Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Award Workgroup Clusters to Scientists
Graff writes "Apple is giving away five Apple Workgroup Clusters for Bioinformatics (each worth approximately $40,000) to four higher
education researchers and one non-education researcher. A panel of independent scientists and Apple will choose the lucky researchers."
Only a tiny fraction of the science-related software out there runs on Macintosh.
For gui-based stuff, that might be true. But a very big percentage of bioinformatics is done on the command line. And there is a wealth of free unix based bioinformatics software out there.
Though not saying you (like every other person you mistakenly interchanges the term market share for the word install base) are assuming that the company's install base is declining... something that there is no proof of. Declidining "market share" could simply mean that Windows market share increased while Apple's stayed the same... (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users) or that Mac users are simply getting more life out of their computers (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users)... or that PC users are suddenly getting less life and are having to upgrade more frequently (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users). What I'm getting at is that market share is NOT an indicator of the increase or decrease in a platform's install base. Apple's install base is probably in the 7%-12% range... though you would never know it because the major research companies are only shoing *market share* statistics. This information is of no use to anyone EXCEPT stock holders in the company the stats they refer to as it is an indicator of profit and loss. If market share indicates profit and loss... its important that we understand that Apple is one of only two profitable computer companies these days and that their computers are priced exactly in tune with the rest of the industry (not over priced as is so commonly suggested).
Companies give research grants to universities all the time. A DEC grant paid for two years of grad school for me in the early 90's, and gave my lab a bunch of sweet Alphas. Why is this news - because it's Apple?
In the PC world your expected to buy a new computer every 2 years, in the mac world thats not the case.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple is not.
Is that so fucking hard to understand?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
So lets run some numbers:
/. readers saw it. Does this influence them to but a $40,000 cluster? that's a big nope. Does it influence them to try the Xserve? well perhaps it helps reinforce the production applicability of the Xserve (it runs iTMS and the V-tech super computer and these $40,000 clusters so maybe I shoudl give it a try) Does it make people want to but PowerBooks and iPods, again, doubtful.
5 $40,000 (retail) prizes = $200,000 retail
only 4 ($160,000) are educational and after looking at the awards, there is no stipulation the 1 non-educational award must go to a non-profit so there is only the $160,000 tax right off guaranteed.
Now if you are a reseller, I don't know if you can right off the retail value of the goods & services donation or not, so that would make the value even lower.
Now the return on the investment:
Well you get smart people in research institutions all over the country dreaming up ways to use 5 Xserves and the 10 way G5 64=bit computing power they bring. So even if they don't win, somebody may get some dollars budgeted to actually buy this type of system outright. Or perhaps they win a different grant and use those moneys to fund it.
Then you have publicity. At least a few hundred
So what's left
So after Apple ponies up $200,000 in hardware and software, less their margins and tax deductions, they still spent six figures on a marketing stunt and some good Karma. Will it pay for itself? Well if only ONE of these institutions who wins a cluster actually adds on to it within an order of magnitude of V-tech, I would say 'yeah' it will pay for itself.
Have other companies (Big Blue, Hp, etc) had success with similar programs?
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
year 0: 10 Macs, 10 PCs
year 1: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
year 2: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
year 3: 10 Macs replaced, 10 PCs replaced
year 4: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
year 5: 0 new Macs, 10 PCs replaced
total sold: 20 Macs, 60 PCs
install base: 10 Macs, 10 PCs
I have seen research that shows Macs have something like twice the life of a PC.
I've owned both Macs and PCs for years, and my Macs are capable of running more new software then the PCs.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
More to the point, Apple is doing this voluntarily, whereas Microsoft tried to settle an antitrust lawsuit by donating Microsoft products to schools (and extending their monopoly)--a whole different kettle of fish.
See, e. g., this and this.
There's a lot of statements in this thread about about Macs not being useful for science due to software support. What the hell? That's like saying that HP, Dell, etc can't be used - Mac systems can take UNIX versions just like any other computer. Regardless, our university's physics department apparently uses nothing but Apple systems, although generally old ones due to the budget.
Objectively, how is a five year-old 2x500Mhz Mac any better in 2004 than a five year-old 2x500Mhz PC?
It's not really. Just that Mac advocates typically engage in the intellectual dishonesty of comparing $3000 Macs with $1000 PCs.
Furthermore, it's pretty clear that G4 have had a pretty long lifespan because PowerPC development was so retarded. Until the G5s came out there really wasn't a compelling upgrade for PMac G4 users.
I'm not sure if the long shelf-life of Macs really help anyone. Mac users have to wait until they've saved up another $2000+ to upgrade, and in the meanwhile they're stuck wtih old machines, and Apple is getting no revenue. A PC user might pay less to replace a cheap machine every year and always have top-end kit.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
You can sell one for more money than the other on eBay. Four such Macs are currently getting $625, $550, $465, and $51.50. 500 MHz Pentium III computers are getting between $89.95 and $9.99. It's not particularly easy to search for a dual PIII (any ever made?), but that should give you the picture.
A PC user might pay less to replace a cheap machine every year and always have top-end kit.
If you need or want to stay in the "top end", then you cannot be buying "cheap machines" every year.
I don't think anyone has complained about Gates donating money to third-world countries. It might not get much attention on Slashdot, but that's probably because Slashdot is a tech news site, not a site for news about the developing world.
When Gates donates large numbers of Windows machines to e.g. school districts which have traditionally be Mac-based, that's quite a different story. It's very obvious that such actions are more of an investment than a real donation -- and they may actually constitute illegal product dumping (not that the government will do anything).
This space unintentionally left unblank.
.deviatefromtheabsolute.