realitymonkey
Mar 31, 08:14 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053152/Apple-admit-Briton-DID-invent-iPod-hes-getting-money.html
Ah yes can we have a decent source please not that ridiculous piece of ill conceived drivel that is the Daily Mail.
Ah yes can we have a decent source please not that ridiculous piece of ill conceived drivel that is the Daily Mail.
ftaok
Apr 7, 02:32 PM
A lot of the comments on this thread is about competition. How Apple is stiffling the competion by scooping up all of the important parts, thus leaving nothing for the other OEMs.
I call BS.
If we all want Apple to have competition, then the HPs and Samsungs of the world need to step up and compete. They need to develop something that creates enough demand where they can buy up millions upon millions of parts.
Apple developed a product that has enough demand that warrants the purchase of millions of screens. If someone else developed a product that had such demand, then they should/could corner the market for a particular part. The fact of the matter is that none of the iPad competitors have anything novel enough to differentiate it from the iPad.
Here's what the competitors should do. Don't follow Apple into the tablet/slate market. You won't win. Instead, develop the next big thing. Invest millions of dollars into developing the next device and hope that you had the skills to hit it big. That's what they should be doing, not copying the iPad.
I'd be willing to bet that Apple has about 10 different things they're working on right now that will be replacing the iPad as the next big thing. They'll probably work on these items until they get them right. Then they'll polish it to a blinding sheen. And then they'll release it to great fanfare.
This is what Sammy, HP, LG, Moto, et al need to be competing against. They've already lost to the iPad. The war is over. Don't lose the next war against Apple's next big thing.
I call BS.
If we all want Apple to have competition, then the HPs and Samsungs of the world need to step up and compete. They need to develop something that creates enough demand where they can buy up millions upon millions of parts.
Apple developed a product that has enough demand that warrants the purchase of millions of screens. If someone else developed a product that had such demand, then they should/could corner the market for a particular part. The fact of the matter is that none of the iPad competitors have anything novel enough to differentiate it from the iPad.
Here's what the competitors should do. Don't follow Apple into the tablet/slate market. You won't win. Instead, develop the next big thing. Invest millions of dollars into developing the next device and hope that you had the skills to hit it big. That's what they should be doing, not copying the iPad.
I'd be willing to bet that Apple has about 10 different things they're working on right now that will be replacing the iPad as the next big thing. They'll probably work on these items until they get them right. Then they'll polish it to a blinding sheen. And then they'll release it to great fanfare.
This is what Sammy, HP, LG, Moto, et al need to be competing against. They've already lost to the iPad. The war is over. Don't lose the next war against Apple's next big thing.
Umbongo
Apr 21, 07:02 PM
I don't see this replacing the Mac Pro Tower. I see it as another solution within the Mac Pro family aimed at the Final Cut Pro Market where the use of several 3U Form Factor Systems would be used for Distributed Compiling/Rendering, etc.
It would be clearly also targeted for Engineering, Medical, Bio-sciences, etc where using OpenCL and GCD in their apps would provide a huge collection of streams/cores to leverage.
The Xserve was pretty much another solution too. Same hardware different form factor.
It would be clearly also targeted for Engineering, Medical, Bio-sciences, etc where using OpenCL and GCD in their apps would provide a huge collection of streams/cores to leverage.
The Xserve was pretty much another solution too. Same hardware different form factor.
dukebound85
May 6, 05:25 PM
OK. So we all agree 100% that the USA should switch to the metric system.
We do? Not the impression I get.
We do? Not the impression I get.
MonkeySee....
Nov 11, 09:23 AM
I work for an IT Security reseller and we sell and support some major companies in the UK.
IMO they haven't made this AV to help anyone out. Its all about cock waving and adding to their port folio.
IMO they haven't made this AV to help anyone out. Its all about cock waving and adding to their port folio.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 21, 04:01 PM
This is good news and very much needed.
iJays
May 6, 03:40 AM
SemiAccurate claims (http://semiaccurate.com/2011/05/05/apple-dumps-intel-from-laptop-lines/) to have heard that Apple will be transitioning from Intel processors to ARM processors in the not too distant future.
the site name says it all : semi-accurate :eek:
the site name says it all : semi-accurate :eek:
ccroo
Sep 11, 12:21 AM
If there is no new case design (maybe SR will bring one) it might be easy for Apple to just slip Merom's into the MBP line beneath the iPod/streaming/video fanfare. Without a new look, how big a deal is a 10% speedbump and 64 bit chips that IMACS for Chrissakes have already had for a week?
iSee
Apr 7, 11:59 AM
...Besides ongoing software testing, RIM was also unable to procure enough touch panels since "Apple already booked up most of the available capacity".
