Small Form Factor(SFF) - return the Cube?

[applebum]

Assume that this is the case, for a moment. I'll play nice and grant for a moment that there could be 100 consumers for every professional user (unlikely, but we'll play that game).

For ten sales to professional users, calling the costs $50 per unit:
1000 x $1,000 = $100,000 ; $100,000 - 50,000 = $50,000
10 X $5,000 = $50,000 ; $50,0000 - $500 = $45,500 and less logistical issues

Sales to professionals tend to be far more profitable, and $5,000 for a serious workstation is peanuts.

Ummm check those numbers - my handy Mac calculator tells me that
1000 x $1000 = $1,000,000 - so the rest of your post just goes down the drain from there; it just doesn't have the same effect. The part above that, I agree with that wholeheartedly though.

 

[cyberddot]

Thanks

...for not completely hijacking the thread. I think DHM and thatwendigo need to start their own X-fire IRC program.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thatwendigo How do you get off that alienware is overpriced when a Base alienware exceeds every componet in a Apple G5 1.6? the 3200+ has more muscle and 400 more mhz, the video card it comes with is fx5200 128 mb while apple is using a 64mb fx5200 and you can option up or down almost every componet in the machine so lets get your facts correct. who is overpriced?

Then look at options i mean 9800xt today while it still is not out for Macs, 9600xt for 30 bucks while Apple charges 50 bucks for last years 9600 pro? who is overpriced?

You seem to want to just argue even though some of your arguments are hollow like calling Alienware overpriced when it uses newer and faster technology and cost less? am i missing something? a base Aurora is $1607 vs a base G5 for $1799. so you have a machine that is technically speaking superior and cost almost $200 less overpriced?
I know you love Mac but when black is black you should not insist its not.

Fact is Apple charges more for slower componets and with marketshare declining they will have to do so even more. with little marketshare its not like they can go to ATI and tell them to lower the price or they will use....use what? ATI can tell Apple what it will sell boards to Apple for because of Apple's fraction of the new market. If Apple quit ATI it wouldnt do a whole lot but if ATI quit Apple it would be different. Marketshare does matter and this is only 1 componet inside the Mac. Remember 50% of the machine is still regular PC parts. now start negotiating prices for those other parts with vendors and manufactors and you will discover that marketshare does matter.
also please no more stories of toothless buddies edit sorry for getting off post.

 

[cyberddot]

<snip>Shuttle cases are interesting, but there's very little incentive in them for a company like Apple.

...as evidenced by the Cube dropping out of the market? Once they thought there was incentive for a Shuttle-like system. I'm just curious about whether the market might be going in that direction now (eg, the rising popularity of SFF PC's) combining with the ever-present rumors (in this case Cube-ic) giving strong support to a move back to an upgradable and updated Cube.

I'm not complaining, just pondering. I really don't need a monolith with a G5(s) and lots of room for expansion. I want a mini tower or smaller, not another iMac, with some upgradability and the longevity that such a system provides. This can, of course, run counter to planned obsolescence and the sale of new systems.



The upside for me is that I'm not in a hurry and that I really would rather wait and see what's around the corner in 2004 for Apple before I build a PC for myself. The worst that happens is that I buy a Shuttle-like barebone and build the beast that I want.

dot

/edit - shpelling. DHM - np Don't let it happen again..HA...HAHA...HAH

 

[thatwendigo]

Ummm check those numbers - my handy Mac calculator tells me that
1000 x $1000 = $1,000,000 - so the rest of your post just goes down the drain from there; it just doesn't have the same effect. The part above that, I agree with that wholeheartedly though.

Ouch... Yeah, doing math after eight hours of work and not enough sleep was probably a bad idea. I knew I'd embarass myself along there somewhere.

Thatwendigo How do you get off that alienware is overpriced when a Base alienware exceeds every componet in a Apple G5 1.6? the 3200+ has more muscle and 400 more mhz, the video card it comes with is fx5200 128 mb while apple is using a 64mb fx5200 and you can option up or down almost every componet in the machine so lets get your facts correct. who is overpriced?

