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."
For the mad scientist who has everything!
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
must be a 1.8 ghz G5 with monitor to add up to that size of cash.
Apple (as well as other computer companies like IBM) are getting very interested in bioinformatics. They have loaned us a ton of equipment for free even though our product is linux based. Of course, Apple has always had a stronghold in academics.
Please, no beowulf cluster jokes.
So writing puff pieces about your great accomplishment means they own it? Bull.
You know what?
Are you suggesting that for some reason Giant Pandas are not worthy of this prize?
Apple should give a set away to United Devices (Profit) or Grid. Both of these ventures specialize in distributed Cancer/Drug simulations. Let's find a cure for breast and prostate cancer!!!! Go Go Go!!!
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.
True, that. But the majority of it that doesn't run exclusively on Mac OS runs on a UNIX or on Linux, and a fully functioning Mac version is usually only a recompile away. Also, Apple is giving away the iNquiry software toolkit which claims to include over 200 applications preconfigured for the Workgroup Cluster environment, which is pretty damn spiffy.
Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
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?
I've come to the conclusion that Apple must have some sort of market share that defies the natural laws of the universe. For years now, Apple's market share has always been reported at ~4% with numbers as low as 2% in some places and as high as 10% in others. But the one thing that has remained constant throughout these reports is that it's adwindling market share and it's falling rapidly. Now, how is it that 6 years ago, they could have 4%, 5 years ago they had 4%, 4 years ago they had 4%, 3 years ago they have 4%, 2 years ago they have 4%, one year ago they have 4% and this year, they still have 4%, yet every year it was declining?
This leads to the conclusion that Apple must have invented purpetual self sustaining marketshare, a graph of which could make MC Escher proud, and that they must patent this immediately so that they can increase their marketshare to -pi
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
The award should be for PCs.
Apple should give away competitors' hardware? To what end?
Only a tiny fraction of the science-related software out there runs on Macintosh.
Hmm. Interesting, broad comment with no support. In the Life Sciences, my experience is that about half of us use Mac OS X. Not a bad cut of the market. If only a "tiny fraction" of the applications used are available, why do so many people use it over Linux, Windows and other platforms?
Word to the wise: think before you make senseless observations.
Um, no.
Market share and install base are definitely linked. If Apple's only selling 3% of computers, their install base is going to trend to 3% over time, holding all other things equal.
Mathematical example: total market is 100 computers, Apple has 3% market share)
Year 0: 6 Macs, 150 PCs (so Apple has about 3.8% of the install base when we start)
Year 1: 9 Macs, 247 PCs (install base is 3.5%)
Year 2: 12 Macs, 344 PCs (install base is 3.3%)
Year 3: 15 Macs, 441 PCs (install base is 3.2%)
I think you get the picture. Market share is not representative of total install base RIGHT NOW, but is certainly a good indicator of what's going to happen in the future. If you disagree, that's too bad, because I've just mathematically shown that you're wrong. Market share and install base are definitely linked.[1]
Apple's profitability really has nothing to do with their install base so much as their margins. If I'm selling stuff with a huge mark-up on actual costs, I could sell 30 pieces of it and still make money, even if the total market is 3 billion pieces.
-Erwos
[1] As for your "PCs don't last as long as Macs": prove it. I've used Macs for years, and Apple's build quality is not as good as people make it out to be. I'm not going to factor in differing "computer decays" without any kind of proof for them.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I would like to formally propose an educational study in which the effect that faster Photoshop and Quark X-Press productivity would have on my pocket book would be studied. I'd also like to crunch some numbers on the effect of staggering frame rates in UT2K4 would have on my on-line gaming experience, as I currently suck. My studio would be the happy receipient of one of your donor G5 machines. Thank you for your time.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
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.
If your definition of "mad scientist" is "person working on weapons of mass destruction", ie, nuclear weapons, most of them already have the world's largest clusters. Pretty sad that we still consider it important to build better nuclear weapons even though we've got thousands of them, and not a single legitimate target for them(the whole deterrence thing is ridiculous- if it's just about deterrence, we only need a dozen or so).
It'd be nice to see some computing horsepower, if only a small piece, go to those trying to do something other than make better nuclear bombs or look for little green men...ie something (gasp) productive.
Please help metamoderate.
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
My personal experience supporting Macintosh computers for a medical school suggests to me that your assertion that very little science related software runs on Macintosh computers may be a bit inaccurate.
That said, I wonder what I might do to encourage developers to write more science-related software that will run on Macintosh computers? This would appear to be a step toward that goal.
My company sells digital microscopy systems -- microscope, camera, Mac or PC workstation, capture and image processing software, and assorted other goodies -- which typically run between $75,000 and $250,000. Now, I don't know if our customers would like to be described as "ordinary scientists" <g> but we do sell plenty of systems. Academic customers usually pay with grant money, of course; corporate (mostly pharmaceutical) customers just write a check ... In any case, there are plenty of scientists who have access to that level of funding.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
As crazy as it appears, this pretty much echos what I see at the clients I've supported - especially in the laptop arena.
