, let me ask you, why are you so hot for a G5 powerbook, when a dual core G4 would be 75% faster?

I'm gonna keep spamming this board till you kids get it.

The difference is the 2 years apple has been working on the PB G5, and the historical inability of "MotorollaScale" to deliver the chips it announces. Remember, Freescale didn't say they were sampling the 8461 in the second half of this year, The Register did. Apple won't even see these 8461s until July at the very very very earliest in the best and most optimistic world imaginable. Meanwhile, apple has been working on the 970-based motherboard for nearly two years. Why would they even start working on an 8461-based system?

Also, the power numbers claimed by Freescale for the 8461 and IBM for the 970FX are nearly identical. So why wouldn't it be the "mother of all thermal challenges" to put an 8461 into a powerbook?

 

[3Memos]

Also, the power numbers claimed by Freescale for the 8461 and IBM for the 970FX are nearly identical. So why wouldn't it be the "mother of all thermal challenges" to put an 8461 into a powerbook?

What are you saying exactly? Dual-core G4 for iBooks. G5 for PowerBooks? Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[thecoleorton]

As I said in the other thread, I am not too sure if I would want a first gen. G5 PB, especially not with all the cooling problems they had.
If it is available this year though, it would make a really nice 2nd gen. in March or April 2006 when I would upgrade my rev. c
The faster they get the first gen out the faster I get my 2nd gen.

Good point. Right now im satisfied w/ my 1.5 ghz 15''. We'll see what they come out w/ first rounds...i'm guessing a 1.8 ghz. Which, to me, isnt worth giving up my current powerbook.

 

[Kagetenshi]

I should go around and make everyone waiting for the Rev. B give me and everyone else like me $10 for being their personal beta testers

Suck it up and join the early adopters! Hardware failures build character!

~J, Calvin's Dad for the Digital Age

 

[drsuse]

I should go around and make everyone waiting for the Rev. B give me and everyone else like me $10 for being their personal beta testers

Suck it up and join the early adopters! Hardware failures build character!

~J, Calvin's Dad for the Digital Age

 

[MikeBike]

Just to let you know (I can't read the whole rest of that monster thread) IBM claims 12.3W @ 1.4GHz for the 970FX. That's just about identical to the Freescale claims. How much more low-voltage do you want?

Where do you pull this piece of info out of?
- I've never seen Ibm claim that. If that were true wouldn't a G5 be out now!
- The G5 might appear when IBM completes it's 65nm process. And even then if it's too hot or the heat is too concentrated it might not make it into a laptop.
- The Freescale chip is only going to be at 90nm, and be cooler.
- Fourth, the G5 Needs to run a couple tenth's of Ghz higher( .2 or .3 higher ) then a G4 to equal it's performance.
- If that wattage is a figure from a lightly loaded G5, ie. a PowerManagement type spec. then that won't help me as I keep my machine very busy.
- A dual core G4 is effectively a Heat-Spreader, and a better implementation of powermanagement could simply switch between the cpu's to keep things cooler, on a greater surface area.
- Have you heard of any road maps from AMD or Intel? The future is Dual-Core.