Giga group predicts Apple will "Go Intel"
- Thread starter brianleahy
- Start date
Rhino_G3
Registered
3 words "wild unsubstantiated speculation"
People have been swearing that apple would switch to intel since the G4 came out. If it happens, it happens. Although all apps will have to be ported to run X86... that isn't going to make developers too happy.
It won't happen for at least the next 2 years if it happens at all.
People have been swearing that apple would switch to intel since the G4 came out. If it happens, it happens. Although all apps will have to be ported to run X86... that isn't going to make developers too happy.
It won't happen for at least the next 2 years if it happens at all.
kendall
Registered
I think Steve would let Apple dry up and go bankrupt before switching to Intel.
Unfortunately, I think Apple will continue to use exotic CPUs in desktop machines that cost us 3-4 times more than Intel.
I would have kept my 450 MHz G4 Cube if the 1 GHz G4 upgrade wasn't $1000.
Just think about it, I think that says a lot.
Unfortunately, I think Apple will continue to use exotic CPUs in desktop machines that cost us 3-4 times more than Intel.
I would have kept my 450 MHz G4 Cube if the 1 GHz G4 upgrade wasn't $1000.
Just think about it, I think that says a lot.
There will be very little rewrite if any to port apps over to x86. Much of Cocoa uses MACH-O libraries and when compiling, you compile for Mach-O, not for PowerPC. Mach takes care of the rest so essentially, they could turn on a few switched, recompile and you have a FAT x86/PPC binary. The tweaking will be with MMX vs Altivec extensions. But still that is all Apple. Developers would not really need to worry about that stuff in Cocoa.
Alot of the x86 FAT abilities in Cocoa come straight out of NeXT APIs which were a precursor to Cocoa. As we all know NeXT compiled its apps FAT 68k/x86.
Carbon may be different though.
Yes, we've talked about this, haven't we. May I quote Mr. Steven P. Jobs? "The G4 has quite some life in it. [...] When that's done [the transition to Mac OS X] we have options. Then we have options and we like to have options."
Apple will stay G4 for 2003 and will maybe, just maybe, switch to another chip at the end of 2003. Whether that'll be an AMD 64bit chip, another Motorola invention or the fabulous PowerPC 970, who cares? It's 2002, baby, and the new PowerBooks aren't even out yet.
Apple will stay G4 for 2003 and will maybe, just maybe, switch to another chip at the end of 2003. Whether that'll be an AMD 64bit chip, another Motorola invention or the fabulous PowerPC 970, who cares? It's 2002, baby, and the new PowerBooks aren't even out yet.
Rhino_G3
Registered
Yes, for Cocoa apps you are correct. Carbon apps are much different. They will require quite a bit of tweaking to get working correctly. The major apps that were recently released for OS X are written in Carbon, not cocoa. The did this to minimize the time needed to rewrite the app and get it working properly.
The CPU is not the cause for the price... look at the screen price: no CPU, 30% more expensive than equivalent PC screens... Don't dream: an Intel based Mac wouldn't be low cost... and it will still look good. I don't mind if Apple uses Moto, IBM, Transmetta, ARM, Intel, or even Microchip... Apple is user oriented.
kendall
Registered
Let's think about this for a minute. The most expensive Macs are PowerMacs and that's without a MONITOR. Why do you think that is? Well for starters, they have the newest CPUs and MBs compared to every other Mac.
I'll go as far as to say the most expensive part of a Mac is not only the processor but the motherboard as well.
Apple gets its LCDs from the same place many PC makers get theres. If there's a 30% increase in cost, its because Apple decided to profit 30% more by it.
The G4 and its incredibly low yield is one of the direct causes of why Macs are so expensive. The profit margin of an LCD that's an option in the PowerMacs case has nothing to do with directly with cost.
It must be the shiny plastic and portholes then right?
Rhino_G3
Registered
Originally posted by itanium
It must be the shiny plastic and portholes then right?
Actualy you're partialy right. How many rejected designs do they have to come up with before one actualy gets accepted? We saw rumors of the 17" iMac for 2 years before it's introduction. Slowly the designs moved from the traditional iMac to what we have today. Many of those designs I think were truly real.
