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."

57 of 638 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple pre-announcing a product, that is. Combine that with the Garfield movie, and I think we're only one very short step away from Armageddon... (but then, with such things as the Garfield movie, Armageddon can only be an improvement.)

    1. Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by wankledot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Typically they don't pre-announce so that the new upcoming product doesn't stunt sales of the current product. But in this case, they stopped selling the old one, so you might as well fire up the Hype Engine early.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know that this is the ONLY reason Apple doesn't preannounce products. After all, they don't pre-announce completely new devices (such as the new Airport Express) or new software packages (iTunes for Windows was almost a surprise).

      Besides, what did they pre-announce? I think we all guessed that the iMac would be back and it would have a G5 in it. It's not an announcment, really, until we can see how they've changed the DVD Lamp's looks to match its new guts. I mean, this is Apple after all. No product is announced until there's a Quicktime 3D walkaround for it.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by raodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Consider the prices of the current iMacs and iBooks for a moment - The low-end iBook matches the low-end iMac in everything but hard drive space, and its $200 cheaper. You can bump that drive up to a 60gb (the iMac's is 80) for $75, and you'll still have $125 more than if you bought the iMac.

      I'm not willing to *pay* $125 to be tied to a desk, are you? Maybe a few people would be willing to pay the extra for the larger, but same resolution, LCD. Personally I think the portability and $125 are worth the 3" though.

      I think this probably had quite bit of influence on Apple's decision to discontinue the G4 iMacs so long before their replacements are available - the iBooks undercutting the iMacs like that couldn't have been good for sales.

    4. Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by Matrix9180 · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      120chars for a sig is teh suck
    5. Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's really a sign of armageddon is the article summary:

      Apple made $61 million dollars profit on $2.01 billion dollars in Q3/04

      Public service announcement follows: If you put the dollar sign in front of a number, eg: $2, this is pronounced as "two dollars". If you then place the word dollars after it, eg: $2 dollars, this is pronounced as "two dollars dollars". Either have the dollar sign or have the word dollars, but don't have both.

      This public service announcement brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A pre-announcment means that they haven't started making the product yet, not that it isn't commercially available yet. The Airport Express was done and working when they announced it last month -- but factory delays meant they couldn't ship until now. Counter this with the way most companys operate -- which is announcing a product or displaying a mock up before work on the product has even begun -- and you see where Apple does things a little differently.

      Also, you'll notice when Company X announces a new product, their stock price rises. When Apple announces a new product, their stock promptly falls. This is because Apple is actually an anti-company.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  2. Wow... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 5, Funny

    What Jobs didn't announce was that they had started a new initative called "iSoul" where for a small "fee" you can have a G5 imac.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  3. remarkable... by npistentis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its amazing how shallow their profit margins are, even with the common perception that "Apple is price-gouging" and whatnot. But hey, kudos on the $2bn gross revenue!

    --
    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
  4. Cooling by jdwest · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 ...
    1. Re:Cooling by gerardrj · · Score: 5, Informative

      No.. supply issues are the problem. This was clearly asked and answered in the call.

      Question from Steve Malinivich: "To continue on the PPC issue, there's been some suggestion on the web that you have a heating issue with iMac as well, are you saying that's not at all the problem and that its purely the availability of microprocessors?"

      Answer: "Steve: The processor is the most critical factor."

      They don't say that heat is not an issue at all, but they clearly state that processor supply is, as you say, at the heart. Once can easily see that heating, while perhaps a concern, is not what's causing the delay.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    2. Re:Cooling by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You know, they had problems with the supply of G5s last year when they previewed the PowerMac G5 at WWDC, at that point there were no mass-manufactured G5s at all. It wasn't until August/September that PowerMacs started to ship. So it doesn't really explain the lack of a public showing of the new iMac.

      I'd also say the quote "The processor is the most critical factor" is deliberately ambiguous. It could mean "There aren't enough of them", it could mean "They run too hot".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any thoughts on how long apple can keep up results this mediocre?