...
This is a nice narrative but very unlikely.
1. RIM is a very experienced hardware developer that knows perfectly well how to procure the components it needs well ahead of time.
2. Realistically, they need only a relatively tiny number of screen to launch. What Apple is doing isn't on an entirely different level and isn't really going to distrupt the tiny production runs that RIM is going to start with. They won't start competing with Apple for production capacity until they have a hit on their hands. Obviously that may never happen.
Much more likely they have some serious bugs to fix before they can release. They basically admit as much with the euphamism "ongoing software testsing."
...
This is a nice narrative but very unlikely.
1. RIM is a very experienced hardware developer that knows perfectly well how to procure the components it needs well ahead of time.
2. Realistically, they need only a relatively tiny number of screen to launch. What Apple is doing isn't on an entirely different level and isn't really going to distrupt the tiny production runs that RIM is going to start with. They won't start competing with Apple for production capacity until they have a hit on their hands. Obviously that may never happen.
Much more likely they have some serious bugs to fix before they can release. They basically admit as much with the euphamism "ongoing software testsing."
Blacklabel34
Mar 30, 03:31 AM
So the factory is fine but the loading dock is damaged? And they had to shut down the factory because they can't figure out another way to bring in the supplies? :confused:
Sounds like we are not getting the whole story...
Sounds like we are not getting the whole story...
Eldiablojoe
May 4, 11:38 AM
Whoaaaaaaa! Easy! This game has no time limits. I'm not in any hurry to expedite our exploration and prefer a slower, more systematic approach with the strength of the full group intact. Also, this game is a group game, not DP v. Villain. I think majority group input within reasonable timeframes ( everyone is able to play at different times of the day) and consensus is important. At least at this time.
QuarterSwede
Apr 18, 02:49 PM
Apple has to try to protect their IP or they risk losing it. What I wonder is why it took them so long to start lawsuits over this.
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:05 PM
2010 - Wrong. Mobile OS implies iOS, and all the stats ignore the iPad and iPod Touch. Apple is behind Android only in mobile phone side, and not by much when looking at a world view.
2011 - I know a number of people who are in that 10% of jailbreakers, and they would still stick with Apple even if it was closed off. They enjoy the tinkering, but understand that they are hacking into their devices via exploits that Apple has a responsibility to close from a security standpoint.
2012 - Doubtful. Windows Mobile share of the market is still dropping even with WP7. Microsoft is likely to mismanage WP7 just like their other products. WebOS? It's practically dead right now, and would take a lot for it to approach anywhere near iOS next year.
Apple is still very much focused on the consumer. Yes, they control their environment well, but your particular complaint is a no win situation for them. They could ignore jailbreaking, leaving security exploits in the OS, and people would bash them for poor security. But if they close those exploits, people complain their freedom is being taken away, or being attacked. Yes, Apple could allow more customization, and other features jailbreaking brings. But it would require engineering time, and that time is currently being spent on trying to keep the platform advancing to stay competitive. It's all about priorities, and I think we all here can agree a better notification system and other nagging iOS issues are much higher on the list then letting people skin the screen with Scion icons.
Yeah and that's what the loyalists said in the 80's, and there's less than 10% of us in the market now. You talk about security, but it's not a security threat to have a jailbroken user... oh wait, unless by security you're talking about someone picking up my phone and changing my home screen to 16 icon view instead of 12 that apple limits me too... oh the humanity. Call the pentagon, we have a breach... user is trying to put more icons on his screen than apple wants. Wake the president.
2011 - I know a number of people who are in that 10% of jailbreakers, and they would still stick with Apple even if it was closed off. They enjoy the tinkering, but understand that they are hacking into their devices via exploits that Apple has a responsibility to close from a security standpoint.
2012 - Doubtful. Windows Mobile share of the market is still dropping even with WP7. Microsoft is likely to mismanage WP7 just like their other products. WebOS? It's practically dead right now, and would take a lot for it to approach anywhere near iOS next year.
Apple is still very much focused on the consumer. Yes, they control their environment well, but your particular complaint is a no win situation for them. They could ignore jailbreaking, leaving security exploits in the OS, and people would bash them for poor security. But if they close those exploits, people complain their freedom is being taken away, or being attacked. Yes, Apple could allow more customization, and other features jailbreaking brings. But it would require engineering time, and that time is currently being spent on trying to keep the platform advancing to stay competitive. It's all about priorities, and I think we all here can agree a better notification system and other nagging iOS issues are much higher on the list then letting people skin the screen with Scion icons.
