Predictions abound about the next Mac mini (assumed to be an Intel-based machine). It will, according to such predictions, be a full-featured media centre killer for instance. However (and despite my own wishes), if you look at the evidence in the earlier part of this series and a few more things, the Apple-extremists are likely to be disappointed. There was an excellent article recently at Ars Technica debunking why Apple would not release a DVR (tivo-killer). I've linked to it in an earlier blog entry, but here it is again.
So, IMHO, Apple will NOT release a killer media centre product in January - at least not something that will compare like-for-like with a high end MS XP-based MediaCentre PC. The mac mini is not physically capable of being that machine, Intel chip notwithstanding. First of all, it will need a higher end hard drive. Only a 3.5" form factor drive will give performance and capacity necessary for this purpose. It's not clear how Apple can shoehorn one of those inside today. Then it will need capability to have tv tuner(s) built-in. I've covered that recently - it's not going to happen. Apple will want to keep something like the current form factor. They will want to keep it's quietness and low-power use, while providing a greater capacity to provide video encoding/decoding features as they move the iLife experience onto the home TV (see recent blog entry on the Mobiliygen H.264 chip). So, the new Mini will be a bit faster on a few things. It will have FrontRow built-in. It will interface directly and indirectly to the TV's in your house (indirectly using a new airport express video device) and it will be able to serve content both from it's internal drive and from Apple's expanded content offerings at the iTMS (increasingly mis-named). It will allow you (unsupported of course) to run Windows too so it becomes a low/no-risk purchase. With an add-on similar-size box to provide additional storage and/or tuner capabilities it MAY be expandable into a low-end DVR in certain markets, but that will NOT be the prime purpose.
Of course, the functionality argument isn't just about DVR/Media Centre capabilities. But, if we consider that Apple's primary introduction of Intel-based machines is into the low-end space - unusual in product introduction terms where high-end, high-price is usually done first - this leads me to think Apple will not introduce too many innovations in functionality yet - especially if such innovations apply only to the Intel machines. But there will be important clues to be seen in these introductions. How easy will Apple make it to run Windows on the same machines? Will Apple increase support for switchers - perhaps by bundling something like move2mac into? Will we see greater integration for iPods? Will they open up FrontRow to run on all machines?
In the main, score 1 for Myth but read the small print for clues!
I will follow up these four areas of discussion (Timing, Pricing, Performance and Functionality) with a wrap-up of what I think we can expect from the first Intel Mac announcements. I'd like that conclusion to factor in some of your comments, so what are you waiting for - agree or disagree with the views put forward here? Look for the conclusion later on in the week.
04 January 2006
Myth or Reality #3: PERFORMANCE
The thinking here is that the new (Intel-based) machines will be significantly faster than comparable (PowerPC-based) machines. Paul Murphy's blog (which originally got me thinking on these myths/realities) doesn't directly make this point - in fact he implies that "delays" to Merom and "Woodrow" will be a problem for Apple and suggests that in fact newer PowerPC variants (dual-core G4, and low power G5 chips) could be used in the higher end machines. But, I wonder a little about whether Paul is missing something here. I've heard of Merom (laptop market), and I've heard of WoodCREST (server market). I've also heard of Conroe (desktop market). These have been slated for 2nd half 2006 release, and I am not aware of reported delays at this time.
Anyway Merom/Conroe aside, back to the point of this post, performance is another area I've been watching with interest. There have been many anecdotal reports of Mac OS X on Intel being hugely fast, but I really wonder about this. For instance, the dual-core, dual-cpu PowerMacs seem to fair up pretty well next to comparable Wintel boxes today in real world tests. While many claim the PowerPC G4 is way behind, I wonder how much it really is (I've seen XBench scores on G4 machines that are not much different form similar GHz G5's). If Mac OS X on Intel massively outperforms PowerPC-based machines, AND Apple were to release the new machines in the order predicted (ie low-end machines first) then it is almost certainly going to obsolete even it's high end (and high-margin) machines very quickly. If the Mac mini is 2x faster than today's mini, then it would change the argument considerably for buying an iMac. More so in the laptop arena. Why would anyone buy a PowerPC-based Powerbook when a cheaper Intel-based iBook beat it hands down? And, Apple would be in danger of seriously undermining it's PowerMac computers if they showed up really badly against a machine a fraction the size and cost. No matter how many minis Apple sells over the next few quarters (even if they do have the same margin) it's not going to make up for a complete dive in Powermac/Powerbook or even iMac sales. This all leads me to conclude that the first Intel Macs will perform solidly - perhaps very well on a few tasks, but not outperform the higher end PowerPC models. Of course, Apple could restrict performance by keeping many of it's i-applications as PowerPC apps and letting Rosetta drag the performance down a bit. But I don't think Apple would play that game for that reason.