Once again, let me try to put this in words that you'll understand... When I say that they're ridiculously overpriced, I'm talking about building your own machine, which is something we can't really do on the mac side of things. In the PC market, there is very little reason not to just buy the parts yourself and assemble them. Alienware, compared to most whitebox shops and doing the work yourself, is hideously overpriced.

You seem to want to just argue even though some of your arguments are hollow like calling Alienware overpriced when it uses newer and faster technology and cost less? am i missing something?

Yes, you are missing something, and no, my arguments aren't hollow. You just don't understand them. Ever.

Fact is Apple charges more for slower componets and with marketshare declining they will have to do so even more. with little marketshare its not like they can go to ATI and tell them to lower the price or they will use....use what? ATI can tell Apple what it will sell boards to Apple for because of Apple's fraction of the new market.

*perks*

Wait, what? Is that a glimmer of something relevant I see?

If Apple quit ATI it wouldnt do a whole lot but if ATI quit Apple it would be different. Marketshare does matter and this is only 1 componet inside the Mac. Remember 50% of the machine is still regular PC parts. now start negotiating prices for those other parts with vendors and manufactors and you will discover that marketshare does matter.

This is a historic moment, in that I think DHM and I actually agree on something. Yes, the deals that Apple has with ATI and Nvidia are important, and they do have something to do with market share. However, I seriously doubt that they're nearly as reliant on then as you seem to think they are, aside from the simple fact of economies of scale (which I've been throwing at you over, and over, and over...). Fewer machines means smaller productions runs, which means less profit for ATI/Nvidia if they sell them at the same price as other cards, and so they charge more. That's just how it's going to be, and it won't change much regardless of the number of macs sold.

They know that there is no serious competition from anyone else. Where else is Apple going to get cards, after all? They're the only game in town, and this has a lot more to do with the other companies than Apple.

also please no more stories of toothless buddies

Hey, you're the one who argues like the toothless crackhead. I can't help that!

 

[Rower_CPU]

Keep it civil.

Any more insults - thinly veiled or otherwise - will result in a temporary ban of the offender and the thread being closed.

 

[aswitcher]

If they bring out the low end PowerMac as a G5Cube, how much do you think they could knock off the sticker price compared to the current 1.6 price point? $300 US? More?
Lets assume you get 1 slot not 3...only room for 1 harddisk...what ever chip/processor is the bottom of the next release (2Ghz?)...

 

[thatwendigo]

Keep it civil.

Any more insults - thinly veiled or otherwise - will result in a temporary ban of the offender and the thread being closed.

Does that mean I can PM you the next time he insults me?

 

[thatwendigo]

If they bring out the low end PowerMac as a G5Cube, how much do you think they could knock off the sticker price compared to the current 1.6 price point? $300 US? More?
Lets assume you get 1 slot not 3...only room for 1 harddisk...what ever chip/processor is the bottom of the next release (2Ghz?)...

Knock off? You're kidding, right?

Not only are you talking about shrinking the motherboard as a whole, but also needing to fit all of that in a much smaller, lower airflow case, with fewer fans and less room for convection to take care of the worst of the dispersal needs. Even if there's a small savings on connectors on the boards, it will still mean a whole new motherboard design, and possibly a new ASIC (does anyone know if Apple uses a different ASIC for single and dual machines?).

There were some good reasons that he cube was more expensive and lower performing than its bretheren.

 

[aswitcher]

Knock off? You're kidding, right?

Ah, no. ?Knock off?

Not only are you talking about shrinking the motherboard as a whole, but also needing to fit all of that in a much smaller, lower airflow case, with fewer fans and less room for convection to take care of the worst of the dispersal needs. Even if there's a small savings on connectors on the boards, it will still mean a whole new motherboard design, and possibly a new ASIC (does anyone know if Apple uses a different ASIC for single and dual machines?).

There were some good reasons that he cube was more expensive and lower performing than its bretheren.

I think there is a sizeable niche, as others have commented, for a single processor, small form factor G5 machine sans monitor.