    Generally if a company is continually making profits, they can keep things up for oh... just about forever.

    What makes you think this is a BAD thing for Apple?

  6. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say for a pretty damn long time according to this line: Apple remains a debt-free company with $4.96 billion in cash.

  7. And yet... by Draconix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look what Apple comes out with on its resources. What does that say of other companies' R&D?

    --
    By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
  8. Candid by mrpuffypants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just can't figure out what's causing Apple to be so damn candid about this shortage. In the past when things like were suspected (cough) G5 (cough) there wasn't a peep out of Cupertino.

    What's causing this newfound openness?

    1. Re:Candid by JeffTL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly put, Apple ran out of G4 iMacs. Either sales were better than expected, IBM was worse than expected, or both. They STILL have G4 Power Macs, having just quit making them, so they didn't want to cannibalize sales on the Power Mac G5 release. Now they want to get people excited so they keep their pants on and don't go get a Dell or even settle for an eMac before September. Besides, it's nice to let your stockholders know what's up when you have hit a mishap -- remind them that the dark cloud of no iMacs has a 64-bit silicon lining.

    2. Re:Candid by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting
      My understanding was that was because of supply and inventory snafoos, they basically ended up running out of inventory too soon. This meant that they had the factories shut down (actually probably converted to the new iMac but it doesn't matter) and so they couldn't make more (without taking a major hit). So they were stuck with a major chunk of their product line out of the running for two months or more. They basically had to announce what was going on, or face being a computer company without desktop computers (eMacs are "educational", not "desktop") for two months. Yeah, that would look good.

      So basically their planning didn't work out and they had to do something, this was probably their best option.

      So, in a way, their hand was forced (IMHO).

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  9. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by dema · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $61million in profits can barely drive R&D for a company like Dell or Gateway.

    What R&D exactly? Did it cost them $70M to make a bunch of cheap parts overseas, throw them in a black case, and slap DELL on it?

  10. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.
    >
    > Any thoughts on how long apple can keep up results this
    > mediocre?

    Well with nearly $5billion cash on hand, and making profits... that means they'll be down to $zero in...

    no, you tell me. you do the math. $5billion plus a positive number, repeatedly, and tell me when you get to zero.

  11. neXtBox chips? by nzgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if Microsoft is regretting the choice of IBM to supply chips for the next XBox*?

    Or maybe it's some machevellian plot whereby MS is paying IBM big $$ to stockpile chips for them, hence reducing Apple's supply? ;-)

    Or am I totally off track and neXtBox chips are fabbed at a different plant?

    *NB: There's no way I'm calling it XBox2, because MS are never going to have an *2 competing with a *3 (e.g. PS3).

    1. Re:neXtBox chips? by MBCook · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I would think MS would be happy. Apple is selling G5s, MS will be selling G5s (through neXtBox or whatever), Nintendo will be selling G5s (rumored for the Revolution to use, or a derivitive), IBM sells some G5s I think too.

      All this means that there are many G5s being made and sold. This means volume which means two things. First it means that any early bugs get worked out faster (and probably almost completely by the time the next XBox comes out). Second (and more importantly) it means bigger volume discounts, faster. If only MS is ordering the chips, then only 100,000 get made per year (for example). If MS and Apple are ordering the chips, then 1,100,000 are made per year (again, example). Way more volume discount.

      It also means that production would be higher. If only MS bought chips and the supply was short, MS would be short on XBoxes. With Apple also buying the same chip (assume they do), then if the supply drops MS can outbid Apple to buy the chips and keep XBoxes on the shelf (even if they take a profit hit temporarily, that's better than no profit).