Yeah and that's what the loyalists said in the 80's, and there's less than 10% of us in the market now. You talk about security, but it's not a security threat to have a jailbroken user... oh wait, unless by security you're talking about someone picking up my phone and changing my home screen to 16 icon view instead of 12 that apple limits me too... oh the humanity. Call the pentagon, we have a breach... user is trying to put more icons on his screen than apple wants. Wake the president.
AndrewR23
Apr 10, 02:40 PM
Hmm I get 288 learning the way I was taught while in school.
Although my math professor at UC IRVINE said Pemdas is wrong.
Although my math professor at UC IRVINE said Pemdas is wrong.
JAT
Aug 7, 03:32 PM
Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
No, it means that the base Mini would be $530 instead of $600 if wireless wasn't standard. And the base Mac Pro would be $2570 instead of $2500 if it did. At least you have the choice on the Pro.
No, it means that the base Mini would be $530 instead of $600 if wireless wasn't standard. And the base Mac Pro would be $2570 instead of $2500 if it did. At least you have the choice on the Pro.
Riemann Zeta
May 4, 04:43 PM
Users will be able to upgrade instantly without the need for physical media by purchasing Lion through the Mac App Store.
I still don't think that this is a good idea. If the download version of Lion were simply a Disc Image file, then that would be fine (I could just burn my own or put it on a stick), but if it is on the App Store, then the entire OS has to be packaged as a .app file. As such, it will not be possible to do a "fresh" reformatted installation of Lion without cracking the .app bundle and burning the install data to a bootable disc.
I still don't think that this is a good idea. If the download version of Lion were simply a Disc Image file, then that would be fine (I could just burn my own or put it on a stick), but if it is on the App Store, then the entire OS has to be packaged as a .app file. As such, it will not be possible to do a "fresh" reformatted installation of Lion without cracking the .app bundle and burning the install data to a bootable disc.
MattInOz
Nov 27, 06:28 PM
The original article here is based on this smarthouse article, and has a link to it :) So unfortunately, the plot stays the same :)
What the hell do any of us know :). Interesting to speculate though.
I'll have to ask my partner about the graphics stuff - she's a high end graphic designer and a painter. My first thought is "the touch screen can't mimic her hand tools"... I figure that the accuracy of where she's touching the screen, the pressure she's exerting etc, will not be enough for real work
Yep a normal touch screen is limited, but then agian Apple have that patent application for a screen with camera pixels interlaced with normal pixels. If they have a screen close to production then a touch screen based on this would not only to do multi-touch control but could see the shape of the tool on the screen. Instead of using pressure to guess the shape the tool has made.
Then again that just makes for another missing piece of the tech puzzle to make a device like this work well.
There seems to be a couple of tech levels for such a device leading to the whole is it a iPod / PDA / laptop replacement. On the plus side i think most people given a quality device would prefer something touch based, pens brushes what ever they feel like.
I think we'll see a new family of devices rolled out over a couple of years as the tech comes online. Much the same way the iPod grew.
What the hell do any of us know :). Interesting to speculate though.
I'll have to ask my partner about the graphics stuff - she's a high end graphic designer and a painter. My first thought is "the touch screen can't mimic her hand tools"... I figure that the accuracy of where she's touching the screen, the pressure she's exerting etc, will not be enough for real work
Yep a normal touch screen is limited, but then agian Apple have that patent application for a screen with camera pixels interlaced with normal pixels. If they have a screen close to production then a touch screen based on this would not only to do multi-touch control but could see the shape of the tool on the screen. Instead of using pressure to guess the shape the tool has made.
Then again that just makes for another missing piece of the tech puzzle to make a device like this work well.
There seems to be a couple of tech levels for such a device leading to the whole is it a iPod / PDA / laptop replacement. On the plus side i think most people given a quality device would prefer something touch based, pens brushes what ever they feel like.
I think we'll see a new family of devices rolled out over a couple of years as the tech comes online. Much the same way the iPod grew.
digitalbiker
Aug 4, 09:33 PM
It seems to me that the future of running Windows on our Macs is to not run Windows on our Macs.;)
Actually, I think Apple would be far more successful in letting Microsoft develop a better version of Virtual PC for OS X. Then people could run their Windows apps at near native performance. The machine would be a little safer from a virus infection stand point and Apple wouldn't have MS all over their back with lawsuits.