At least in the graphic arts and video sector, anyone who thinks that PCs offer better TCO is oblivious to reality and/or a zealot.
From the website "he Apple sales team will be happy to help you with the purchase of your Apple Workgroup Cluster for Bioniformatics." It's not a bunch of stuff Apple put together just for the give-away. It's a packaged product, and Slashdot has helped sell it. Haloed by thou marketing company's name. I love this company.... I love this company, but some things are just crazy.
There is a rage in me to defy the order of the stars, despite their pretty patterns.
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.
Sorry, Apple, but I can't accept your offer. You see, my IT department won't support Mac servers.
Best Buy can have you arrested
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.
Before you start giving away Xserve clusters, could you please ship the Xserves that we ordered over a month ago?
How is Microsoft a Monopoly if Apple exists?
because they control the vast amount of the computing market. you don't have to own all 100% of it just to be declared a monopoly. perhaps you should also keep up with the news. the US and the EU have declared microsoft a monopoly.
If that makes Microsoft a monopoly doesn't that make Apple an even worse monopoly (they control the hardware AND the software)?
sigh. i sometimes wonder if people will ever understand the truth about apple. apple makes the case, the motherboard, the power supply, and the operating system. that's IT. every other component of a mac (including the cpu, video card, hard disk, ram, cdrom, lcds, crts, etc, etc) is standard. if some other company came along and implemented a ppc chip that implemented the same instruction set as the g3-g5 chips and used hardware components (ethernet, video, sound) that are compatible with os x's drivers and implement the openfirmware STANDARD then it will run os x. now that may not be legal according to the EULA but you can do it. worst case you can run linux on your machine, or freebsd, or the various other free *nix operating systems that run just FINE on ppc hardware. heck even windows nt 4 ran on mac hardware (albeit a long time ago, not anymore). if you want more ppc hardware, send a nice letter to amd and intel to implement more ppc compatible chips. send a letter to the various mobo manufacterers to implement more motherboards that agree to said specs. its no different than companies implementing intel's x86 specs. stop spreading FUD
- tristan
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.
Most bioinformatics software, Windows versions are barely supported. Blast, the SAM toolkit, Clustal_, belvu, BioPerl and BioPython, all of these work perfectly on Mac OS X. Among the more computational bioinformaticists it's very handy to be able to recompile the publicly available software for your needs. Also, it's very common in bioinformatics to have questions you need to answer that don't exactly fit the parameters of the software, so it's important to have an environment where it's easy to write scripts to analyze text files and control the (possibly distributed) running of algorithms. In short, the field of bioinformatics is a perfect fit for Unix-based OSes and a fairly godawful fit for Windows. I don't think this is pure slash-bias; I think most all bioinformatics researchers would agree.
This part slightly OT, but this reminds me how much better bioinformatics tools would be if there were more people who could contribute to the open source tools in the field. Often times a widely used program is released open source, but there are so few people who can code well and also take notice of bioinformatics tools that bugs don't get solved like they could. Somebody please make belvu stop crashing all the damn time, make phylip accept alternate data formats, et cetera... I've already got my advisor's software to debug.
"TV is great! Every New Year's I make a resolution to watch more TV." - Ann Coulter
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.
How many "ordinary scientists" have $40k burning a hole in their pocket?
At a decent research university, probably most of them. If they're comp bio, they probably have even more money than that. In bioinformatics, you don't need to spend $250 on a milliliter of antibodies or thousands of dollars on primers - the overhead for keeping a lab running is much lower. And experimentalists regularly have to spend considerably more than $40k on their equipment - as the other poster pointed out, microscopes are an excellent example. (EM systems are even worse - these are usually at least $300k.) Therefore, grant money stretches a long way.
I do realize your comment is tongue in cheek.. but Bioinformatic tools (some of them like BLAST) run multiples faster on Apple hardware than on x86 hardware. Apparently apps like BLAST really run great on Altivec.
I haven't seen anything recently, but at one time BLAST ran up to 16x faster on a G4 than a P4.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
.deviatefromtheabsolute.
Think of the time saved by being able to buy a preconfigured cluster. Just open the box plug in, fire up and go. Now Beowulf may be cheaper, butthink of the time saved by just being able to buy a cluster off the shelf. Think of the time saved by not having to set up and configure. I don't really mind who's selling this kind of solution but I'm glad someone someone is.
Roll on clustered Shake and FCP renndering though.
I'm dragging around a five year-old Apple laptop and it's still a very usable system (unlike my two year old Dell laptop). It's stable, light, and "just works". I recently handed out an old G3 laptop as a testing system to a co-worker. It's a bit slow, but it still gets the job done.
And no. I'm not some mindless Mac drone. I've been using and admining x86 and SPARC boxes since forever.
I use Solaris, Linux, OS X and Windows on a daily basis, and I'm totally blown away with the stability of OS X and how well the OS is integrated (ah, the joys of a propriarity system).
That being said, there are a few "Mac-isms" that drive me nuts (like command line user management, for instance).
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.