Intel iBooks with Front Row?

[Elrond39]

I don't mean to focus solely on the aesthetic factor, but...

This spring Apple is expected to roll-out the a new series of iBook consumer laptops built around a 13-inch widescreen display. The new models will sport the first major design revision to the iBook in several years and come bundled with both Front Row and the Apple Remote, people familiar with the company's plans tell AppleInsider.

from the article, which has apparently gone unnoticed by many posters...(my bolding)
Oh, and one more thing...

One person who claims to have caught a glimpse of the nearly-finalized prototype describes it as a slightly-smaller cousin to the recently introduced MacBook Pro, but clad in iMac white.

Of interest, those people familiar with Apple's plans say the company at one point seriously considered adding a black-colored Intel iBook model to its offering. However, no such model has ever been seen, and with the development of the new laptops winding down, this option seems unlikely.

As for the more important stuff.... I would love a Duo, but I can see Apple's point in using a Solo for now. Don't be surprised if, if/when the MBP are boosted later in the year, the MB (iB) get Duos.

iSight and FrontRow would be nice, very consumer oriented, and that is what the MB (iB) is after all.

 

[Bonte]

Of course, Apple may not even use the Core chips in the new iBook, and could use the Celeron M instead (it is a consumer notebook, after all). This would take quite a hit in Rosetta, however, and I think it is an unlikely choice.

Rosetta is far to important at the moment so it has to be a core duo for the iBook. 6 months from now the iBook with a core duo and a spiced up Macbook pro seems very plausible to me. Then all G5's go quad and the mini turning into a media center device.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

It's silly to think (dream) that Apple is going to make a consumer laptop as full featured as the $1299 Intel iMac and sell it for $999. Not going to happen.

It's also silly to think (dream) that Apple is going to make a computer laptop as fully featured as the $1999 MBP and sell it for 30% less under a different name.

No, the next iBook, MacBook, or whatever it's named, will certainly be crippled just as Apple crippled the current iBook. It will be a great machine, no doubt, but don't expect it to compete with the MBP.

Also, Front Row will be part of the OS in 10.5, just as iChat is now part of 10.4. Apple is doing this to better compete with Vista, which will incorporate Win Media Center in it's consumer versions. (There will no longer be a Media Center version of Win).

 

[javiercr]

Hopefully, they'll use Core-Duo chips rather than the upcoming Core-Solo chips. Also, Apple should put a higher-rez screen and allow extended-video rather than just mirroring.

It won't be Core Duo, apple has to differenciate the MacBookPro (powerbook) from the lower end ibook (MacBook?)

 

[Hattig]

Core Solo is $40 less than the Core Duo. It's a Core Duo with a defective core, so basically an updated Pentium M in that it is single core with 2MB cache.

Certainly I think the iBook will have:

- Celeron M based upon Core Solo (1MB L2 cache).
- Integrated Graphics (Intel GMA950)
- 60GB HD

and it will remain at $999.

If we're lucky, Apple may utilise an X1300 for the graphics instead of the integrated variant. It may only offer this on a higher specification model.

I don't see Apple wanting to lose the $999 pricepoint, so they'll make cuts until they can afford to make one at that price point. Some people said that the 1.33GHz G4 was probably costing Apple $50. The Core Solo is over $200, even if Apple get a volume discount it won't be approaching the G4's price.

 

[Legacy]

Core Solo is $40 less than the Core Duo. It's a Core Duo with a defective core, so basically an updated Pentium M in that it is single core with 2MB cache.

Certainly I think the iBook will have:

- Celeron M based upon Core Solo (1MB L2 cache).
- Integrated Graphics (Intel GMA950)
- 60GB HD

and it will remain at $999.

If we're lucky, Apple may utilise an X1300 for the graphics instead of the integrated variant. It may only offer this on a higher specification model.

I don't see Apple wanting to lose the $999 pricepoint, so they'll make cuts until they can afford to make one at that price point. Some people said that the 1.33GHz G4 was probably costing Apple $50. The Core Solo is over $200, even if Apple get a volume discount it won't be approaching the G4's price.