Microsoft would make money on their software and Apple would make money on their hardware as well as software.
Whats wrong with that! Everyone is happy. No revolution or bloody war. Just plenty of apps and great hardware.:D
Actually, I think Apple would be far more successful in letting Microsoft develop a better version of Virtual PC for OS X. Then people could run their Windows apps at near native performance. The machine would be a little safer from a virus infection stand point and Apple wouldn't have MS all over their back with lawsuits.
Microsoft would make money on their software and Apple would make money on their hardware as well as software.
Whats wrong with that! Everyone is happy. No revolution or bloody war. Just plenty of apps and great hardware.:D
shawnce
Jul 21, 07:17 PM
plus with Core 2 chips being more expensive than Yonah...
T2600 (Yonah @ 2.16GHz) currently goes for $423 (trays of 1000)
T2500 (Yonah @ 2.00GHz) currently goes for $294 (trays of 1000)
T2400 (Yonah @ 1.83GHz) currently goes for $241 (trays of 1000)
T7600 (Merom @ 2.33GHz) is reported to go for $637 (trays of 1000)
T7400 (Merom @ 2.16GHz) is reported to go for $423 (trays of 1000)
T7200 (Merom @ 2.00GHz) is reported to go for $294 (trays of 1000)
...in other words it looks like the Yonah is either being replaced whole sale or is going to see further price drops when the Merom comes out. Of course I am still not 100% convinced the reported pricing for Merom is correct.
T2600 (Yonah @ 2.16GHz) currently goes for $423 (trays of 1000)
T2500 (Yonah @ 2.00GHz) currently goes for $294 (trays of 1000)
T2400 (Yonah @ 1.83GHz) currently goes for $241 (trays of 1000)
T7600 (Merom @ 2.33GHz) is reported to go for $637 (trays of 1000)
T7400 (Merom @ 2.16GHz) is reported to go for $423 (trays of 1000)
T7200 (Merom @ 2.00GHz) is reported to go for $294 (trays of 1000)
...in other words it looks like the Yonah is either being replaced whole sale or is going to see further price drops when the Merom comes out. Of course I am still not 100% convinced the reported pricing for Merom is correct.
twoodcc
Aug 3, 12:14 AM
Merom:
Twice the Battery life.
Twice the L2 cache - 4MB
20% more calculations at same speed.
Same price as Yonah.
Why not have these improvements ASAP? If you want to buy a Yonah Mac for less, just go to the refurb page. They are all there. If not, the one you want will come back soon. I monitor that page regularly and everything is in the refurb cycle now.
are you trying to tell me that with Merom a macbook will get 12 hours on the same battery?
maybe 20% better, but the real-world benchmarks show that 20% is not much at all, if anything.
i'm not saying i don't want Merom, but i just don't see the big thing that Apple needs to instantly put Merom in everything that it sells that use a mobile processor.
Twice the Battery life.
Twice the L2 cache - 4MB
20% more calculations at same speed.
Same price as Yonah.
Why not have these improvements ASAP? If you want to buy a Yonah Mac for less, just go to the refurb page. They are all there. If not, the one you want will come back soon. I monitor that page regularly and everything is in the refurb cycle now.
are you trying to tell me that with Merom a macbook will get 12 hours on the same battery?
maybe 20% better, but the real-world benchmarks show that 20% is not much at all, if anything.
i'm not saying i don't want Merom, but i just don't see the big thing that Apple needs to instantly put Merom in everything that it sells that use a mobile processor.
thisisahughes
Apr 7, 07:44 PM
Money talks... :apple:
everyday.
everyday.
tny
Nov 26, 11:54 AM
i don't think it would appeal to that many people, to have an Apple tablet. I mean, the PC/Win versions aren't great sellers...
I don't think it would appeal to that many people, to have an Apple MP3 player. I mean, the existing ones aren't great sellers.
See the problem here? The reason the iPod took off was because it wasn't like the existing MP3 players.
Take a look at a group of current products:
1. The UMPC. Seems like a good idea, but not successful so far. Why not? Here's Gartner:
But while the UMPC concept has promise, today�s hardware cannot deliver on it. In Gartner's view, success will require:
* Technology advances that are at least two years away (including an eight-hour battery and a sub-$400 price)
* Low-cost, compelling content bundles (Intel and Microsoft are working on partnerships in this area)
* A better Microsoft shell/interface running on top of Vista
* Text entry options beyond �thumb-typing�
* "Dock and go" synchronization, requiring minimal user interaction
* Sustained market momentum from Microsoft and Intel
Today, we believe it isn't possible to produce compelling UMPC products � just "proofs of concept." The low battery life, high price and non-Vista operating system will likely hurt the UMPC's market acceptance in this first go-round, and the negative backlash could damage its future chances.
