Apple Updates Power Mac Line

Phreck writes "Apple has announced an upgrade to its Power Mac line today. The new Power Macs all feature dual G5 processors, 512 MB RAM, and dual-layer 16x SuperDrives. On the low end is the dual 2.0GHz with 160GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The mid-range includes dual 2.3GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The top-end system has dual 2.7GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9650. The processors are not the dual-core variety as has been rumored for weeks now."

Comments

Not a very large update...

[Thijs van As]

Just a small speed bump. And no dual core G5 yet unfortunally.

Re:Not a very large update...

[PornMaster]

something? If you really, really reach.

Apple has tended to really whiz-bang their new products, and this was really simply incremental in nature.

Reminds me of when companies meet analyst estimates and their stock drops for not having exceeded expectations. Lack of awesomeness becomes a real downer.

Re:Not a very large update...

[As Seen On TV]

Is anybody still wondering why the rumor mill is so damaging to Apple? This is a solid upgrade: faster CPUs, dual-layer 16X Superdrives, higher base RAM, same prices. But what does everybody say? "They're not dual core."

Guys, the dual-core CPUs are a myth. They exist only as prototypes. Apple has never even so much as implied that we plan to use them for anything, ever. Being disappointed when a product we never announced fails to materialize is, frankly, pretty bizarre.

(Incidentally, I don't know how wide-spread it was, but the dual-layer Superdrives were referred to by at least a few people internally as "Superduperdrives." I thought that was pretty funny.)

Re:Not a very large update...

[Slack3r78]

AMD and Intel both rushed dual core to market for bragging rights. Both companies are using a design that's really not much more than two dies on the same wafer with a little interconnect circuitry. I think the *most* optimistic estimate I've heard for a clean, shared cache design is 12-18 months away still. This is very new stuff for both companies.

IBM, on the other hand, has been building dual core for several *years* now with the POWER series now. And not just single core - we're talking eight cores on the same wafer last I'd heard.

So no, the PPC970 hasn't received dual core yet, but claiming that IBM 'can't keep up' from a technological standpoint is absolutely ridiculous, and suggests that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Re:Not a very large update...

[bnenning]

It's been almost 24 months, and we're still < 3.0 GHz.

Which sucks, but the entire industry hit a wall at 90nm, not just Apple and IBM. Sure the G5 has only gotten a 35% increase, but that's still better than Intel.

Re:Not a very large update...

[Frank Palermo]

Actually, one thing I think is even more damaging to Apple than the "rumor mill" is the perceived stagnation of the PowerMac lineup. To an outsider (like a consumer in the market for a machine), what has changed in the G5 in nearly two years since its introduction?

1.CPU and FSB speeds have increased.
2.Bigger hard drives.
3.Faster Superdrives.
4.Faster video cards.

I've left out some details obviously, but those are a few major features someone might look at when considering a G5. Of the things I've listed, only the first item (faster CPUs) can't be readily added to either of the two previous generations of G5 at a very nominal cost and with little effort. So while the new PowerMacs are quite impressive machines and are certainly great for first-time buyers, what they may fail to do is to entice any current G5 owners to upgrade to a newer model. And considering that the first G5s appeared nearly two years ago now, that current-owner-looking-to-upgrade-soon market is going to be sizeable in the relatively near future.

What would entice one of those owners to buy a new G5? Perhaps moving to PCI-Express graphics. Perhaps moving to DDR2 RAM. Adopting any of those technologies that 1) the PC market already has, and thus yields a performance gap (real or perceived, it matters not in the marketplace), and 2) that can't be retrofitted onto an older G5 logic board for low cost and effort. Lacking dual-core CPUs wouldn't even be very disappointing if the rest of the architecture surrounding single-core chips got a bit of a revamp.

In short, *that* is the sort of upgrade that will capture both new and existing Mac users to buy a new G5, and the lack of such an upgrade is probably as big of an influence as the "rumor mill" you blamed in damaging Apple and keeping PowerMac sales a bit low. As a current G5 user, I for one hope such an update comes soon. My checkbook will be ready.