      That's my theories on it. If anything, I think Microsoft would love having other people buying the same line of chips.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  12. Dell R&D!!! by bstadil · · Score: 4, Insightful
    can barely drive R&D for a company like Dell

    Dell has a minuscule R&D budget. Dell is pretty much an Intel Distributor and leaves Innovations to Intel

    This is a good strategy for them but somewhat of a problem for the Industry as the competitors needs to follow this route to maintain market share.

    The result is almost no innovation in the whole PC sector.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  13. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just for reference, what were the profit numbers for Gateway, say in the last two or three years? Hint, look below the X axis of the chart...

    $61 million is what Apple had left AFTER costs, which include all the R&D that they do. Whether it's 6 million or 600 million doesn't tell you how big the R&D budget was.

  14. Summer of 2004 a big one for Apple by amichalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So July brought Apple 100,000,000 itunes song sales and September will bring new G5 iMacs, but according to this article, August will bring the first newly designed iPod, which will be similar to the Mini (scroll wheel with built in buttons?) but with the feature set of the non-mini iPods and capacities up to 60 GB.

    As for September G5 iMacs, there was some blurb about them being able to hang on the wall. Apple's new 20", 23", and 30" displays can (see "Mounting Kit"). Wonder if this is a mixed up rumor or for real.

    It would appear, as Apple's PowerMac line is all Dual G5, that some capacity has increased and it would follow that the iMac line will all be single processor.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  15. What would be cool is if Apple made an iMac.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which could be used by 2, or more, users.
    There was a story here on Slashdot about how some poor areas in Africa were getting 4 headed PCs running some *nix variant. (4 monitors, 4 sets of keyboards and mice, 1 CPU/box)

    If Apple could allow people to use their own monitors and produce a headless iMac that allows wireless keyboard and mice to hook up to it (yeah. I know it would need at least 2 video cards and not the onboard, built in type Apple's consumer line always seems to have) then that would be a great product. OSX would have to be able to handle this, if not now, why not?

    Think about it, it would reduce the price of the computer for families. Maybe people couldn't play Doom 3 together...or....could they with a g5 and the right hardware? But hey, it would
    be cool and even at plus 1000bucks it would be cheap for the end user.

    Just a thought..

    1. Re:What would be cool is if Apple made an iMac.... by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative
      Put Linux on the iMac, start an X Windows server, and get a 386 for a terminal

      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.
  16. Re:Hopefully... by amichalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't hold your breath.

    This has been said many, MANY times before: Apple does not drop prices. Apple likes the price points they set. Rather than sell "last year's" model, they just add more to the current line. This keeps things simple, inventories low, and margins high.

    Bottome Line: If you want an iBook/iMac/PowerBook/PowerMac/Xserve, then save your money for the corresponding price point or look on eBay.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  17. Anyone know what it looks like? by bcjanes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope (fingers crossed) This. I doubt it though, Apple seems tied to including a monitor with thier consumer line :P

    --
    Linux is unix training wheels, while BSD *is* unix.
  18. Apples Profits by Lifix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share. These results compare to a net profit of $19 million, or $.05 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter. Apple has done very well setting themselves up in several markets. First off, apple has the iPod, which brings in revenue, as well as iTunes, another device to bring in money. But Mac's best move was to jump into education, and art. Apple markets its products aggressively to schools, and from my experience with high school computer labs, as well as colleges in my area, most are Mac based. Apple has pushed "laptop schools" and has been the driving power behind them. Many universities are clustering powermacs to create low cost super computers.

    The second market is art. When it comes to digital photography, the number one computer I hear reccomended is the iMac. Digital Photography is not a huge market but it is a growing one, combine that with Mac's iLife suite, iMovie and final cut pro.

    iTunes, the iPod, marketing to education and towards the arts are in my opinion, a solid footing that despite "low earnings" will keep Mac around for some time.