An Apple tablet would beat content bundles problem, the shell/interface problem, and the synchronization problem. Inkwell and a bluetooth keyboard option would help; and built-in WiFi will certainly help. If Apple can do something about the battery problem . . . I also think the form factor needs work.
2. The PDA. Right now the PDA market is growing, not shrinking - mostly thanks to the Blackberry and the PocketPC and at the expense of Palm. The magic combination seems to be email + cell wireless: if you can get your email anywhere you can use your cellphone, a PDA becomes a more compelling device. This ties in closely with
3. The cell phone. Everyone is in agreement that the cell phone is a target area for Apple; the question is who Apple's carrier will be. A GSM-based device that does EDGE could be used with many different networks.
4. The eBook reader, like the Sony Reader. The good side of the Sony Reader is low battery consumption and a very readable screen. The bad side is that it has to have a pretty low-consumption, low-use processor, no color, and the screen update speed is abysmal. The underlying tech of eInk isn't going to help with an Apple tablet, but the form factor might be a very good choice for a UMPC/Blackberry killer.
5. The tablet computer. The reason the tablet computer has been a failure is because the writing interface isn't very good yet, and because the damned things are the same size and weight as a notebook, so there's little point in dumping the notebook for a tablet. A smaller form factor with the same power, but one that it a little more usable and compelling than the UMPC might be very successful.
6. Video device, like the iPod with video or its competitors. A lot of folks complain that it's too small a screen, and the battery power isn't so hot. If you could have a larger screen that is not much heavier, and just a little more battery power . . .
7. Web pad / web appliance (Nokia 770, Audrey, Pepper Pad, etc.) The problems with these so far have been form factor and OS quality. Most web appliances have run either PocketPC/Windows CE or customized Linux distributions. The Linux distributions that have been used haven't had a good enough UI for a general computing, general audience environment - the needs of a web appliance are too complex to be handled the same way embedded interfaces (like TiVo's) have been handled. Windows CE isn't designed for a general computing environment, either, and makes too many compromises. I also think the Nokia 770 is too small, the PepperPad is overwhelmed by its case, and the Audrey isn't flexible enough.
A successor to the Newton that was a true OS X device, in a form factor similar to the Sony Reader, with .Mac synchronization, Airport Extreme and Bluetooth, a FireWire 400 and two USB 2 connectors, a mini-HMDI socket (with HDMI and DVI converters), a dock connector, an iSight, and an optical-capable audio plug, with some of the on-screen navigation tech we've seen in Apple patents, would be fantastic.
But I'd be surprised if the tech is there yet: the processors aren't small enough and cool enough, the flash memory (you'd want flash and not a hard disk drive) doesn't have enough capacity yet, and the batteries don't have a long enough life. I'll bet there is a prototype device like this in the Apple labs, but it might have mediocre stats: say
700 MHz processor equivalent
16 GB storage
256 MB ram
3 hours of battery life (1.5 playing an iTunes movie)
estimated cost to consumer $999.
I think a successful device would need
1.2 GHz processor equivalent
80 GB storage
1 GB RAM
8 hours of battery life (5 playing an iTunes movie)
estimated cost to consumer $699.
I don't think it would appeal to that many people, to have an Apple MP3 player. I mean, the existing ones aren't great sellers.
See the problem here? The reason the iPod took off was because it wasn't like the existing MP3 players.
Take a look at a group of current products:
1. The UMPC. Seems like a good idea, but not successful so far. Why not? Here's Gartner:
But while the UMPC concept has promise, today�s hardware cannot deliver on it. In Gartner's view, success will require:
* Technology advances that are at least two years away (including an eight-hour battery and a sub-$400 price)
* Low-cost, compelling content bundles (Intel and Microsoft are working on partnerships in this area)
* A better Microsoft shell/interface running on top of Vista
* Text entry options beyond �thumb-typing�
* "Dock and go" synchronization, requiring minimal user interaction
* Sustained market momentum from Microsoft and Intel
Today, we believe it isn't possible to produce compelling UMPC products � just "proofs of concept." The low battery life, high price and non-Vista operating system will likely hurt the UMPC's market acceptance in this first go-round, and the negative backlash could damage its future chances.