Nevertheless, Apple's conundrum is that it needs to show that Mac OS X on Intel outperforms Windows on Intel (it will be a problem if it lags well behind), and demonstrating that a rationale for the move (which was not the explanation given at the time) is indeed performance. But not at the complete expense of decimating sales of it's high end machines or indeed making it look foolish for not moving much sooner.
My take on this is that the first Intel macs will NOT be super-fast machines running rings around more expensive PowerPC based machines at any task thrown to them. This actually implies lower-end Yonah chips (use of the single core variant, with a concentration on the lower voltage models perhaps). There will be a few nuggets of super-positive performance numbers to whet the appetite of the faithful that once dual core 64bit Merom is about, then these babies will fly. And there'll be some positive numbers to show that Mac OS X stacks up well against Windows itself. Apple will flirt by showing a little ankle but not opening the Kimono quite yet. (Apologies for the metaphor, must have been thinking about Memories of a Geisha or something!)
Score a draw here - part myth on day 1 but reality by later in 2006 and early 2007.
Anyway Merom/Conroe aside, back to the point of this post, performance is another area I've been watching with interest. There have been many anecdotal reports of Mac OS X on Intel being hugely fast, but I really wonder about this. For instance, the dual-core, dual-cpu PowerMacs seem to fair up pretty well next to comparable Wintel boxes today in real world tests. While many claim the PowerPC G4 is way behind, I wonder how much it really is (I've seen XBench scores on G4 machines that are not much different form similar GHz G5's). If Mac OS X on Intel massively outperforms PowerPC-based machines, AND Apple were to release the new machines in the order predicted (ie low-end machines first) then it is almost certainly going to obsolete even it's high end (and high-margin) machines very quickly. If the Mac mini is 2x faster than today's mini, then it would change the argument considerably for buying an iMac. More so in the laptop arena. Why would anyone buy a PowerPC-based Powerbook when a cheaper Intel-based iBook beat it hands down? And, Apple would be in danger of seriously undermining it's PowerMac computers if they showed up really badly against a machine a fraction the size and cost. No matter how many minis Apple sells over the next few quarters (even if they do have the same margin) it's not going to make up for a complete dive in Powermac/Powerbook or even iMac sales. This all leads me to conclude that the first Intel Macs will perform solidly - perhaps very well on a few tasks, but not outperform the higher end PowerPC models. Of course, Apple could restrict performance by keeping many of it's i-applications as PowerPC apps and letting Rosetta drag the performance down a bit. But I don't think Apple would play that game for that reason.
Nevertheless, Apple's conundrum is that it needs to show that Mac OS X on Intel outperforms Windows on Intel (it will be a problem if it lags well behind), and demonstrating that a rationale for the move (which was not the explanation given at the time) is indeed performance. But not at the complete expense of decimating sales of it's high end machines or indeed making it look foolish for not moving much sooner.
My take on this is that the first Intel macs will NOT be super-fast machines running rings around more expensive PowerPC based machines at any task thrown to them. This actually implies lower-end Yonah chips (use of the single core variant, with a concentration on the lower voltage models perhaps). There will be a few nuggets of super-positive performance numbers to whet the appetite of the faithful that once dual core 64bit Merom is about, then these babies will fly. And there'll be some positive numbers to show that Mac OS X stacks up well against Windows itself. Apple will flirt by showing a little ankle but not opening the Kimono quite yet. (Apologies for the metaphor, must have been thinking about Memories of a Geisha or something!)
Score a draw here - part myth on day 1 but reality by later in 2006 and early 2007.
Last Butterfly of 2005
Taken with my Nokia phone (which doesn't have macro). I was amazed to see such a beautiful butterfly hiding under a wood pile on 31st December not long after quite a severe cold spell. I think it's a red admiral, but others might tell me otherwise!
03 January 2006
Myth or Reality #2: PRICING
The thinking on this one goes something like this:
Paul Murphy got me thinking about this when he claimed that in order to do this, Apple would take a huge hit on margins, particularly because they'd be paying MORE for their chips, not less.