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  19. iPod the gateway to future mac users? by MC+Negro · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From Bloomberg.com --
    IPod shipments rose threefold amid ``staggering'' demand for the mini version of the music player, which Apple will start selling in Europe this month, said Timothy Cook, Apple's worldwide vice president for sales. The popularity of iPods helped reignite demand for Macintosh computers, fueling the best quarter for shipments in almost four years

    "It gives me more confidence that the iPod will drive customers to other products" said Jim Grossman, a technology fund manager at Minneapolis-based Thrivent Financial, which manages $64 billion and owns Apple shares.
    If by "other products", you mean the iPod mini or iTunes, sure, but otherwise, I'm just not sure about that. The iPod is a digital jukebox that ended up catering to Windows users for the sake of market dominance. Windows users who come to the ipod are not forced to unlearn old habits, or give up a selection of software for the sake of having a superior MP3/AAC player, but that's exactly what you have to do if you convert to Mac. Many of my Mac friends came from a broken Windows home, and migrated because of the simplicity and stability. Generally speaking, "stability" and "simplicity" or anything else like that aren't really big issues with things like MP3 players, since most MP3 players are created equal. Not Mac bashing at all, (very happy with my iMac :-), but I think Apple may be getting over-optimistic with its recent numbers. I'm curious as to how many of the ipod sales of the last year or so have been Windows versions.

    In any event, I'll have a new Mac to lust over for the next few months, which is just what I needed. After all, idle hands inadvertently install Windows ME, and you know how much God hates that.
    --
    "You and your third dimension."
    1. Re:iPod the gateway to future mac users? by mj_1903 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Personally, as a writer of Mac OS X iPod software, I see a very large number of switchers caused by people being happy with the iTunes/iPod combination on Windows. In fact, as time goes on I am seeing the number of switchers increase which I am only too happy about.

  20. Re:Getting Excited by amichalo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The other thing I'd like would be an integrated media slot (to take SD cards, maybe memory sticks, or CF) as many notebooks seem to have these days.


    Apple notebooks come with FireWire/IEEE and USB ports. With those (and a cable) you can connect whatever camera or other 'card' device you are using and transfer your data over. Much better because you don't end up wasting space, design time, or manufacturing dollars on useles slots.

    it should be possible to put a G5 in a laptop.

    I have a PowerBookG4 400 (ist gen) and am responsible for an Xserve G5 at work. I can tell you that there is no way you are getting the current generation G5 chip in the same slender sub-1"-including-screen notebook formfactor. Of course Apple is working on this but it must be HARD because just the chip/heatsink is thicker than my notebook so they would have to reduce the height by at least 50% if not more.

    The current G4 PowerBooks are great. Well worth a trip to an Apple reseller if you haven't seen in person. They use the same screen as the iMac so it is MUCh better than the screen on my Ti PowerBook G4. A word of advice, there aren't even the first rumors of a G5 notebook and even when they are announced, they well may follow previous Apple releases and not actually ship for another 30-60-90 days. I wouldn't expect Santa to be delivering a portable G5 this Christmas.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  21. Re:This also in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny, I'm responding to this post on a four-year-old Mac which will probably stay in operation as a server until Ethernet becomes obsolete. What's this about throwing computers out?

    Yeah, the Mac market doesn't work like the Wintel side of the fence. Thanks for trolling, though.

  22. shipping more by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Of course they're shipping more cpus -- they have 2 CPUs in every PowerMac now! (well, a lot of them anyway)

    This from a maclover, so please don't kill me or something.

    --
    Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  23. Re:Waiting for the laptop by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I was with you until you mentioned "eunuch"... :-)"

    Wasn't OSX based on eunuchs?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  24. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by amichalo · · Score: 4, Informative

    $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.
  25. Re:I have no idea how they are going to get G5 iMa by JamieF · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:CPUs look good by aixou · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  28. Definitely get what you pay for by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Its amazing how shallow their profit margins are, even with the common perception that "Apple is price-gouging" and whatnot."

    I wonder if it's more a situation where Apple took a lot of one-time charges against a good fiscal period. Minimize taxes while simultaneously "expensing while the expensing's good".

