Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?

[Lurch_Mojoff]

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

Well, they are somewhat true - for one you haveDarwine. And then again, there are rumors (or wishes?) for virtual machines (e.g. VirtualPC) running at native speeds and Intel's Vanderpool virtualization in Yonah, which is not a rumor, but whether and how it will be used is (edit: by Apple that is).

 

[blufire]

You aren't likely far off here. One thing I'm pretty sure about. you won't see dual-core Intels in the iBook line. That'll be reserved for the Powerbook line. It's been too long now since the processor was a major point of difference between the iBook and Powerbook lines.

I doubt they would use Intel integrated graphics... it's weaak!! But I guess it could save on cost, size, and battery life.. still, I don't think Apple would use such a weak offering. It'll (hopefully) be either an ATI or Nvidia chipset.

 

[iHavenolife]

With all of these rumors that are going around about Intel by MWSF 2006, and if Apple does not deliver as expected people are going to start refering to the 3GZ promises made by Jobs. We still might have to wait till June. Wait and see. Hopefully we will get them at MWSF 2006.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Oohh.. just a thought..

How about Apple releases a new Mac Mini with the Intel chips, but sets it apart from the current ones by offering additional features not found in any other Mac? Like Front Row and a TV hookup (in and out), as well as DVR software? This would compel people to try the machines even if they already have a Mac, and would primarily be running efficient Apple apps..

 

[jiv3turkey748]

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

it can run windows as wel as osx, but windows apps wont run in osx

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

With all of these rumors that are going around about Intel by MWSF 2006, and if Apple does not deliver as expected people are going to start refering to the 3GZ promises made by Jobs. We still might have to wait till June. Wait and see. Hopefully we will get them at MWSF 2006.

People may refer to the 3GHz flop, but that would be outright wrong. All these rumors about Intel Macs at MWSF'06 are just that - rumors, and as far as Apple are concerned their deadline is WWDC'06, since the only official comment from them was Steve's "by this time next year" during the WWDC'05 keynote. However it is not impossible, on the contrary,it is very likely, that Apple will show some x86 goodness either at MWSF or shortly thereafter.

 

[jayscheuerle]

it can run windows as wel as osx, but windows apps wont run in osx

Not completely true. Apple won't keep you from installing Windows (according to Phil Schiller), but they won't be supplying drivers..

 

[wilburpan]

Doesn't really matter if its money out the door or not, its still money that Apple have to spend, I'm guessing the cost of them developing their own OS is similar to that of buying one off Microsoft (if not more expensive). By developing its own OS Apple has to spend millions that Dell doesn't, that expenditure has to be recouped somehow, the most obvious way is the premium they place on the price of Apple hardware.

I think this is perfectly fine also, clearly a Mac with no extra software does a hell of a lot more than a new Dell PC with Windows XP installed only.

It is a major difference if there is money out the door versus an internal cost. Suppose it costs Apple $10,000,000 this year for OS X development. If Apple sells 100,000 Macs, their cost for OS X is $100 per computer. If Apple sells 500,000 Macs, their cost per Mac is $20 each. If Apple sells 1,000,000 computers, the cost per computer is $10 each. With greater sales, the unit cost for OS X development decreases. The cost of developing OS X does not change with the number of computers sold.

On the other hand, Dell pays for each computer they sell. If the Windows tax is $50 per computer, then if Dell sells 100,000 computers, they spend $5,000,000. If Dell sells 1,000,000 computers, then they are out $50,000,000 in costs. For Dell, they have to pay more for the OS the more computers that they sell.

 

[reflex]

But here's the kicker: Apple's profit on an Intel iBook will automatically be higher than Dell's profit on a similarly spec'ed notebook because Apple doesn't have to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for Windows.

On the other hand, Apple does have to pay all the people who develop MacOS X ... Dell doesn't.