-Frank

Re:Not a very large update...

[cyngus]

- The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??

My guess is that Apple couldn't secure enough supply from ATI to include it. Rather than risk huge shipping delays (like with the GeForce Ultra DDL) they left it to you to upgrade if you want it.

- Apple actually launched Dual 2.0Ghz G5's in 2003 (todays speedbump still includes this product)

Let remind you that no one has really moved their processor performance much in the last two years, until just recently with dual core designs.

- The case is still gigantic (2003 size), and still only sports 1 external drive bay

As to size, I have one and its just fine by me. It sits on the floor, it could be four feet tall for all I care. So, one external drive bay, with an optical drive that supports reading and writing just about every format under the sun. Why would I want another? To duplicate disks? I can rip a disk and burn it so fast that this is really a moot point.

- Still only 3 PCI slots (2 if your using the Nvidia Video card)

And what would most people use more slots for? Nothing. So much is included on the motherboard these days that six slots really doesn't make sense for the vast majority. If you need more, you'll probably get a PCI expansion chasis and stop whinning.

- Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?

Fine by me, I never buy RAM from the box makers. It can be had much more cheaply (particularly vs Apple RAM) from elsewhere.

Since most creative apps won't support clustering, no, six mac minis are not as fast.

Re:Not a very large update...

[As Seen On TV]

Actually, one thing I think is even more damaging to Apple than the "rumor mill" is the perceived stagnation of the PowerMac lineup.

We refresh our product lines roughly once every nine months. We've been doing it that way for years now. Why is this a surprise?

To an outsider (like a consumer in the market for a machine), what has changed in the G5 in nearly two years since its introduction?

Hopefully nothing. "Power Macintosh G5" is a brand item for us. We don't want to release a product and then suddenly drop it. Instead, we want to release a product and maintain it for several years, building brand recognition.

I guess we're just running up against a difference in business philosophies here. Companies like Dell (just to pick a well-known example) have vast product lines with hundreds of products. We sell about a dozen, and frankly that's a lot for us. Our approach goes like this: At any point in time, somebody can go into an Apple store (or online) and say, "I want a Power Mac G5." (Or iMac, or Mac mini, or whatever product.) From there, the customer will be given a few choices about how much they want to spend -- small, medium or large, basically. At that point, they walk out with a product that gives them good value and a good experience for the money they spent.

I understand that there are people out there who wish we did it another way. I understand that there are people out there who basically wish we just sold parts from a catalogue. But that's not our business model. Arguments of the form "But I'd buy one if so-n-so" don't really touch anybody here, because that's just not the way we want to do things. Other companies already to things that way. That's fine for them. We do things our way.

what they may fail to do is to entice any current G5 owners to upgrade to a newer model

According to market research, Mac owners buy a new computer about once every five years on average. We're a long way from expecting our Power Mac G5 owners to want to trade up.

Bottom line: We don't just roll out whole new products willy-nilly. Part of what we sell our customers is stability. One of the things you know when you buy a Mac -- most of the time -- is that the thing you buy isn't going to be just totally lame next month. The products we ship subsequently are going to be incremental improvements, not complete new things. That means that you can feel comfortable when you buy a Mac that your purchase isn't going to totally lose all its value in ninety days. It's one way we've engendered brand loyalty. Haven't you noticed that used Macs retain their value way better than used PCs? There's a reason for that.

Re:Not a very large update...

[Golias]

You're not an astroturfer if you tell people you work for the company.

An "astroturfer" is an employee or executive who is paid by the company to pretend he's just an ordinary schmuck who just happens to be really, really impressed with the company or their products, creating the artificial impression of strong grassroots support, hence: astroturf (meaning, fake grass.)

The word was coined when Microsoft was caught doing exactly that on various newsgroups back in the 90s.

This guy is either an Apple employee who is being very straight up about who he works for and what his bias and perspective is, or else he's a loser troll who gets off on pretending he's an Apple employee so people will consider his opinion on Apple stories to carry more weight.