NO WAY am I paying £700 to buy a laptop with integrated graphics and a Celeron..sorry mate. I know Apple is stingy but not that stingy. That would just make them look silly...

 

[corywoolf]

In other news... there is no news.

 

[Hattig]

NO WAY am I paying £700 to buy a laptop with integrated graphics and a Celeron..sorry mate. I know Apple is stingy but not that stingy. That would just make them look silly...

Yeah, but Core Solo isn't much cheaper than Core Duo (i.e., not worth utilising), and I'm fairly certain that the number of cores will be a differentiator between the laptop lines.

It might use an X1300 with HyperMemory (uses system memory, but as PCIe is pretty fast it performs quite well, especially if it has a local memory that is very fast, even if it is small).

Remember it'll have the iSight and the remote control, and the software. That's all worth something. If you're lucky it'll be $899...

 

[Legacy]

Yeah, but Core Solo isn't much cheaper than Core Duo (i.e., not worth utilising), and I'm fairly certain that the number of cores will be a differentiator between the laptop lines.

It might use an X1300 with HyperMemory (uses system memory, but as PCIe is pretty fast it performs quite well, especially if it has a local memory that is very fast, even if it is small).

Remember it'll have the iSight and the remote control, and the software. That's all worth something. If you're lucky it'll be $899...

No chance..unless you upgrade the RAM..running OS X on 450Megs of Ram...ouch thats like running XP with 192Mb RAM..

 

[MarcelV]

The new iBook (MacBook) will almost certainly have a Core Solo processor, otherwise it will cannibalize MacBook Pro sales. Furthermore, the recent article which I believe was in Forbes about how much Apple is paying for the Core Duo implies that it is a very expensive chip (Probably more than twice as much as the G4 in the iBook), and putting it in an iBook would cut profit margins dramatically.

Not necessarily. The 12" iBook and Powerbook have a G4, right? And the iBook G4 didn't cannabalize the PowerBook G4 sales either.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Not necessarily. The 12" iBook and Powerbook have a G4, right? And the iBook G4 didn't cannabalize the PowerBook G4 sales either.

Since Apple only releases sales numbers in the aggregate and not by model, we have NO IDEA. (Personally, I suspect the 12" iBook G4 did canibalize the 12" PB sales)

However, we do know that the majority of current Apple software doesn't run well on a G3, so Apple had no choice but to give the iBook a G4. With the Core Sole being pretty powerful on it's own, Apple isn't forced to give the iBook and MBP chip parity any longer.

As said, there is no reason to expect that the Intel iBook will have anything close to the MBP specs. Apple will cripple it, and it will be at least 30% slower than the slowest MBP. I think the iBook will be a very compelling consumer product, but it will clearly be a consumer product.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Certainly I think the iBook will have:

- Celeron M based upon Core Solo (1MB L2 cache).
- Integrated Graphics (Intel GMA950)
- 60GB HD

I disagree. The Celeron is perhaps the worlds lousiest chip. That is what they put in the $399 Black Friday PC craptops. I doubt Jobs is going to allow the iBook to be contaminated with such a weasly chip. Besides, what right minded person would pay $1000 for a laptop with a Celeron?

Then the Integrated Graphics. That is another no go, and here is why...CORE VIDEO. Integrated Graphics share the CPU memory. That completly undermines the whole theory of Core Video, which uses VRAM to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU RAM to do other tasks. You will never see Integrated Graphics in a Mac unless Jobs completely sells out to Intel.

 

[rockthecasbah]

i don't know about the rest of you, but why does Apple feel the need to incorporate cameras in everything now? All they are doing is just tarnishing the beauty of the machines and making them ugly with more bulk up top and cheap looking like..a Compaq or whatever

 

[MarcelV]

A Skype upgrade would certainly help move this concept into reality since I don't know many other people with a Mac (and therefore iChat AV) but I do know quite a few with Skype on their PC.

If 'Mobile Me' will indeed be true, Skype may not be needed. What if part of Mobile Me is a cross platform iChat/AV AND has a bridge to PSTN? All build into your iTunes account.. Just dreaming?