    Re: the common perception of "price gouging" (not yours of course), today yet again my Gateway wintel box crapped out. 4th time in 3.5 years. Hardware failure. The Dell next to it crapped out a few months earlier. 3rd time in 1.5 years. Meanwhile my 1999 PowerMac G4 and 1995 PowerMac 7600 have chugged along without a hitch to this day.

    Those rock-bottom priced consumer PCs are no bargain at all. Good components cost $$$, and on average you get what you pay for.

    And yes, I realize there are quality Intel/AMD boxes out there. They also cost a good bit more than your average Dell consumer bargain box.

    1. Re:Definitely get what you pay for by ImpTech · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My 1999 Dell is still chugging along fine. My 1997 Gateway is toast though. On the other hand, my 1995 Gateway is still in running order. Funny how anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

  29. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by wfberg · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  30. Profits is after spending on research by acomj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple is spending on R&D obviously. They took in 2.01 billion $. They spent most of that on bussiness expenses (including R&D). and were left with 61 million. While not great, they didn't loose money.

    When I was in research, IBM was spending 6 billion on R&D. But IBM is significantly larger than apple (and had some old apple employees on the payroll).

    Dell and Gateway do very very little R&D. They're more business companies that package. There was an interesting article comparing HP / Dell in terms of RD.

    Apple does a lot of interesting inovative stuff considering what they spend.

  31. Hell here by dreamer8815 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where did all this snow come from?

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
  32. G5 at least 6-12 months + 2 product generations by micron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was one of those PC biggots who has been kicking around getting a Mac for the past 6 months. Speaking with Mac savy friends, they recommended against getting any Mac product in its first generation.

    According to the rumor rags, IBM just got a low power version of the G5 going 3-4 weeks ago. So, assuming that Apple can crank out a power book by years end, would you want to get a first generation product?

    I thought about this, and figure it will be at least 12-18 months before there is a chance of a Powerbook that I would want to purchase.

    I bit the bullet, and hit the Apple store. Picked up a 15" 1.5GHz powerbook, 5400RPM hard disk, 1GB RAM, 128MB video RAM.

    Completely happy with it. Have not turned my PC back on since I copied my data files from it.

    Moral to the story: If you want the computer, and have the cash, buy the thing. You will probably purchase a new machine in 18 months anyway.

  33. Re:Better for us... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  34. Here's my guess on the new iMac. by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wireless Monitor.

    It will have bluetooth built in so it will sync with wireless mouse and keyboard, but the monitor will not be wired to the box. Monitor will also have a built in trackpad.

    User input will be sent (via airport-like dingus) to the box, and video will be sent back to monitor in the same manner.

    You'll be able to take the monitor (via built in handle) to your couch and surf wirelessly.

    Monitor sets into the base station (box) to get charged and become a sharp looking desktop machine.

    Monitor might be able to travel and connect to other macs wirelessly (eg: log into an wifi-equipped laptop).

    Ok, that's my dream. Make it happen.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Here's my guess on the new iMac. by Reverant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now let's see:

      20" Monitor does 1680x1050 at 24 bit color. That means that the whole screen estate is at about 5MB in size. Let's be fair, and say that the screen's refresh rate is at only 50Hz. That means that you need to trasfer to the screen about 250MB/s, or, 2GBit per second. Yes, you need a 2GBps wireless link. So, yes, you can continue dreaming. Didn't wanna wake you up there.

  35. iMac G5 is nice, but so is 13000 Xserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I also found really interesting was the fact they shipped 13000 Xserves (a quarterly record), in a time when they were dealing with IBM's 90 nm teething pains.

    A good 40% of those Xserves were destined for clusters too.

  36. Macs Are Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is no Mac article without post mentioning Macs are expensive. Sometimes, I gotta wonder if people only look at dollar amount only to decide if something expensive.