Based on the nature of the things he's commented on in the past, my suspicion is that he's probably an Apple guy, though perhaps not nearly as close to the development teams as he likes to imply. His answers to people's questions seem to be rather long on design opinion, and rather short on technical details... and more than a little snippy at times.

Re:Not a very large update...

[Durindana]

I honestly don't mean to be a flame/troll, but I have to ask:

Since you obviously hold yourself out to be an Apple employee, and I'm assuming you are one, is it wise to be posting this sort of thing?

I mean, I certainly have not seen you post anything inflammatory or detrimental to Apple - in fact, your posts strike me as reasonable and informative - but I know many organizations emphatically do not like non-PR or non-HR employees engaging in public communication, of any kind or tenor, for liability reasons.

Are you doing so anonymously? Again, no offense, I'm just surprised and curious.

Re:Slashdot..

[caerwyn]

Tell AMD that 2.7 GHz is "5 years ago", then.

Even Intel is finally figuring out that pushing the whole clock speed = performance myth is starting to cause problems.

I realize you have an irrational need to bash Apple products, but please, try to do so in an informed fashion.

Re:Only 512MB RAM?

[CrackedButter]

God Damn! Last year they were saying 256mb wasn't enough and people complained, now Apple doubles it and the trolls are out again. Next year when they hit a 1GB for a machine, people are gonna bitch again and comment on how cheap 2GB of RAM is!
I prefer it (just like other people have said) to get my memory elsewhere and cheaper than Apple provides. I'd be pissed if they gave to much RAM and then overcharged on the entire system.

Re:Apple?

[pebs]

So ... why would anyone choose such a device over the PC??

Mac's are much better for running Linux on than PC's due to better supported and more stable hardware. This is due to the lack of variation in hardware compared to PC's, resulting in more solid drivers. Linux driver developers simply have less combinations to worry about. And Apple hardware engineers also have to worry about less combinations. Thus, with a Power Mac, you end up with a stable, powerful, quiet, high-quality Linux machine.

Other than that, I don't really know :P

Re:They also dropped Cinema Display prices...

[angrist]

The price drop is nice, but I still want a 17" Cinema Display.

I'd have thought that with the Mini being hailed as the "most affodable mac ever" SOMEONE at apple would have come up with the idea of selling a monitor that didn't cost as much as the mini. A 17" at around $300-400 would seem to fit into the current line nicely, hell they could even use the same panel as in the iMac.

Re:modems now optional

[Queer Boy]

Like the floppy disk, Apple's opinion now is that the POTS modem is sufficiently obsolete to remove it entirely and free up space inside the box, rather than leave it in and lose the $10 OEM or whatever it actually costs them.

Clearly you're used to the PC world where they send you off into the wilds of the internet with only a "Beware of the Malware!"

Not only is it the possibly $10 OEM that they are deducting from a million machines, it's the thousands of dollars in support they will spend not only repairing potentially wonky modems but also fielding tech support calls over dialing into the internet, connection issues once dialed-in, etc. The simpler you can make a machine the fewer dollars spent on tech support.

Re:Low end not dual processor

[arloguthrie]

And with this comment (unless you intended some sort of strange, imperceptible irony), your assertion that you work for Apple is blown to smithereens. Prices are NOT arbitrary. Prices are always based on market demand and profit margin. Lower priced items, like a Mac mini, have a lower profit margin because they are gateway Macs. Today's Mac mini buyer will hopefully be tomorrow's 20" iMac buyer (or better). The PMG5 is a more luxurious, more professional item, and Apple's research would indeed tell them that to a professional Mac user, PCI slots, faster FSB, and gigabit ethernet are worth the extra dough over a consumer-grade (though, IMHO, entirely kick-ass) machine like the iMac G5. Sure, Apple's made pricing mistakes (PMG4 Cube, anyone? Who exactly was the market for that thing?), and sure, Apple's prices are higher than other PC manufacturers, but Apple charges what the market will endure, and when it can't endure it, they cut prices. For you to espouse all of this insider knowledge about Apple and then to say that Apple chooses prices arbitrarily is ridiculous, and I call shenanigans on your ass. SHENANIGANS!