I understand its smaller, but its also a single processor, and not the fastest but the slowest of the G5s for the next rev. If they can cool a laptop then they can surely cool this and keep the noise down even with a smaller shell. There are plenty of small form factor PCs out there with fast processors and big graphics cards, so I don't see this as much of an issue.

Price point might be as, as you say their are R&D and manufacturing overheads.

I still think its worth consideration.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Does that mean I can PM you the next time he insults me?

Use the report post feature (as anyone should do if they see a post in violation of forum rules) - just click on the exclamation point sign under the member's information and fill out the form.

 

[thatwendigo]

I understand its smaller, but its also a single processor, and not the fastest but the slowest of the G5s for the next rev. If they can cool a laptop then they can surely cool this and keep the noise down even with a smaller shell. There are plenty of small form factor PCs out there with fast processors and big graphics cards, so I don't see this as much of an issue.

As you might have noticed, we haven't seen any G5 laptops yet, so we don't know if they can cool one just yet. For all we know, the 970 isn't going portable for another year, just like the G4 took around a year and a half to make the leap of format. Also, as you might be forgetting, Apple does elegant hardware design, not cheap stamped boxees that look, frankly, like some kind of strange Gamecube mutation on steroids.

Those small formfactor machines aren't as quiet as, say, my eMac, though. After the whole "wind tunnel" G4 debacle, I think that's an important thing to consider...

I still think its worth consideration.

Oh, no doubt... It's worth considering, but the important thing is to keep a solid head on our shoulders while we're doing so.

 

[ravenvii]

On the ATI/nVidia graphics cards, why couldn't Apple use regular, off-the-shelve cards instead of the Mac-specific ones they use? Wouldn't that save on costs and help them keep up with the PC side, updates-wise?

 

[rdowns]

If they bring out the low end PowerMac as a G5Cube, how much do you think they could knock off the sticker price compared to the current 1.6 price point? $300 US? More?
Lets assume you get 1 slot not 3...only room for 1 harddisk...what ever chip/processor is the bottom of the next release (2Ghz?)...

$300-$500 would be realistic to ideal. It's what I want, don't really care about the price. I can afford whatever I want and I don't want the aluminum beast.

 

[aswitcher]

$300-$500 would be realistic to ideal. It's what I want, don't really care about the price. I can afford whatever I want and I don't want the aluminum beast.

If you take a look at the design

http://www.apple.com/powermac/design.html

removing one processor knocks off about a quarter of the housing requirement.

Knocking off the feet and handles would save significant space as well.

I am sure that the DVD could be slimmed down and the need for only 1 harddisk could save some space.

I think its doable even with current parts to cut it by a third in size. If they put the disk drives and power plant paraelle and vertical to the design it would halve the height and only increase the width by a half, although they would likely need doors on either side to make the unit fully accessible - not that they have to.

Anyway I am sure they could do soemthing like this if they felt the market was there.

 

[stoid]

<snip>I never said it's ideal, just that it's the situation as it stands, and not the horrible emergency that you seem to think it is. Like others have pointed out, BMW has less than 2% of the car market, but you don't see people saying that they're going out of business.<snip>

Yes, but, remember BMW uses exactly the same gasoline and picks up the same radio stations as any other car. Apple depends on other companies to see them as a viable market. If BMW depended on radio stations to broadcast differently JUST for them, or required the refineries to have a new plant built JUST for their cars, they wouldn't stay in business too long I think.

 

[cait-sith]

I might be willing to accept that there are 500 million people in the world who could afford a truly modern computer. You seem to be expressing the same lack of basic economics that you show off in other places, since roughly two to three fifths of the wealth of the world is in America, while only about 300 million people live here. According to the US Census Beureau, the United States population is 292,943,042, out of a total world population of 6,359,514,472. That's only 4.6% of the world possessing some 40-60% of the wealth. Let's say that there's only a billion dollars to go around, all over the world. In other words, 95.4% of the world is splitting up about the same amount of money as our 4.6% are.

according to the world bank, the top 15% of the world population (which would be 900M people) own 62.9% of world wealth. it would be more accurate to talk of the '1st world', and change the figure from 95/5 to 85/15.

the 900M would include the richer people in america, most of western europe, canada, japan, australia, etc.

then, lets not forget that subdivided, the median income of these countries is around 30 000$/an. this is pretty slim for someone to want to buy a new computer with. so the % of people who can afford computers in each country is, say, around 66/34, saying that only 34% of people could afford.
thats only about 300M.

so, when worked out, the figures are pretty close to your estimates. these can't really be argued.