The pricing issue is something that concerns me a lot, because in reality, most people do not do a serious comparison of functionality when buying a personal computer for the home (or indeed for buying many items). People expecting Apple to come up trumps on price are certain to be disappointed. Why? Many reasons reall
1. Apple has a tiny market share. Yes, the market may be fragmented, and Apple is among the top 5 or 6 manufacturers, but it does not have the volume to be the price leader even if it wanted to (more about that in a minute). Being a price leader has to be a sustainable strategy. If Apple did reduce prices significantly, it would only help to foster a price war - something it could not win. But in doing so, it would destroy it's own margins as well as that of many competitors. This has never been Apple's strategy and at this point it would be foolhardy to do so. (Contrast this in the iPod space where Apple's dominant position has now allowed it to at least price competitively if not be the best - so destroying margins at competitors such as Creative who do not have the volume to compete).
2. When there are hundreds of choices out there from hundreds of sources at any time, you can never hope to be the cheapest. Apple could price an iBook less than a comparable HP machine. But out there somewhere you'll be able to buy the HP for less. And if not, you'll find something that is similar to the HP for your purposes that is less. If it's not a Dell, it will be a Toshiba, or an Acer or some cheap no-name brand. Most purchasing of home computers is done from the heart and from recommendation than from the head. And most people don't know enough to do a detailed evaluation. Many people will compare for instance an Apple Powerbook to a Dell Inspiron (not Latitude or XPS even). In some ways the move to Intel will help Apple because at least one element of comparison is simplified - the CPU/chipset. No longer will people be able to say the Apple ONLY has a 1.4Ghz processor (G4) compared with a Celeron 1.8Ghz. IT Pro's know such comparisons to be meaningless, but the general populace do not. This new transparency will on the whole help Apple, but it will not disguise the fact that there will always be something cheaper giving fuel to those who maintain the Apple is expensive argument.
3. There is a fundamental belief that Intel chips are going to be cheaper than PowerPC. This is Paul's main point made in the opposite direction (he claims PowerPC chips are cheaper). While I don't agree with Paul's analysis, neither can his argument be discounted. It is likely that Apple's agreements with Freescale and IBM gave very good pricing - especially on slower/older chips. New Intel chips will be priced higher than older chips, and it is the newer chips that Apple will use. But I think Apple will use slower versions of the new chips in the bottom end machines (and these DO cost a lot less), so mitigating this difference. And, I'm sure Apple has negotiated great deals with Intel, though of course, I doubt if their pricing would be as good as Dell who still would buy 4x as many chips. What I'm pretty sure about is that the switch to Intel was not an economic one based solely on the wholesale price for the chips themselves. If Apple can deliver machines for a lower price it will be more likely to do so via savings in design and manufacturing of the complete machine through use of more common parts, adoption of complete platforms, outsourcing some design etc.
So, where do I stand exactly on this? While I think Apple will have SOME room on pricing - especially if it gets clever on cutting a few bits and pieces without compromising the system - this is mostly myth. For those who think Apple is already expensive today, it will be complete myth. But it will be as much about perception and value. What I think Apple will have to do at the same time as this is advertise more heavily. It will need to get over to people the functionality of the hardware in comparison with others, as well as the superiority of the Apple experience. It needs more than anything to demolish the view that it is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive. With Vista not expected until much later in 2006, it's best economic argument revolves around the notion that a Mac today with 10.4 and iLife is better value than a Wintel machine with XP and a separate copy of Vista later, especially if people realise that many Wintel machines sold today are not fully capable of exploiting the Vista featureset. Score 1 for Myth.
Next: (3) Performance and (4) Functionality.
• Intel Macs will be cheaper/substantially cheaper than current Macs.
• Moving to Intel will allow Apple to become much more price competitive.
• Dell will be in Apple's sights.
• We should expect equivalent Apple machines to today (mac mini) at $399 levels for instance, $599/$699 for laptops (iBook).
Paul Murphy got me thinking about this when he claimed that in order to do this, Apple would take a huge hit on margins, particularly because they'd be paying MORE for their chips, not less.