    Is a $50K Lamborghini expensive? Certainly, it costs more than a KIA
    Is a $20 fillet mignon expensive? After all you can get a T-Bone for much less
    Is a $200 diamond expensive if you can get cubic zirconia for $100?

    Isn't expensiveness relative to what you actually getting? It's shown over an over that Apple hardware can have a good price/performance/feature ratios. One just need to find comparable laptops or desktops to Powerbooks/iBooks or PM G5 to see the value. Okay, so they need to work on the iMac line. But one should not compare Macs to $200 piece of junk since Apple doesn't make low quality computers.

  37. Re:Design for g5 imac by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't it funny how SFF machiens are back in style? Several Macs would be considered SFF these days. Hell, I just puled a Quadra 660AV from the curb and it's a lot more compact than most PCs today.

    I'd love to strangle the idiot who came up with the idea that everyone wanted six PCI slots, especially since integration has been getting better and more pervasive for the last decade.

    I consider myself a geek, but my box is only using two slots of six right now (AGP and 1 PCI). I was actually looking for a micro-atx (3 PCI slots) board but none were available with the chipset I sought.

    It would be nice if Apple came out with an SFF system with standard ports, or an SFF system that could operate withthird-party monitors but also came with a kit to mount on the rear of their own displays.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  38. Does Apple care anymore? by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If the new iMac is positioned and priced the same as the G4 iMac, I have to take it as a sign that Apple sees no chance of ever seriously being an alternative to Wintel.

    Actually, Apple has been a serious alternative to Wintel for... well, longer than there's even been a "Wintel". Just ask the millions of people who have used Macs at homes, schools, and businesses for the last 21 years.

    The demise of the Mac and Apple has been predicted pretty much like clockwork over all of those 21 years. No amount of good fiscal or technology news for Apple can seem to dislodge the legions of doomsayers who see Apple's immenent destruction.

    Just because Apple does not dominate the personal computer operating system market does not mean that it is going to die. The PC market as a whole has grown, and the Mac is a solid niche platform with a very active developer base (which has been greatly stimulated by OS X and the excellent programming tools given to developers by Apple). The Mac is making a strong comeback in higher education, has extended its reach in professional creative markets, reached into supercomputing, and even made forays into the business world.

    I doubt that the Mac is going to "disappear slowly into the night."

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Does Apple care anymore? by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't understand your comment about developer support not being as good as it was 10-15 years ago. My feeling is that the real nadir for Mac developers occurred about 5-10 years ago, but that in particular since the shift to OS X, developers have more opportunities with the Mac than they did before.

      In particular, I see two major trends.

      The first is the rise of small developers creating very polished new apps that leverage OS X. Omni Group, Stone Design, Panic, Freshly Squeezed, Ambrosia, et. al. fit in this catogory. Many of the apps created by these companies have no real qualitative counterpart in the Windows world. These companies are thriving even though the overall size of the Mac software market is obviously far smaller than the Windows market.

      The second is the exposure of many Open Source/*NIX developers to OS X. I've encountered many UNIX geeks who are doing development work on their PowerBooks. The fact that so much of what used to be stand-alone application development has now been replaced by server-side Web apps means that developers can work on OS X, deploy on Linux, and everyone gets to use the resulting Web app. Add to that the portability of *NIX apps to OS X and in many ways OS X now has a much greater stable of code for server and database development than Windows does.

      I'm also not really sure how "flat" sales translates into destruction. Flat sales is still sales year after year. As long as application developers can make money on Mac development, they will do so. You don't have to become the next Macromedia in order to thrive as a software development company. If the size of the market were shrinking in absolute terms, I'd agree that Mac software publishers are in trouble.