Materials are expensive too. The clear plastic that the studio displays are molded out of is probably more expensive than the colored plastic that many other PC Manufacturers use. It has to have a specific optical quality with no defects... internal or external. That increases the chance of a reject. They also use much more plastic in the molding process. Apple's monitors are mostly solid plastic surrounds instead of two shells that are snapped together.
Apple also isn't as much of a high volume dealer as many PC manufacturers. This probably causes them to order parts at a slightly higher price than other PC manufacturers.
That being said, I do know that apple probably does take a fairly bigger bite in the price of it's hardware. But you will see that in smaller volume dealers.
kendall
Registered
The eMac is just one of the rejected iMac designs.
As for design expenses, It probably costs PC manufacturers more considering they tend to change the designs of their PCs more often.
While they may not seem as practical or stylish as most Macs, A design team spent considerable time on them nevertheless.
The PowerMac design is almost 4 years old with only minor modifications along the way. Same with the original iMac.
iBooks, PowerBooks and Studio Displays are the same way. They keep their designs with only minor modifications for quite some time.
So while I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into designing Apple products, Apple should be able to recoup the cost overtime without impact the price of their products too much.
Maybe we're all just paying for the 20,000 left over Cube inclosures.
Still, its my opinion that the new G4s and motherboards required to run them are costing us the bulk of the over all price of a new Mac.
As for design expenses, It probably costs PC manufacturers more considering they tend to change the designs of their PCs more often.
While they may not seem as practical or stylish as most Macs, A design team spent considerable time on them nevertheless.
The PowerMac design is almost 4 years old with only minor modifications along the way. Same with the original iMac.
iBooks, PowerBooks and Studio Displays are the same way. They keep their designs with only minor modifications for quite some time.
So while I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into designing Apple products, Apple should be able to recoup the cost overtime without impact the price of their products too much.
Maybe we're all just paying for the 20,000 left over Cube inclosures.
Still, its my opinion that the new G4s and motherboards required to run them are costing us the bulk of the over all price of a new Mac.
Rhino_G3
Registered
I heard it said best when somebody said "Opinions are like A**holes, everybody's got one!"
It could be from the Processors. Motherboard design isn't cheap either. I'm sure that in some way it does effect the price of the Macs. I think it mainly stems from the fact that apple is a lower volume manufacturer.
It could be from the Processors. Motherboard design isn't cheap either. I'm sure that in some way it does effect the price of the Macs. I think it mainly stems from the fact that apple is a lower volume manufacturer.
kendall
Registered
Sony doesn't make generic cases. HP doesn't make generic cases. Compaq doesn't make generic cases. Dell doesn't make generic cases. IBM doesn't make generic cases. Ok, you're right, eMachines may make generic cases. You're probably thinking PC 5 years ago. Times I'm afraid have changed.
kendall
Registered
Originally posted by Rhino_G3
I heard it said best when somebody said "Opinions are like A**holes, everybody's got one!"
As for opinions, I guess that would make every Mac user who thinks their computer is better than anything else on this planet an a*shole.
Or at least that's how I interpret that statement.
I think Apple will sell Windows based Apple branded computers before ever switching the MacOS to intel.
That could actually be a cash cow for them considering they have to beat dell. They could be a one stop shop for Windows and MacOS based machines. They could do the Windows world what they've done to the MP3 world.
The other option is to start selling macs through Dell in exchange for Dell bundling Powerschool on their education channel.
I think an Apple branded Windows machine is very likely. There was always been brainstorming contigency ideas like that circulating throughout Apple before I left... of course that was 6 years ago but im sure they know they will have to do what ever it takes to survive.
That could actually be a cash cow for them considering they have to beat dell. They could be a one stop shop for Windows and MacOS based machines. They could do the Windows world what they've done to the MP3 world.
The other option is to start selling macs through Dell in exchange for Dell bundling Powerschool on their education channel.
I think an Apple branded Windows machine is very likely. There was always been brainstorming contigency ideas like that circulating throughout Apple before I left... of course that was 6 years ago but im sure they know they will have to do what ever it takes to survive.