The pricing issue is something that concerns me a lot, because in reality, most people do not do a serious comparison of functionality when buying a personal computer for the home (or indeed for buying many items). People expecting Apple to come up trumps on price are certain to be disappointed. Why? Many reasons reall
1. Apple has a tiny market share. Yes, the market may be fragmented, and Apple is among the top 5 or 6 manufacturers, but it does not have the volume to be the price leader even if it wanted to (more about that in a minute). Being a price leader has to be a sustainable strategy. If Apple did reduce prices significantly, it would only help to foster a price war - something it could not win. But in doing so, it would destroy it's own margins as well as that of many competitors. This has never been Apple's strategy and at this point it would be foolhardy to do so. (Contrast this in the iPod space where Apple's dominant position has now allowed it to at least price competitively if not be the best - so destroying margins at competitors such as Creative who do not have the volume to compete).
2. When there are hundreds of choices out there from hundreds of sources at any time, you can never hope to be the cheapest. Apple could price an iBook less than a comparable HP machine. But out there somewhere you'll be able to buy the HP for less. And if not, you'll find something that is similar to the HP for your purposes that is less. If it's not a Dell, it will be a Toshiba, or an Acer or some cheap no-name brand. Most purchasing of home computers is done from the heart and from recommendation than from the head. And most people don't know enough to do a detailed evaluation. Many people will compare for instance an Apple Powerbook to a Dell Inspiron (not Latitude or XPS even). In some ways the move to Intel will help Apple because at least one element of comparison is simplified - the CPU/chipset. No longer will people be able to say the Apple ONLY has a 1.4Ghz processor (G4) compared with a Celeron 1.8Ghz. IT Pro's know such comparisons to be meaningless, but the general populace do not. This new transparency will on the whole help Apple, but it will not disguise the fact that there will always be something cheaper giving fuel to those who maintain the Apple is expensive argument.
3. There is a fundamental belief that Intel chips are going to be cheaper than PowerPC. This is Paul's main point made in the opposite direction (he claims PowerPC chips are cheaper). While I don't agree with Paul's analysis, neither can his argument be discounted. It is likely that Apple's agreements with Freescale and IBM gave very good pricing - especially on slower/older chips. New Intel chips will be priced higher than older chips, and it is the newer chips that Apple will use. But I think Apple will use slower versions of the new chips in the bottom end machines (and these DO cost a lot less), so mitigating this difference. And, I'm sure Apple has negotiated great deals with Intel, though of course, I doubt if their pricing would be as good as Dell who still would buy 4x as many chips. What I'm pretty sure about is that the switch to Intel was not an economic one based solely on the wholesale price for the chips themselves. If Apple can deliver machines for a lower price it will be more likely to do so via savings in design and manufacturing of the complete machine through use of more common parts, adoption of complete platforms, outsourcing some design etc.
So, where do I stand exactly on this? While I think Apple will have SOME room on pricing - especially if it gets clever on cutting a few bits and pieces without compromising the system - this is mostly myth. For those who think Apple is already expensive today, it will be complete myth. But it will be as much about perception and value. What I think Apple will have to do at the same time as this is advertise more heavily. It will need to get over to people the functionality of the hardware in comparison with others, as well as the superiority of the Apple experience. It needs more than anything to demolish the view that it is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive. With Vista not expected until much later in 2006, it's best economic argument revolves around the notion that a Mac today with 10.4 and iLife is better value than a Wintel machine with XP and a separate copy of Vista later, especially if people realise that many Wintel machines sold today are not fully capable of exploiting the Vista featureset. Score 1 for Myth.
Next: (3) Performance and (4) Functionality.
Myth or Reality #1: TIMING
In the last few weeks I have heard mention of every machine that Apple produces bar the PowerMac as a possible candidate for early Intel introduction. That includes mention of the XServe by a senior industry analyst. On the other hand, Paul Murphy thinks they'll be rushing something out the door because the chips that they need aren't ready (so they'll use Pentium M). There appears to be a consensus that Apple will introduce the first Intel machines, but little consensus on what they might be and how they might be powered? So, let's dig a bit deeper.
There's has been plenty written about Intel's Yonah in the last couple of weeks. This is Intel's first 65nM chip and the first dual core design based around the Pentium M architecture - a lower power architecture. The rumours are that this will formally be introduced by Intel this week at CES (preceeding MacWorld). There are also credible reports now of both NEC and Dell products based on this chip available imminently. So, I think Paul is wrong on this one - the chips that Apple needs are ready approximately ontime (or perhaps earlier than Apple's worst case projections). But what machines might Yonah be suitable for?
