Yes. Jobs provides strong leadership, vision and hollywood like charisma that has kept the media focused on Apple. Seems to me that in the keynotes, he always thanks the teams of people that have made what he is displaying successful. It is silly to think that one man could be responsible for all this success.hulugu said:
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.
Intel's New Image and Apple's Role
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maestro64
macrumors regular
pherplexed said:
This is about half true as is my statement above. They do call the machine by what we know as the processor inside. But I am not sure if it is all about the processor. The G means Generation, so the G3 was the 3rd generation of the PPC archectures and the archecture is more then the PPC chip inside there is a lot more that goes into it than just the PPC. I think the G name came about to get rid of the old PPC 6xx name because it sound too much like the X86 and it more of the "me too" idea that Apple has been trying to get away from and the old processor wars. I know some machine did show the G# in the name but if you look at the new PowerMac "G5" it does not say "G5" on the case. nor does it say IBM G5 inside.
I personally think they did a nice job of using the "G#" to help people distinguish the next generating in product offering verse trying to figure out what is new about it.
As we all know Apple has always about the entire experience (except for those mid 90 yrs) and not about the bits and bytes and Mhz and Ghz which the geeks of the world have made computers all about. This is changing, Apple is changing the perception back to what it use to be the total experience and not whether you have the fastest machine.
It will be interesting to see if Apple up or down plays what processor exists in the systems going forward and see if it all become hardward agnostic and its about the user experience and not who makes what part.
Maestro64 said:
It is not just the Intel's advertising dollars. It is mainly that 95% of market share out there (read hundreds of millions of people) will feel much more confident and will be much more likely to purchase such Mactel if it has the Intel sticker. And much, much, much more likely they will purchase such Mactel if it boots natively also as Windows and Linux. And even better with the real-time Intel virtualization technology to switch between OSes. NO OTHER COMPUTER COULD DO IT. That could boost Mac market share to the two-digit world and beyond! THAT IS THE REAL DEAL!!! And once they taste Mac OS X, they will not return to Windows or Linux... Apple would be fool not exploiting such strategic move! And then there is also the possibility to licensing Mac OS X to Dell and HP... The sky is the limit...
Maestro64
macrumors regular
Seasought said:
Your right Apple does not compete in the sense as we all know it. Compete means you and the next guy are in the same foot race. The problem with this is there is always someone better willing to try and knock you off the top. So Apple approach is not to compete but to create their own market and make others figure out what race to be in.
There is an old saying, if you build a better mouse trap people will beat your door down to get it. This how Apple thinks, if you have the best product people will want it. For this to work it take a very focus leader with a single minded visions and for years Apple did not have it so they ended up in the foot race.
Here is another fact about their strategy which is not talked about much. Apple knew this a long time ago, people who have a very strong childhood memory about something tend to use those memories in the future to make decission. Back in the 80's apple practically gave computers to schools and colleges because they knew this and these same people would then choose a Mac in their future. This was beginning to pay off when the company went south. Apple is doing it again with the ipod. Kids ipod experience are so great right now they most likely will buy Apple in the future unless Apple faulters again.
So their advertising is very subtle and it about creating a memorable life experience.
Intel had never made good procesor (never ever) . The Motorola, IBM and also AMD had made always x-times faster processors.
Don´t belive that Pentium M and Core Duo is really so fast and consumes so less power in fast mode (they are only fast on paper tests).
I don´t want Mercedes with Honda motor inside.
Don´t belive that Pentium M and Core Duo is really so fast and consumes so less power in fast mode (they are only fast on paper tests).
I don´t want Mercedes with Honda motor inside.
Randall
macrumors 6502a
When the harware ROM is loaded it doesn't chime, it makes the old-skool DOS beep from an internal speaker. In fact, some of the newer PCs don't even make the sound, since they are sans internal speaker. The chime for the OS is the typical Windows chime, which must be what you're referring to.m-dogg said:
Norse Son
macrumors regular
The computer world doesn't buy computers. People buy computers.
So, maybe the whole computer world does know about Apple's iPod/iTMS success, and of the impending switch to Intel CPUs, but the general public is "generally" clueless. And that's not necessarily Apple's fault, but they've done next to nothing to change the public's perception.
All their marketing efforts seem to revolve around the iPod + iTMS, while they've sat back (almost) expecting that the "iPod Halo Effect" will naturally draw people by the millions to their nearest Apple Store where they will be mesmerized by the shiny Macs and plunk down their hard earned coin to join the cult...
The so-called "halo effect" is one of the few reasons people even come to find out that Apple: a) still makes computers and/or b) that they make them at all... The only other place people may have seen a lot of Macs was in a public school - back when Apple still commanded as much as 30% of that market...
So, no, I don't think Apple has made any serious effort to market the Mac to "the world at large". And, seeing as how a majority of their revenues STILL come from selling MacOS X hardware & software, that attitude needs to change with this Intel transition.
Okay, maybe I'm nitpicking, but outside of the industry most people have limited knowledge of Apple's Mac. And how many of these millions of people that are buying the latest iPod because, "Their kid just has to have one for XMas, or their friends will think they're losers" even know that Apple makes computers... Do they have to rely upon the Apple Stores - the nearest one to me is through 20-30 minutes of traffic... And you won't find them at Best Buy or Circuit City...Peace said:
So, maybe the whole computer world does know about Apple's iPod/iTMS success, and of the impending switch to Intel CPUs, but the general public is "generally" clueless. And that's not necessarily Apple's fault, but they've done next to nothing to change the public's perception.