An Apple tablet would beat content bundles problem, the shell/interface problem, and the synchronization problem. Inkwell and a bluetooth keyboard option would help; and built-in WiFi will certainly help. If Apple can do something about the battery problem . . . I also think the form factor needs work.
2. The PDA. Right now the PDA market is growing, not shrinking - mostly thanks to the Blackberry and the PocketPC and at the expense of Palm. The magic combination seems to be email + cell wireless: if you can get your email anywhere you can use your cellphone, a PDA becomes a more compelling device. This ties in closely with
3. The cell phone. Everyone is in agreement that the cell phone is a target area for Apple; the question is who Apple's carrier will be. A GSM-based device that does EDGE could be used with many different networks.
4. The eBook reader, like the Sony Reader. The good side of the Sony Reader is low battery consumption and a very readable screen. The bad side is that it has to have a pretty low-consumption, low-use processor, no color, and the screen update speed is abysmal. The underlying tech of eInk isn't going to help with an Apple tablet, but the form factor might be a very good choice for a UMPC/Blackberry killer.
5. The tablet computer. The reason the tablet computer has been a failure is because the writing interface isn't very good yet, and because the damned things are the same size and weight as a notebook, so there's little point in dumping the notebook for a tablet. A smaller form factor with the same power, but one that it a little more usable and compelling than the UMPC might be very successful.
6. Video device, like the iPod with video or its competitors. A lot of folks complain that it's too small a screen, and the battery power isn't so hot. If you could have a larger screen that is not much heavier, and just a little more battery power . . .
7. Web pad / web appliance (Nokia 770, Audrey, Pepper Pad, etc.) The problems with these so far have been form factor and OS quality. Most web appliances have run either PocketPC/Windows CE or customized Linux distributions. The Linux distributions that have been used haven't had a good enough UI for a general computing, general audience environment - the needs of a web appliance are too complex to be handled the same way embedded interfaces (like TiVo's) have been handled. Windows CE isn't designed for a general computing environment, either, and makes too many compromises. I also think the Nokia 770 is too small, the PepperPad is overwhelmed by its case, and the Audrey isn't flexible enough.
A successor to the Newton that was a true OS X device, in a form factor similar to the Sony Reader, with .Mac synchronization, Airport Extreme and Bluetooth, a FireWire 400 and two USB 2 connectors, a mini-HMDI socket (with HDMI and DVI converters), a dock connector, an iSight, and an optical-capable audio plug, with some of the on-screen navigation tech we've seen in Apple patents, would be fantastic.
But I'd be surprised if the tech is there yet: the processors aren't small enough and cool enough, the flash memory (you'd want flash and not a hard disk drive) doesn't have enough capacity yet, and the batteries don't have a long enough life. I'll bet there is a prototype device like this in the Apple labs, but it might have mediocre stats: say
700 MHz processor equivalent
16 GB storage
256 MB ram
3 hours of battery life (1.5 playing an iTunes movie)
estimated cost to consumer $999.
I think a successful device would need
1.2 GHz processor equivalent
80 GB storage
1 GB RAM
8 hours of battery life (5 playing an iTunes movie)
estimated cost to consumer $699.
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 09:36 PM
well, i know there was some marginal increase in processing speed but i'm talking about actually running 64bit programs. i thought you need alot more horsepower to run 64bit programs than whats currently offered... maybe i was just tired and totally misread an article a couple of weeks ago.
Actually, no. Remember, 64-bit is only new to the consumer stuff. I've been running 64-bit UNIX applications for over 8 years. 64-bit UNIX has been around even longer than that. It's not a matter of "horsepower" (by today's standards, a 167MHz UltraSPARC I is kinda slow...), but of the usefulness of a 64-bit address space, not only for real memory, but for virtual. As well as higher precision, etc. (Assuming the CPU is true 64-bit and not limited by a smaller external address bus.)
Hmmm... There's actually a good entry on it in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
That might help you some more.
Actually, no. Remember, 64-bit is only new to the consumer stuff. I've been running 64-bit UNIX applications for over 8 years. 64-bit UNIX has been around even longer than that. It's not a matter of "horsepower" (by today's standards, a 167MHz UltraSPARC I is kinda slow...), but of the usefulness of a 64-bit address space, not only for real memory, but for virtual. As well as higher precision, etc. (Assuming the CPU is true 64-bit and not limited by a smaller external address bus.)
Hmmm... There's actually a good entry on it in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
That might help you some more.
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.