Most projections have been about new Mac minis and new iBooks. And I'd go along with this. Paul makes a comment that the cost of such chips would be way more than the current PowerPC G4 that Apple uses in today's mini. But I'm not so sure. I suspect Apple will use a mid-range Yonah in the mini. And I suspect at the quantity they buy, they will have ensured a good price from day 1. Furthermore, Paul uses older Intel pricing which was for chips on a larger die size and smaller wafer. It is worth remembering that the Yonah is a 65nM chip AND produced on a 300mm wafer. Yields will be much higher for this, allowing lower pricing. AMD is not producing 65nM chips yet, and this does give Intel at least a yield advantage.
What about iMacs, Powerbooks and XServes? Well, there will NOT be new iMacs announced at MacWorld based on Intel. Why? because any Mac using the G5 chip today is a 64-bit computer. The Yonah is a 32-bit chip. I just can't see Apple taking a step backwards in this. Apple will wait for the next design to come on stream - the Conroe/Merom family. Conroe is for desktops and Merom is for lower-power use. Like the Yonah they are dual core, but they will offer a level of performance up from the Yonah. Rumours this week were that Conroe has been brought forward. So, we might get to see a Conroe-based iMac (or Merom if lower power is key) perhaps by MacWorld Paris in September. My guess, is that Merom will also find it's way into the top-of-the-line Powerbooks too, so I'm expecting the Intel-based Powerbooks to arrive around the same time. As for XServes, I think these will be in the same time-frame as the PowerMac series updates - sometime in 2007. These will probably look to use the replacement for the Xeon chips that Intel has code-named Woodcrest. However, it might be conceivable for Apple to use Conroe or even Merom chips in the XServe. In the meantime, perhaps the XServe will get updated with newer PowerPC G5 variants to tide it over (dual-core chips for instance).
However, while sounding certain about some of this, I have to say there are holes in this argument. For instance, if performance under Intel is drastically improved as has been suggested, is this not going to mean the lower-price machines are better performing than the current higher price machines (eg Intel Mac mini beats iMac G5; Intel iBook beats Powerbook G4)? Usually when a technology company makes a step change, they hit the high end first. So, there are risks to this strategy and I don't fully understand how they will be resolved yet. We will consider some of these items in due time under the other myths/realities. But I've got a little suggestion here.
It strikes me that just about everyone is considering one model today with a direct replacement for that model. A G4 Mac mini replaced by an Intel Mac mini; a G4 iBook by an Intel iBook. Apple doesn't have to do this of course. It may want to be very careful with names, and it may not want to proliferate models too much, but one strategy that would blur the performance distinctions is not to replace like-with-like but to introduce a new range or more variation in the line-up. Do I have anything in mind? Well, yes, I do as a matter of fact. The current iBook and Powerbook ranges are very close in performance, but there are many differences between the two which help to justify the (large) price differential. That includes screen resolutions and display quality, build quality, connectivity, etc. While many Powerbook afficionados would have liked a G5 for purely processing reasons, many would have been happy with a dual-core G4 and perhaps a slimmer design with better battery life. Yonah would give the latter lot a perfect machine, while the former wait for a Merom-based machine. It so happens that many of that group are also the ones who will be longest using the PowerPC apps such as Photoshop etc. Web, Office Productivity and iLife apps (with exception of MS Office) will be the first Universal binaries. So, I think a perfectly reasonable strategy would be either to introduce a new range of laptops - lets call them XBooks that have many of the advantages of the existing Powerbook but maybe slimmer and with dual core, using the fastest Yonah chips. The heavy media user would have to stick with the current PowerPC architecture until the Merom models come along and offer 64-bit computing at which time, more apps will be available as universal binaries without the penalty of PowerPC emulation.
The other model area that Apple will have a problem with is the iMac vs Mac mini situation. A much faster Mac mini at similar price points to today will start to hurt iMac sales quite badly. So, perhaps what we'll see is some more variation in the mini range. I've covered in an earlier blog about the mini not being entirely suitable for the media centre tag its being loaded with (disk performance + expandability as two key limitations). So, perhaps if Apple is to move in this direction, there will be a higher priced/higher specced mini - and indeed possibly a bigger mini! Or it could be that the higher-specced mini will be the dual core machine, and the lower-end ones will utilise a single core.
Conclusions: I am pretty much with the camp that predicts Intel Mac minis and Intel iBooks announced in January and deliverable soon after. I think these will be Yonah based. I also would not be surprised to see Apple make changes to the range so as to produce some of the new machines at price points that overlap the more expensive PowerPC-based machines of today, perhaps via a new range or change of name. Score 1 for reality.