 

[Koodauw]

$300-$500 would be realistic to ideal. It's what I want, don't really care about the price. I can afford whatever I want and I don't want the aluminum beast.

Want to place an order for 2 G5 cubes and send me one when they come out then? Cause I know you want to help those without a Cube right?

Please Please Please

Man now anything other than a G5 cube is going to disappoint me. Well maybe not the new iMac could still be darn cool.

 

[aswitcher]

Want to place an order for 2 G5 cubes and send me one when they come out then? Cause I know you want to help those without a Cube right?

Please Please Please

Man now anything other than a G5 cube is going to disappoint me. Well maybe not the new iMac could still be darn cool.

There are those like me who think the new G5 imac will have a cube base, so you might be in luck...

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

All of these arguments boil down to Apples tier structure, for lack of a better term it simply sucks. Apple is loosing its customer base by not allowing the customer to get the machine to suite their needs. The whole Steve Jobs tier structure was good years ago but not any longer. Customer is King not Steve Jobs and the sooner Apple discovers this the better off we and Apple will be. Apple needs more customers and we need computers to suite what we may do with them. Whats so darn hard about that APPLE CORP???

 

[IndyGopher]

On the ATI/nVidia graphics cards, why couldn't Apple use regular, off-the-shelve cards instead of the Mac-specific ones they use? Wouldn't that save on costs and help them keep up with the PC side, updates-wise?

A straight-froward question, and one with a straight-forward answer. PC's and Mac's are different endian. Little endian vs. Big endian... now, technically, the PowerPC is Bi-endian, but (if I remember correctly) the bootstrap section of the ROM that is necessary to recognize boot-time devices (like a video card) is not as liberal as the rest of the system, and only understands Big-endian.

From the Webopedia:
The adjectives big-endian and little-endian refer to which bytes are most significant in multi-byte data types and describe the order in which a sequence of bytes is stored in a computer’s memory.

In a big-endian system, the most significant value in the sequence is stored at the lowest storage address (i.e., first). In a little-endian system, the least significant value in the sequence is stored first.

Many mainframe computers, particularly IBM mainframes, use a big-endian architecture. Most modern computers, including PCs, use the little-endian system. The PowerPC system is bi-endian because it can understand both systems.

 

[ingenious]

A straight-froward question, and one with a straight-forward answer. PC's and Mac's are different endian. Little endian vs. Big endian... now, technically, the PowerPC is Bi-endian, but (if I remember correctly) the bootstrap section of the ROM that is necessary to recognize boot-time devices (like a video card) is not as liberal as the rest of the system, and only understands Big-endian.

From the Webopedia:
The adjectives big-endian and little-endian refer to which bytes are most significant in multi-byte data types and describe the order in which a sequence of bytes is stored in a computer’s memory.

In a big-endian system, the most significant value in the sequence is stored at the lowest storage address (i.e., first). In a little-endian system, the least significant value in the sequence is stored first.

Many mainframe computers, particularly IBM mainframes, use a big-endian architecture. Most modern computers, including PCs, use the little-endian system. The PowerPC system is bi-endian because it can understand both systems.

that was straight forward?

 

[Mav451]

The cards from the Mac and PC side use a different, specific bios. That's why they can't work "off the shelf", as off the shelf is going to be wholly PC side, and not Mac side.

 

[ravenvii]

So why don't Apple make it so that they can use the same BIOS?

 

[the future]

As lots of people have "flashed" PC video cards to make them work in Macs, the differences between PC and Mac versions can't be very big. Probably ATI et. al just milk the Mac users because they can.