 

[Hattig]

I disagree. The Celeron is perhaps the worlds lousiest chip. That is what they put in the $399 Black Friday PC craptops. I doubt Jobs is going to allow the iBook to be contaminated with such a weasly chip. Besides, what right minded person would pay $1000 for a laptop with a Celeron?

Then the Integrated Graphics. That is another no go, and here is why...CORE VIDEO. Integrated Graphics share the CPU memory. That completly undermines the whole theory of Core Video, which uses VRAM to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU RAM to do other tasks. You will never see Integrated Graphics in a Mac unless Jobs completely sells out to Intel.

CoreVideo uses the GPU to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU to do other tasks.

The memory aspect is irrelevant.

Mac OS X supports intel integrated graphics, and has done since the developer machines. They aren't *that* bad, they just aren't as nice as discrete solutions.

A Celeron M based upon a Yonah core certainly wouldn't be that lousy. It isn't a Celeron based off of a Pentium 4 - they were dire indeed. Indeed the current Celeron Ms (Dothan core) are better than the previous generation Pentium Ms (Banias).

I certainly think a 1.6GHz Celeron M (either current generation or the next generation) would beat a 1.6GHz G4 in most things, apart from SIMD (Altivec/SSE*). And it'd be a lot cheaper.

I don't think you would get better than a system with either:

a) Celeron M with X1300
b) Core Duo with Intel integrated graphics

They've got to cut costs *somewhere* to meeth the price points.

OTOH, the 17" iMac is $1299, and that has a Core Duo and X1600 graphics ... so cut $300 off the price (i.e, about $200 off the BOM) and use laptop components, and you might have the next iBook.

 

[mccldwll]

Spring is a long season. Why not announce laptop specs April 1 to ship mid summer, but bring out new mac mini first. Grab more converts and market share in video area, get more bugs out in less demanding environment, then meet demand for back to school LapMac sales.

 

[MarcelV]

As said, there is no reason to expect that the Intel iBook will have anything close to the MBP specs. Apple will cripple it, and it will be at least 30% slower than the slowest MBP. I think the iBook will be a very compelling consumer product, but it will clearly be a consumer product.

Agree with you, it will be a consumer product. But so is the iBook. There's no difference. I have to disagree with anyone that will think it will have single core. Any rosetta app will be much too slow. Second, Firewire will be there. Too may consumer camcorders rely on this. But it will be 400, not 800. No need for in consumer models.

but what do you mean by crippled? Do you expect 256MB or 128MB of vram? Not in a low/mid budget laptop. That's just unrealistic. But that's not crippling a product. It's just balancing product between cost and features, while still providing an adequate product for the majority of consumers.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I've been hoping Apple would put out a barebones laptop in the $600-$800 range. Maybe this is where the iBook is headed.

iBook - no iSight, no Front Row, single core, $799 and $999

MacBook - iSight, Front Row with remote, single core (maybe duo), $1299 and $1599

I'm not sure what the screen sizes would be in this configuration, though.

I could definitely see the iBook scaling down a bit to the Mac Mini's level. With such a basic computer, I just wonder how many people would need an iSight, or use it if they had it. I think that in the education market, especially, an iSight is not necessary.

Also, if it cuts the price down, I think cutting the iSight is a good idea.

The iSight/FR will never be cut. The whole idea of a mac mini is to entice users to switch. A cheep @** desktop that has ALL of the functionability of a powermac, but is just so slow that if you want to really USE it for anything more than email and the like, you can't without it lagging or upgrading it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see apple introduce a new iBook, that's the equivilent of the iPod Nano. über thin, and uses an iPod hard drive.
13.3" screen
solo core
64mb graphics card
40-60gig hard drive
512mb RAM (only one DIMM like the mac mini)
CD+RW/DVD drive
no PC card slots
BT, Firewire 400, USB 2.0, and wireless G connectivity all standard
<<1" thick.

It would retail for around $799 +/- and have no configuration options to save costs.

P.S. Does anyone know what key combo to use to get the +/- as one "letter"?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

CoreVideo uses the GPU to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU to do other tasks.