There's has been plenty written about Intel's Yonah in the last couple of weeks. This is Intel's first 65nM chip and the first dual core design based around the Pentium M architecture - a lower power architecture. The rumours are that this will formally be introduced by Intel this week at CES (preceeding MacWorld). There are also credible reports now of both NEC and Dell products based on this chip available imminently. So, I think Paul is wrong on this one - the chips that Apple needs are ready approximately ontime (or perhaps earlier than Apple's worst case projections). But what machines might Yonah be suitable for?
Most projections have been about new Mac minis and new iBooks. And I'd go along with this. Paul makes a comment that the cost of such chips would be way more than the current PowerPC G4 that Apple uses in today's mini. But I'm not so sure. I suspect Apple will use a mid-range Yonah in the mini. And I suspect at the quantity they buy, they will have ensured a good price from day 1. Furthermore, Paul uses older Intel pricing which was for chips on a larger die size and smaller wafer. It is worth remembering that the Yonah is a 65nM chip AND produced on a 300mm wafer. Yields will be much higher for this, allowing lower pricing. AMD is not producing 65nM chips yet, and this does give Intel at least a yield advantage.
What about iMacs, Powerbooks and XServes? Well, there will NOT be new iMacs announced at MacWorld based on Intel. Why? because any Mac using the G5 chip today is a 64-bit computer. The Yonah is a 32-bit chip. I just can't see Apple taking a step backwards in this. Apple will wait for the next design to come on stream - the Conroe/Merom family. Conroe is for desktops and Merom is for lower-power use. Like the Yonah they are dual core, but they will offer a level of performance up from the Yonah. Rumours this week were that Conroe has been brought forward. So, we might get to see a Conroe-based iMac (or Merom if lower power is key) perhaps by MacWorld Paris in September. My guess, is that Merom will also find it's way into the top-of-the-line Powerbooks too, so I'm expecting the Intel-based Powerbooks to arrive around the same time. As for XServes, I think these will be in the same time-frame as the PowerMac series updates - sometime in 2007. These will probably look to use the replacement for the Xeon chips that Intel has code-named Woodcrest. However, it might be conceivable for Apple to use Conroe or even Merom chips in the XServe. In the meantime, perhaps the XServe will get updated with newer PowerPC G5 variants to tide it over (dual-core chips for instance).
However, while sounding certain about some of this, I have to say there are holes in this argument. For instance, if performance under Intel is drastically improved as has been suggested, is this not going to mean the lower-price machines are better performing than the current higher price machines (eg Intel Mac mini beats iMac G5; Intel iBook beats Powerbook G4)? Usually when a technology company makes a step change, they hit the high end first. So, there are risks to this strategy and I don't fully understand how they will be resolved yet. We will consider some of these items in due time under the other myths/realities. But I've got a little suggestion here.
It strikes me that just about everyone is considering one model today with a direct replacement for that model. A G4 Mac mini replaced by an Intel Mac mini; a G4 iBook by an Intel iBook. Apple doesn't have to do this of course. It may want to be very careful with names, and it may not want to proliferate models too much, but one strategy that would blur the performance distinctions is not to replace like-with-like but to introduce a new range or more variation in the line-up. Do I have anything in mind? Well, yes, I do as a matter of fact. The current iBook and Powerbook ranges are very close in performance, but there are many differences between the two which help to justify the (large) price differential. That includes screen resolutions and display quality, build quality, connectivity, etc. While many Powerbook afficionados would have liked a G5 for purely processing reasons, many would have been happy with a dual-core G4 and perhaps a slimmer design with better battery life. Yonah would give the latter lot a perfect machine, while the former wait for a Merom-based machine. It so happens that many of that group are also the ones who will be longest using the PowerPC apps such as Photoshop etc. Web, Office Productivity and iLife apps (with exception of MS Office) will be the first Universal binaries. So, I think a perfectly reasonable strategy would be either to introduce a new range of laptops - lets call them XBooks that have many of the advantages of the existing Powerbook but maybe slimmer and with dual core, using the fastest Yonah chips. The heavy media user would have to stick with the current PowerPC architecture until the Merom models come along and offer 64-bit computing at which time, more apps will be available as universal binaries without the penalty of PowerPC emulation.