 

[Mord]

It is a major difference if there is money out the door versus an internal cost. Suppose it costs Apple $10,000,000 this year for OS X development. If Apple sells 100,000 Macs, their cost for OS X is $100 per computer. If Apple sells 500,000 Macs, their cost per Mac is $20 each. If Apple sells 1,000,000 computers, the cost per computer is $10 each. With greater sales, the unit cost for OS X development decreases. The cost of developing OS X does not change with the number of computers sold.

On the other hand, Dell pays for each computer they sell. If the Windows tax is $50 per computer, then if Dell sells 100,000 computers, they spend $5,000,000. If Dell sells 1,000,000 computers, then they are out $50,000,000 in costs. For Dell, they have to pay more for the OS the more computers that they sell.

apple spends approximately 100 million a year on OS X (their total R&D budget is 500 million approx 30% of that is software and 70% of that is the OS) and they sell about 5 million macs a year so thats 20 bucks per mac, thats not includeing stand alone copys of the OS which account for about 80 million bucks a year profit so takeing that into account thats about 5 bucks per mac.

 

[kenaustus]

It is interesting for me to try to consider just what Apple is capable of delivering in January.

On the software side:

OS X is fine - it's been on x86 for 5 years.

Apple apps (excluding AppleWorks) have all been written to go x86.

iLife 06 will (I think) fully replace AppleWorks, including a spreadsheet and database.

On the hardware side:

Apple probably put a lot of work into Mactels before Steve J announced the switch and have been working rather hard since then. We're talking about not only engineers, but also the designers and software folks. They would basically have everything done and be ready to go on everything but the PMs.

Yonah is scheduled to be released in a dual core version in January. Dell and HP (along with others) are going to start selling it on Day One. Apple is now joining this group and, I believe, will launch the Mac lines the chip is destined to work in at MWSF. We're talking the iMac and PB.

The single core Yonah is scheduled a few months after the dual, but Celeron-M will work fine in the iBook and Mac mini lines, giving both a boost without being "better" than the iMac or PB.

Basically, Apple is in a position to release all 4 lines at MWSF. The big question is: Do they want to wait until the single core Yonah is ready before putting it into the mini and iBook? Would the be able to switch over to the Yonah when it is delivered without reworking anything else in the iBook? Tough choice for Apple.

The other interesting question goes to the fact that every time Intel introduces a new chip the PC makes have it on the market the same day. Is Apple going to join that group? I think they will and it's going to change Apple's upgrading schedule a lot - but isn't that what everyone wants? Faster speed bumps.

The scary part is that, if Apple announces a Mactel at MWSF, the chips and all components are in production today. The production trial runs are underway, or will be before then end of the month and the first boat loads of Mactels would be leaving port before Christmas.

 

[jayscheuerle]

apple spends approximately 100 million a year on OS X (their total R&D budget is 500 million approx 30% of that is software and 70% of that is the OS) and they sell about 5 million macs a year so thats 20 bucks per mac, thats not includeing stand alone copys of the OS which account for about 80 million bucks a year profit so takeing that into account thats about 5 bucks per mac.

If 30% of their R&D is software and 70% is the OS, that doesn't leave much room for all their cool hardware, does it? 😕

 

[shyataroo]

I'm still waiting to hear: "apple fools everyone, rumor sites with phony intel transition, Steve jobs Laughs his ass of as he introduces G5's based on the Cell design Quad-Cell G5's expected to ship by summer 2007"

 

[Mord]

no it's 70% of that 30%,oh and i made a mistake, OS X is 30% of that so it's like 7-8 bucks per mac, the R&D breaks down to 50% hardware 30% OS X 20% apps.

 

[Chacala_Nayarit]

I would love an Intel iBook! The price of a 12", 1GB DDR RAM, 100GB hard drive is way overpriced considering the hard drive speed of 4200rpm, 32MB of vram, older DDR SDRAM, the resolution, and G4 processor.

Bring on the Intel iBook! I will have enough for an iBook (even at current prices) by Jan. 2006.

