Slashdot Mirror
Apple Confirms G5 Based iMac to Ship in September
evn writes "Apple Insider and Yahoo News are carrying stories about Apple's 3rd quarter report including confirmation of a G5 iMac during Apple's webcast conference call to discuss the filing: 'IBM's manufacturing problems have also impacted our next generation iMac. We normally don't talk about unannounced products but we feel you need to know about the current situation. The new iMac is based on the G5 processor. We could not secure the necessary supply of G5 processors to launch our new iMac on schedule: and as we indicated a few weeks ago, we now plan to announce and ship it in september.' Apple made $61 million dollars profit on $2.01 billion dollars in Q3/04 and had the highest CPU shipments in three and a half years."
Cooling issues are at the heart. For those who did not catch it, Apple unloaded on IBM today during the Q3 conference call for delays. IBM promises to have its wafer problems fixed by Q1.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
$61million in profits can barely drive R&D for a company like Dell or Gateway.
This will probably give you Accounting 101 flash backs but your R&D is an EXPENSE which is subtracted from your Gross Revenues, along with all other expenses, which gets you net profits.
Repeat after me: Profits =/= R&D
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
If you're really in such a hurry, you could lift a finger to try to speed things up.
I just went to www.apple.com/store and clicked through the configurator for the 3 featured G5 configs. No changes, just Select->Continue->Continue from the store main page to get to the shopping cart where there's a ship time estimate.
The dual 1.8GHz: 3-5 business days.
The dual 2GHz: 3-5 business days.
The dual 2.5GHz: 4-6 weeks.
Changing the configuration delays things a bit, but not much. I took the dual-2.0GHz G5 and maxed out the RAM, HD, and video card options, and now it says 7-10 business days.
It looks to me like only the dual 2.5GHz G5 is in short supply (not surprising since it's probably the one that IBM is having the hardest time making the CPU for, though that's just my speculation). The other models aren't. Cancel your order for a dual 2.5 and get a 1.8 or 2.0 dual G5 instead, and tweak the config to your heart's content. Or, if you really really need that 2.5, wait. If you're in a tearing hurry, you could probably walk into an Apple retail store and walk out with one the same day.
Alternatively, you could buy your G5 from MacWarehouse or Outpost.com. Some of them will add RAM and stuff for you; others might not. Outpost.com says they can ship the dual 1.8 and dual 2.0 same-day. CDW says they have dual-1.6 G5's also available same day. This is right on their search results page. I didn't even pick up the phone to find this out. I searched for "G5" on Outpost.com, and MacWarehouse had a link to the closeout 1.6GHz model on their home page.
Using C|Net shopper to find the best price on a dual 2.0GHz G5 shows a list of merchants in which every single one claims to have this model in stock now.
This took me about 10 minutes of surfing to find out. Maybe you should spend a few minutes yourself since it's your computer order?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hope they don't count a dual G5 as 2 "CPUs" in their sales report. Talk about a way to skew numbers. Technically it would count as 2 cpus, but it would be very easy for Apple if they had a bum quarter, to switch the units from "computers" to "cpus" so they could double the numbers on all their dual processor stuff.
Apple made $61 million dollars profit on $2.01 billion dollars in Q3/04 and had the highest CPU shipments in three and a half years
That's a miniscule amount when you look at the profits of just about any other tech company. $61million in profits can barely drive R&D for a company like Dell or Gateway.
R&D costs are, well, costs. Profit is what you're left with after you've paid your costs. Like R&D.
According to AAPL's SEC filings, it spends about $120 million every 3 months on R&D (or about 480 million dollars per year).
Dell spent LESS than that, at $464 million for R&D, even though their turnover is 6 times Apple's, and their profit is $3 billion. Relative to Dell, Apple spends wild amounts of money on R&D.
Of course, all that pales in comparison with IBM's $5 billion R&D budget, but then, IBM is also in the business of researching things that Apple uses in its products, like the G5 processor for example (hard to miss that one, really..)
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
No need for Linux to do that, you can already run an X-Windows server under Mac OS X and do the same deal as you would with Linux. I've done remote connections using just this setup and it works perfectly.
Sapere aude!
just like powermac has always been very expensive and headless
The G3 All-In-One basically became the iMac.
The 20th Anniversary Macintosh could also be thought of as a relative of the modern LCD-equipped iMac.
Others to look at would be the Performa/Power Mac 5000 series.
Apple's been making all-in-ones since long before the iMac. The first Macintosh systems were AiO models.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
who actually owns the ppc arch designs?
Motorola and IBM own the PowerPC architechture. It was jointly developed. Apple did have some say in the design, but nothing significant.
Apple will never get into the chip design and manufactureing bussiness. It is well beyond their expertise. In much the same way that building a spaceship is beyond Apple's expertise.
Part of Apple's problems with the PowerPC and Motorola was because Apple was not a big enough customer. When the PowerPC workstation market failed to take off Motorola became more interested in the embedded processor PowerPC lines then workstation processors. Over a decade ago the theory was that IBM, Apple, and other companies would want to make workstations and servers with the PowerPC chip that Motorola would make. It was hoped that there would be enough smaller manufacturers and demand for the PowerPC to keep prices down. Of the three companies only Apple relied on the PowerPC. IBM was making workstations with both Intel, and PowerPC. Motorola had many other bussiness lines. When the other computer makers did not show up there wasn't enough demand for faster PowerPCs to keep Motorola interested. IBM made a number of machines based on the PowerPC but eventually lost interest when it was clear that WinNT 4.0 on Intel was going to win on the workstation.
It is easy to look back now and say that Apple made a mistake. But at the time the situation wasn't clear. Intel was having a hard time with what would become the Pentium. There was alot of doom and gloom that the i386 architecture could not scale. MS wasn't not yet entrenched on the desktop. MS had also said that their workstation/server OS, WinNT, would be ported to PowerPC, along with Alpha, MIPS, and Intel[1]. PowerPC really did look like the way of the future. It is a shame PowerPC didn't catch on. It is a great architechture.
[1] The Windows NT kernel is actually quite nice, and was designed with portability in mind. Windows NT 4.0 supported Alpha, PowerPC, MIPS and Intel. Alpha support survived to ServicePack 6. PowerPC and MIPS support was dropped earlier.
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh &story=Tell_Adam_Hes_An_Asshole.txt
http://oldcomputers.net/osborne.html
For a bit more on "Osborne"
120chars for a sig is teh suck