The other model area that Apple will have a problem with is the iMac vs Mac mini situation. A much faster Mac mini at similar price points to today will start to hurt iMac sales quite badly. So, perhaps what we'll see is some more variation in the mini range. I've covered in an earlier blog about the mini not being entirely suitable for the media centre tag its being loaded with (disk performance + expandability as two key limitations). So, perhaps if Apple is to move in this direction, there will be a higher priced/higher specced mini - and indeed possibly a bigger mini! Or it could be that the higher-specced mini will be the dual core machine, and the lower-end ones will utilise a single core.
Conclusions: I am pretty much with the camp that predicts Intel Mac minis and Intel iBooks announced in January and deliverable soon after. I think these will be Yonah based. I also would not be surprised to see Apple make changes to the range so as to produce some of the new machines at price points that overlap the more expensive PowerPC-based machines of today, perhaps via a new range or change of name. Score 1 for reality.
02 January 2006
Technology Watch
I mentioned a new device from PortalPlayer in a recent post. We don't know what that is yet, but my guess is it would take PortalPlayer into the home market in some way.
In the last few days, there have been mentions of this PR from a company called Mobilygen. There is also a specific mention on the Mobilygen site of iPod compatibility though of course, no mention of Apple as a customer.
Now, I really thought people would pick up on the PortalPlayer announcement, but there hasn't been much. But with this announcement, another piece is fitting in the puzzle. (Basically it's a tiny $10 chip that allows REALTIME encoding/decoding of H.264 material with very low power consumption).
With the ability to not just decode H.264 on the fly (as in the iPod) but to actually encode it, a lot of possibilities open up. Sure, you could distribute H.264 files wirelessly to another device, but if you could encode all sorts of video on the fly and then distribute it, you have even more useful functionality - a distributed and efficient DVR for instance. Or, could we expect a device from Apple to encode video straight to H.264 and sync to an iPod (a tiny camcorder/iSight v.2)?
I have been impressed with H.264 - the quality is truly astonishing for the file size. But the production of H.264 material is painfully slow. The ability to encode and decode on the fly in cheap ($10) chips will be the key to making this THE standard. Current wireless technologies for instance can probably handle H.264 but not other formats in REAL-WORLD use. But if you can't encode it in realtime, much of the usage is gone.
We're not talking HD here - just VHS or S-VHS quality. But for distribution around the home, this may be much more preferable than tapes and dvd's being (man)handled, especially by smaller family members. Another use would be to have tv broadcasts encoded into iPod compatible format at the same time as recording or synchronisation - take last nights tv on the train with you (as opposed to having your computer up half the night doing it).
If we don't see a product announcement next week from Apple that uses either or both products from PortalPlayer or Mobilygen, I'd be VERY surprised.
In the last few days, there have been mentions of this PR from a company called Mobilygen. There is also a specific mention on the Mobilygen site of iPod compatibility though of course, no mention of Apple as a customer.
Now, I really thought people would pick up on the PortalPlayer announcement, but there hasn't been much. But with this announcement, another piece is fitting in the puzzle. (Basically it's a tiny $10 chip that allows REALTIME encoding/decoding of H.264 material with very low power consumption).
With the ability to not just decode H.264 on the fly (as in the iPod) but to actually encode it, a lot of possibilities open up. Sure, you could distribute H.264 files wirelessly to another device, but if you could encode all sorts of video on the fly and then distribute it, you have even more useful functionality - a distributed and efficient DVR for instance. Or, could we expect a device from Apple to encode video straight to H.264 and sync to an iPod (a tiny camcorder/iSight v.2)?
I have been impressed with H.264 - the quality is truly astonishing for the file size. But the production of H.264 material is painfully slow. The ability to encode and decode on the fly in cheap ($10) chips will be the key to making this THE standard. Current wireless technologies for instance can probably handle H.264 but not other formats in REAL-WORLD use. But if you can't encode it in realtime, much of the usage is gone.
We're not talking HD here - just VHS or S-VHS quality. But for distribution around the home, this may be much more preferable than tapes and dvd's being (man)handled, especially by smaller family members. Another use would be to have tv broadcasts encoded into iPod compatible format at the same time as recording or synchronisation - take last nights tv on the train with you (as opposed to having your computer up half the night doing it).
If we don't see a product announcement next week from Apple that uses either or both products from PortalPlayer or Mobilygen, I'd be VERY surprised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