 

[bbyrdhouse]

This will be perfect for the average user. Because most of the important functionality (internet, mail, ical, preview, etc) will be ported, the fact that there aren't that many third party software titles won't be a big deal. Besides, I'm sure a few apps such as office will debut along with the first intel macs.

Could it be that Apple also introduces an "Office like" app. A refinded Pages, updated Keynote and a spreadsheet App, and also it would be cool if they bought out Swift Publisher from BeLight Software.

 

[jayscheuerle]

I would love an Intel iBook! The price of a 12", 1GB DDR RAM, 100GB hard drive is way overpriced considering the hard drive speed of 4200rpm, 32MB of vram, older DDR SDRAM, the resolution, and G4 processor.

Bring on the Intel iBook! I will have enough for an iBook (even at current prices) by Jan. 2006.

What reason do you have for believing the specs other than the processor will change? (other than the incremental improvements normally made to overdue upgrades)

 

[generik]

Not that it might be possible, but has anyone else considered the possibility that Apple will actually sell the PPC models alongside their Intel lineup? With the PPC models being heavily discounted and all..

This might actually be a true show of commitment towards the universal binary system.

 

[efoto]

The single core Yonah is scheduled a few months after the dual, but Celeron-M will work fine in the iBook and Mac mini lines, giving both a boost without being "better" than the iMac or PB.

Something working on the side of Apple during this transition is that, in my belief, they don't need to worry about being better/faster than the current PPC offerings. The transition is going to take place but it isn't going to be a pickup-and-run type operation until all of the software goes fully x86 compatible. Even if the iBook had 'better' specs than the dual-proc PowerMac G5, I bet that G5 is going to be faster at doing work until there is no longer a need for Rosetta on any app and everything is x86 native.

Rosetta is stated at a 30% decrease in performance when running PPC apps on x86 hardware. With that fact, you could deduct that an iBook would have to be a minimum of 30% faster than the current offerings (perhaps more fair to compare it to *Books) to even 'compete' with them in productivity. The new products need to be at least 30% faster to overcome the performance lag Rosetta will cause, and even then that is assuming Rosetta works well and is usable. Try running PSCS2 with large files and mass-requirement filters and I bet you go running back to your PPC, even if it is 'only' a G4.

I expect great things from this transition, but certainly not right away. I think Apple expects great things as well, but they also realize it won't happen overnight, hence the move of the consumer lines first. Let the consumers figure it out so that when the people who compute on Macs for a living move over, it's all been worked out. You don't want to piss off/lose a $20,000+ per year customer simply because you decided to change processors. It makes sense to iron out the issues and then move the pros.

 

[Sunrunner]

Does anyone know if Apple is going to be actually using the "mactel" moniker? Or, is this just a phrase that has simply caught on with the computing public. Sounds catchy I think...

 

[jayscheuerle]

Does anyone know if Apple is going to be actually using the "mactel" moniker? Or, is this just a phrase that has simply caught on with the computing public. Sounds catchy I think...

Why would they advertise Intel's product via a name? Why tie themselves to Intel and away from AMD?

Being a Mac has NOTHING to do with the processor inside.

 

[iAFC]

Anybody knows when it starts to ship?

 

[jayscheuerle]

Anybody knows when it starts to ship?

The rumor seems to be shipping now..

 

[Mord]

yes, i work for apple and i'm just going to tell you, not think secret not macrumors just you in a forum post that they will ship on the 20th of january. 🙄

 

[wilburpan]

apple spends approximately 100 million a year on OS X (their total R&D budget is 500 million approx 30% of that is software and 70% of that is the OS) and they sell about 5 million macs a year so thats 20 bucks per mac, thats not includeing stand alone copys of the OS which account for about 80 million bucks a year profit so takeing that into account thats about 5 bucks per mac.

Thanks for putting in some hard numbers! My numbers were just for purposes of illustration.

Again, the fact that Apple's cost for the operating system is internal means that the more Macs they sell, the lower the per unit cost is for each machine, so their profit margin actually increases with each additional Mac sold.