The memory aspect is irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

And that is why programs dependant on Core Video (like Motion) get faster as VRAM increases?

But hey, here is what Apple writes on it's Core Image info page
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/:

"When a programmable GPU is present, Core Image utilizes the graphics card for image processing operations, freeing the CPU for other tasks. And if you have a high-performance card with increased video memory (VRAM), you'll find real-time responsiveness across a wide variety of operations."

Did you note how increased VRAM is needed for real time effects?

As I said, you'll never see shared memory integrated video on a Mac.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

what do you mean by crippled? Do you expect 256MB or 128MB of vram? Not in a low/mid budget laptop. That's just unrealistic. But that's not crippling a product.

No, by crippling I mean Apple intentionally slowing the bus down, underclocking the chip, lowering the cache, or something to make the hardware 20% or so slower than the low-end MBP.

But with iMovie now having real-time effects I do expect that 128MB VRAM will be the min. standard for Intel Macs. You can already get a 256MB card for the iMac which is pretty amazing considering how behind the times Mac video cards have been in the past.

 

[Policar]

Where in Intel's roadmap does it show that there will be no speed bumps for the Core Duo for the next 6 months? Of course there will be speed bumps. The fastest chip will, however, continue to be significantly more expensive then the rest, and will probably not make its way into the MBP. And Apple CAN underclock chips (I know, it sounds stupid, but so is buying a Core Solo for the same price as a Core Duo) if it feels it really needs to cripple the iBook to differentiate them from the MacBook Pro.

In Intel's roadmap it shows a single speed boost to 2.33mhz later in the year, then the introduction of Merom. So, theoretically, we could get a 2.16ghz 17'' MacBook at a 2ghz 15'' but it's NOT very likely since that's not significant news. So I'm sticking with the fastest MacBook beign 2ghz until Merom's release. (Which is not so far away.) So please, realize that these roadmaps ARE public and aren't magic. Sure, they can be changed, but it's very rare that a random faster processor appears. Intel's not all smoke and mirrors like Apple is, and what we gain in performance will be lost in "surprise factor," at least in terms of the excitement of new announcements. On the plus side, this means Apple must rely on innovating instead of putting in a new processor and making up numbers. (4-5 times faster!....hardly.)

Lastly, Apple can't just underclock Intel's chips. There's crippling, then there's being unbelievably stupid. The backlash would be remarkable, and the process by which you underclock a chip (adjusting the multiplier in the BIOS) is convoluted and not necessarily stable since it requires underclocking the RAM, too, I believe. Apple's not doing it. A Core Solo (dumb as it may be) is realistic, although bad for the consumer. If the low end model has it, fine. It's a savings of $30. If the high end model has it, it's just crippling the computer. Maybe we'll get a 13'' MacBook that runs that fast, though, to compete with the current 12''?

And I wouldn't be surprised if Apple used cheaper RAM in the iBook, too, since the RAM in the MacBook is extremely high performance.

 

[Beck446]

Updating the design ("form factor") is the most important thing here. The current design is really starting to look thick and old... The ibook could be half as thick as it is now, especially if they use a core solo and if they use intel's integrated graphics chip. This thing could be TINY

 

[intlplby]

with regards to front row with remote, they may advertise it as "front row capable"


kind of like when the airport extreme cards were optional in the powerbooks.... it said "airport extreme ready" as in you can have the airport extreme inside but you have to buy that part yourself.....

i could see it having front row and the IR port, but if you want to use that part you need to buy the remote separately for $40-50.....

 

[maya]

P.S. Does anyone know what key combo to use to get the +/- as one "letter"?

Option+Shift+"+" = ±

 

[smharmon]

It sounds pretty lame - Macbook, Macbook Pro. Argh, I just cannot get over the names.

If you think about it, doesn't iBook sound just as dumb? I love mine, but the whole "i" thing is old, and doesn't make much sense... the whole "WOW" factor of the "i"nternet has worn off. MacBook makes much more since... and I feel the same way about PowerBook, as both units use a "Power" PC processor...