      My point about marketshare figures is that the same "the sky is falling" rationale has been used literally ever since the Mac was first rolled out. In my opinion even though the Mac's marketshare (based on sales, not on machines in use) is at around 3%, now is really about the best time to be a Mac user in the 18 years I've been one. There are a lot of great apps, the hardware is excellent, the company is in great financial health, UNIX geeks are no longer snorting at the Mac, Windows users are starting to realize that the Mac is moving forward while Microsoft continues to have missteps with ongoing Windows development, and the Mac more easily fits in with Windows and UNIX environments than ever before.

      I solidly agree with you about the lack of an iMac being a Bad Thing. In fact, I nearly got my virtual ass shot off in a Mac forum a while back for pointing out that Apple had screwed up plain and simple. The G5 problems are the sorts of things that happen in the computer industry, but that doesn't excuse Apple. The iMac is a critical product for them, and the positive response Windows users have had to the iPod means that Apple should have a flexible, well-priced consumer desktop ready for people who are interested in trying a Mac.

      I'm definitely with you on not wanting the Mac to turn into a Be/Amiga type of platform. But I stuck with the Mac through the really tough mid to late 1990s, and I really do think that Apple is a much smarter, much more focused, much more capable company than it was then, and the Macintosh platform is in much better shape now.

      One last note, then I'll leave you alone. ;-) Apple's comparative cost/performance strength has always been on their high end machines, and I don't think that will change any time soon. For consumer products, people expect to pay a premium for a better overall computing experience. Some customers will pay this premium, while most will not. But competing with Dell on the price of low end boxes is a losing proposition for Apple. They can never win in a commoditized market, particularly against a competitor whose entire business model was built around reducing production and distribution costs, rather than on creating better technology.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    2. Re:Does Apple care anymore? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple's comparative cost/performance strength has always been on their high end machines, and I don't think that will change any time soon. For consumer products, people expect to pay a premium for a better overall computing experience. Some customers will pay this premium, while most will not.

      This gets close to my great fear: There is only a fixed number of Mac users in the world, and Apple knows it, and has given up trying to change that. So, they price/position their hardware to reap maximum profits from their hardcore pro user base at the expense of the consumer/office users. Because, lets face it, most of the traditional Photoshop/Quark work does not require a top-end workstation any more, and any "mainstream desktop" could severe cut into 'Creative Pro' PowerMac sales.

      Meanwhile, Apple has this installed base of really old machines, and that's not a real positive. If Apple can't get those folks into the store to upgrade, eventually they will get sucked into the much larger PC "ecosystem". I've seen it happen to many friends of mine who used Macs in the 90s -- they had this mental image of a low-end Pentium POS running Win98, but a cheap, fast PC running XP suddenly looks Not So Bad when compared with their blueberry iMac running OS9. (Maybe if you are in Higher Ed, it looks like Apple is growing, but where I sit [lower-end creative users], they are slowly shrinking.)

      Now, the killer thing is that OS X really has given them all of this techie/developer momentum. However, Omni Group and even Microsoft are assuming that a cool OS will sell more machines which will make their investment more profitble. If Apple can't/won't deliver, they're going to be disappointed and scale back. Fact: Capitalism relies on growth.

      So, I'm really hoping that Apple will see the "G5 iMac" as opportunity to break this cycle, as something that will really be a market hit rather than just scoring virtual style points. And that means that Apple is just going to have to give the people What They Want -- something relatively cheap, much faster than the G3/G4 installed base, semi-expandable, and, again cheap.

      OTOH, if we get another Cube/iMac expensively constructed design piece, and "YOU WILL USE AN EMAC AND LIKE IT" (see other reply), myself and many others will draw the conclusion that Apple is retreating into their "legacy" niche and letting Wintel win the war.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  39. Re:or just.... by Bishop · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  40. Re:How relevant are Apple now? by vitaboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hello! The $61 million in net profit is what Apple has left AFTER expenses like R&D. Apple currently is spending about half a billion a year on R&D, and it STILL manages to be profitable. It would help if you actually understood a quarterly statement before spouting about profits.