All their marketing efforts seem to revolve around the iPod + iTMS, while they've sat back (almost) expecting that the "iPod Halo Effect" will naturally draw people by the millions to their nearest Apple Store where they will be mesmerized by the shiny Macs and plunk down their hard earned coin to join the cult...
The so-called "halo effect" is one of the few reasons people even come to find out that Apple: a) still makes computers and/or b) that they make them at all... The only other place people may have seen a lot of Macs was in a public school - back when Apple still commanded as much as 30% of that market...
So, no, I don't think Apple has made any serious effort to market the Mac to "the world at large". And, seeing as how a majority of their revenues STILL come from selling MacOS X hardware & software, that attitude needs to change with this Intel transition.
Randall
macrumors 6502a
Why would Apple continue to maintain this type of margin (besides for greed and to make shareholders happy)? I'm sure that Apple has some sort of deal worked out with Intel that they pay for some R&D, but it shouldn't nearly be as much as it was for them to pay IBM, since intel is already collecting from PC manufacturers for R&D. Besides the fact that Intel will be driven by it's competition (read: AMD) to do it's own R&D. Therefore, Apple can merely come along for the ride as far as intel innovation is concerned. Apple can just ride the intel roadmap to success.kenaustus said:
Randall said:
Sure, but with battery it will be one hour of top perfomance +heat blower
and with battery performance you will have one core shut off and the other one will run on 600Mhz and you will wonder why the hell you must wait for every thing to open . I alredy have Intel in company laptop: IBM 2Ghz Pent.M and I tell you its sucks (-processor)
beware
I'm not yet convinced about the intel chips. I say, if you're in the market for a new mac, but it now. Tried, tested and true...the last generation of "pure" mac. Let the people with money to burn fork out the $krilla for the new macs and they can be the lab rats for this technical experiment. I'm telling you now, the latest versions of the current models (non-intel based) are going to be collectors items. They will hold their value much more than you think. Let them work out the bugs with the new intel chips and then buy a new mac once they've figured it all out. I'm no tech genius, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that there is alot of money at stake with intel involved. The bottom line for them is "cheaper", not better. If better was the way the real world worked, macs would outsell PCs. It's all a marketing scheme. I'm skeptical about the clock speeds and actual performance on the new chips. I'll have to see it to believe it so i'd wait if you wanna buy a new mac with the intel chip. Just my opinion. Hopefully the transition will work out in the end, otherwise this is the end of an era. 😕 Happy new year!!!😀
I'm not yet convinced about the intel chips. I say, if you're in the market for a new mac, but it now. Tried, tested and true...the last generation of "pure" mac. Let the people with money to burn fork out the $krilla for the new macs and they can be the lab rats for this technical experiment. I'm telling you now, the latest versions of the current models (non-intel based) are going to be collectors items. They will hold their value much more than you think. Let them work out the bugs with the new intel chips and then buy a new mac once they've figured it all out. I'm no tech genius, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that there is alot of money at stake with intel involved. The bottom line for them is "cheaper", not better. If better was the way the real world worked, macs would outsell PCs. It's all a marketing scheme. I'm skeptical about the clock speeds and actual performance on the new chips. I'll have to see it to believe it so i'd wait if you wanna buy a new mac with the intel chip. Just my opinion. Hopefully the transition will work out in the end, otherwise this is the end of an era. 😕 Happy new year!!!😀
Randall
macrumors 6502a
All Centrino is is a brand name from Intel that couples the Pentium M (now called Core Duo) with intel's 802.11 wireless networking chipset, along with the intel pro/wireless mini PCI card, and the Intel 855 chipset. Just think of Centrino Duo as a Core Duo with more of a drain on battery life. 😛nsjoker said:
Intel vs Power PC
This is what i'm very skeptical about. Intel manufactures CISC (complex instruction set computing) processors, whereas the current mac PowerPC processors are RISC based (reduced instruction set computing). This means a 3 ghz Intel based system will not run any faster than a 1.5 ghz PowerPC based system (it could run slower). Also, the current RISC processors have a superior floating point. Doesn't anybody else think the Intel element is a big scam that could possibly ruin a good thing apple's got going right now? Am i off base here or is there some magic processor being made by Intel that will do the same job as efficiently as the power pc's? Those CISC processors, even if they go with a 64 bit version will be inferior to the power pc RISC ones currently utilized by apple!! BUY YOUR MACs now if you are in the market for a new one!! more info on risc vs. cisc:
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/
This is what i'm very skeptical about. Intel manufactures CISC (complex instruction set computing) processors, whereas the current mac PowerPC processors are RISC based (reduced instruction set computing). This means a 3 ghz Intel based system will not run any faster than a 1.5 ghz PowerPC based system (it could run slower). Also, the current RISC processors have a superior floating point. Doesn't anybody else think the Intel element is a big scam that could possibly ruin a good thing apple's got going right now? Am i off base here or is there some magic processor being made by Intel that will do the same job as efficiently as the power pc's? Those CISC processors, even if they go with a 64 bit version will be inferior to the power pc RISC ones currently utilized by apple!! BUY YOUR MACs now if you are in the market for a new one!! more info on risc vs. cisc:
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/
Randall
macrumors 6502a
That is complete and utter ********. CISC and RISC architectures are important to the machine assembly code. The number of instructions that you can run per clock cycle is what makes for powerful computing. The architecture doesn't matter. It's the machine interpreter and compiler efficency that writes the assembly so the CPU can execute is important, not the architecture itself.Soulivar said: