View Full Version : Did shortages force Apple to skip other Intel models?
Zebulunite
2006-01-12, 15:48
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/12/did-shortages-force-apple-to-skip-other-intel-models/#comments
http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1385976
There was something strange about Steve Jobs' Macworld keynote on Tuesday. The pacing was off.
It started off high energy with reports of unbelievable iPod sales and record revenues, which got the crowd whooping. Then it went into a doldrums with an interminable demo of new features in iLife, which had everyone dying for the One More Thing... "Come on Steve," we're all thinking. "Cut the crap and get to the good stuff."
So tonight I'm sitting in a bar when I run into an old friend, who is very highly placed in the Apple world. I hate to cite an anonymous source, but trust me, he knows.
And he tells me the keynote that Jobs gave was not the keynote he had planned. Some of the speech had been cut out. Key products were missing.
My source said there was some stuff, "some very, very cool stuff," that Jobs couldn't unveil because of "supply issues."
"They can't get enough Core Duo (chips)," said my source.
He also said that if he were me, he probably wouldn't order one of the new MacBook Pros.
I asked if there would be MacBook replacements for the 17-inch and 12-inch PowerBooks, but he said, "Oh, it's much cooler than that. Much cooler." - leander, Cult of Mac Blog
Interesting. I'm still going to buy a pbook 12".
morningstarrising
2006-01-12, 16:17
I'm sure Apple has everything plan for this year already done.
Afterall it's no longer a "waiting game" with IBM and there "promises". Intel has everything in the bag.
If you really really need it, I guess... but right now the 12" PowerBook is the worst value in Apple's lineup. It's overdue for an upgrade, and has been basically since it was introduced.
I mean, if you really need one, fine, but... eh, it's just that the 12" PowerBook has such a nice form factor, but the way Apple configures and prices it is sucky!
I don't think Zebulunite is looking for a 12" PB, he was quoting from the 2nd of the 2 links he offered, without adding any content of his own, I might add.
I don't think Zebulunite is looking for a 12" PB, he was quoting from the 2nd of the 2 links he offered, without adding any content of his own, I might add.
I was responding to noah... although, it probably would have been a better idea to post that in noah's purchasing advice thread.
Zebulunite
2006-01-12, 16:47
I don't think Zebulunite is looking for a 12" PB, he was quoting from the 2nd of the 2 links he offered, without adding any content of his own, I might add.
Correct. I should have written somewhere that the quote was of the second site. (Edit: Just added it in)
I was going to write something myself, but couldn't think of anything before I had to do something else. But while I obviously don't know whether the author (or his source) are telling the truth, I wouldn't doubt that something along the lines of his story is true.
Zebulunite
2006-01-12, 16:54
I'm sure Apple has everything plan for this year already done.
Afterall it's no longer a "waiting game" with IBM and there "promises". Intel has everything in the bag.
Probably, but I'd assume they would plan on there being a shortage of Core Duo processors, seeing as how just about every notebook manufacturer is planning on incorporating it into their lines, and every Core Duo based notebook looks to be delayed in shipping until Februrary.
Perhaps Intel simply wasn't able to allocate enough Core Duos for Apple to be able to introduce 3+ notebooks without huge shortages. With only one Core Duo based notebook, Apple would not have to spread their supply of chips as thin as they would with three or more.
Either that, or maybe they have a great enough surplus of 12" and 17" Powerbooks that it would make more sense financially to not introduce newer, superior models.
Correct. I should have written somewhere that the quote was of the second site. (Edit: Just added it in)
I was going to write something myself, but couldn't think of anything before I had to do something else. But while I obviously don't know whether the author (or his source) are telling the truth, I wouldn't doubt that something along the lines of his story is true.
I think anytime someone actually types the phrase, I hate to cite an anonymous source, but trust me, he knows. can be assumed to be full of shit.
Zebulunite
2006-01-12, 17:01
I think anytime someone actually types the phrase, can be assumed to be full of shit.
The vast majority of the time, at least.
alcimedes
2006-01-12, 17:05
If Intel can't supply enough chips for Apple, then we know Apple is cursed. No way Intel has enough chips for the PC world but APPLE is the reason they're in short supply. Besides which, they just happily announced a middle of the line (for intel) speed chip that won't ship until Feb.
Maybe Apple can't supply the hardware for the rest of the laptops, but no way I believe that Intel is the supply side issue here.
ZachPruckowski
2006-01-12, 17:11
Intel has everything in the bag.
Intel's a lot bigger of a supplier, but Apple is one of the smallest of its clients, and regardless of any special treatment, they're now competing against HP and Dell and Gateway and all the little guys for the chips. And Intel may be making a lot, but they still have a limited number of processor manufacturing plants.
Zebulunite
2006-01-12, 17:13
If Intel can't supply enough chips for Apple, then we know Apple is cursed. No way Intel has enough chips for the PC world but APPLE is the reason they're in short supply. Besides which, they just happily announced a middle of the line (for intel) speed chip that won't ship until Feb.
Maybe Apple can't supply the hardware for the rest of the laptops, but no way I believe that Intel is the supply side issue here.
I meant more along the lines of there being supply issues for all manufactures. Dell, for instance, has only officially announced one Core Duo based laptop (just like Apple), and I don't think too many others manufacturers (if any others) have announced more than one Core Duo based model. I definitely think that Intel will eventually be able to supply all the chips Apple wants/needs, but right now, when the Core Duo has just been released, I would expect there to be at least some supply issues.
Oompa Loompa
2006-01-12, 17:27
Huh? I understood that Intel was ready for this 'boom'... making an astounding amount of Single- and Duo Core chips in advance?!
HezMah19
2006-01-12, 17:34
I gotta say I thought the pace was off too, Steve hyped the crowd up and then rather unspectacularly announced the new iMac and PowerBook Core Duo... It felt almost like Steve himself didn't find it exciting?
Not only did it seem short but he also played the advert twice, and did the whole "thanks everybody" thing at the end, which struck me as a bit "I'm desperately trying to fill time here".
...and when Apple keynotes are too short, it means something is definitely up.
(See: The iMac G5 and the 15-minute short WWDC keynote.)
Of course, it's possible that we're all reading too much into this. Maybe he just thought we'd like his Mac ad (an actual Mac ad?!?!) so much, we'd want to see it again. But after last year, when the rumor mill was almost dead-on accurate, it seems odd that such oft-rumored things like an Apple media center were absent.
morningstarrising
2006-01-12, 18:43
Yeah, but I blame that more on a hickup with the Entertainment peeps..not Intel chips.
After all it'd would be using ViiV...not Dual Core.
The Viiv platform uses the Core processor.
pscates2.0
2006-01-12, 18:52
I'm betting there was something along those lines planned. That whole Viiv thing...
Perhaps now we'll have some special event in February or March to look forward to?
Or April. I'd be surprised if April comes and passes without any special event, considering it's Apple's 30th anniversary and all. (I want a Thirtieth Anniversary Macintosh!)
I asked if there would be MacBook replacements for the 17-inch and 12-inch PowerBooks, but he said, "Oh, it's much cooler than that. Much cooler.":err:
I've been banging my head against a wall trying to suss out what's meant by this. Cooler than a PowerBook? WTF? I can't imagine what Apple could to to reinvent the pofessional laptop space. I mean, keyboard + screen = portable form factor can only go so many ways...right?
...tablet?
I'd love a "MacPad." Well, except the name.
I'm yet to be really impressed by a tablet. But, if mac makes one it will probabbly be cool.
I'd love a "MacPad." Well, except the name.
Oh my. I instantly conjured up a white 'Book with a bright red Apple logo smack dab in the centre. :|
Dorian Gray
2006-01-12, 19:18
Intel's a lot bigger of a supplier, but Apple is one of the smallest of its clients
What makes you think that? Apple will obviously be one of Intel's largest clients, and far and away the most high profile and sexy. Intel will give Apple much more respect than some people assume.
I'm yet to be really impressed by a tablet. But, if mac makes one it will probabbly be cool.
I'm going to take over Brad's job of nitpicking.
"Mac" is not a company - it is a brand. Apple is the company that makes the Mac.
But you're right, if Apple makes a tablet it will probably be cool.
My Apple convertable tablet concept was always called the Flipbook, but now it'd most likely be called something lame, like "MacBook Pad."
What makes you think that? Apple will obviously be one of Intel's largest clients, and far and away the most high profile and sexy. Intel will give Apple much more respect than some people assume.
I agree. Apple is actually one of the top 5 computer makers in the world - people forget that just because their operating system has small market share.
Sounds believable, considering it's cult of mac and it's on the wired website. Doubt they are a bunch liars :)
My guess it that Apple is doing something with the ultra low voltage duo core processors. the MacBook pro uses the normal mobile version (T) and not even the low voltage version correct?
Not only did it seem short but he also played the advert twice, and did the whole "thanks everybody" thing at the end, which struck me as a bit "I'm desperately trying to fill time here".
in october Jobs played both the Eminem iPod ad and the U2 iPod ad twice "just cos"
as far as rumors go, i wouldn't be surprised if something really crazy gets released sometime mid-year, but i really can't imagine anything that could top a 17" core duo... the iPod Invisa (http://homepage.mac.com/ibook238/.Movies/SteveJobsSNL.mov)?
seabass069
2006-01-12, 21:14
See, that's why Apple should have gone with AMD as their CPU supplier. AMD would have enough chips already made before the announcement of the Macs.
initialsBB
2006-01-12, 21:15
as far as rumors go, i wouldn't be surprised if something really crazy gets released sometime mid-year
yup, the original time frame for all things intel was mid '06, and evidently these MWSF announcements were a way to 1) tell developers to get really serious about universal binaries (http://developer.apple.com/dtkexchange/) ; 2) get some nifty rev1 portables to those people who were sick and tired of always being the last in line for those kick ass intel technologies... there are a whole bunch of other reasons too i guess...
steve showing a picture of him and The Woz has gotta mean something is going to happen ... 30 years damn it ! transition to intel damn it !
See, that's why Apple should have gone with AMD as their CPU supplier. AMD would have enough chips already made before the announcement of the Macs.
i'm all for choosing intel over AMD. this transition process was already a fairly risky decision, so it's only common sense to stick with the trusted age old company... and if my memory serves me right, someone from intel was one of the first investors in apple !
morningstarrising
2006-01-12, 21:26
Yeah, and Apple going with AMD would been Motorola/IBM all over again.
Nothing against AMD, but they just aren't as solid as Intel is.
Intel's a lot bigger of a supplier, but Apple is one of the smallest of its clients, and regardless of any special treatment, they're now competing against HP and Dell and Gateway and all the little guys for the chips. And Intel may be making a lot, but they still have a limited number of processor manufacturing plants.
No Apple would be the third or fourth largest Intel desktop/laptop customer now, worst case 5th. About 75% of the worlds PC production is from small white-box shops that don't routinely make Dataquests production numbers because they are too small and too many.
Probably, but I'd assume they would plan on there being a shortage of Core Duo processors, seeing as how just about every notebook manufacturer is planning on incorporating it into their lines, and every Core Duo based notebook looks to be delayed in shipping until Februrary.
Perhaps Intel simply wasn't able to allocate enough Core Duos for Apple to be able to introduce 3+ notebooks without huge shortages. With only one Core Duo based notebook, Apple would not have to spread their supply of chips as thin as they would with three or more.
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but two Apple computers have Core Duo chips, MacBook and the iMac as well.
Zebulunite
2006-01-13, 15:47
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but two Apple computers have Core Duo chips, MacBook and the iMac as well.
Correct, though I said "only one Core Duo based notebook". At any rate, Apple would have to spread their supply of Core Duos much thinner to have four Core Duo based computers on the market than two.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the newer iMacs are selling about as well as Powerbooks, at least from what I have seen in my local dealer (everyone stops to look at them, more sales etc.)
Isn't the iMac using different dual core chips than the MacBook Pro?
ZachPruckowski
2006-01-14, 12:33
Isn't the iMac using different dual core chips than the MacBook Pro?
Just different speeds. They are still the same chips, built in the same factories, but the chips in the iMac rated higher when tested for speed. At least that's my understanding. they are both "Yonah"s.
So they're all the T Series, I guess. Using different speeds in the two lines allows Apple to spread the supply a little wider, I suppose. Since every computer manufacturer is likely scrambling for these chips, I'm guessing they've been rationed, for now. Hopefully they'll be more plentiful within a month or two.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"E Series" Extreme Edition (50 W+)
- Core Duo E2900: ?
- Core Duo E2800: ?
- Core Duo E2700: 2.33 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
-------------------------------------------------------------
"T Series" Typical (25-49 W, 31W typical)
- Core Duo T2700: 2.33 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
- Core Duo T2600: 2.17 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06)
- Core Duo T2500: 2.00 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06) -> iMac
- Core Duo T2400: 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06) -> iMac & MacBook Pro
- Core Solo T1400: 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
- Core Duo T2300: 1.67 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06) -> MacBook Pro
- Core Solo T1300: 1.67 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
-------------------------------------------------------------
"L Series" Low-Voltage (LV) (15-24 W)
- Core Duo L2500: 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
- Core Duo L2400: 1.67 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06)
- Core Duo L2300: 1.50 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06)
-------------------------------------------------------------
"U Series" Ultra-Low-Voltage (ULV) (14 W)
- Core Solo U1400: 1.23 GHz, FSB 533 (Q2-06)
- Core Duo U2300: 1.06 GHz, FSB 533 (Q2-06)
- Core Solo U1300: 1.06 GHz, FSB 533 (Q2-06)
-------------------------------------------------------------
rollercoaster375
2006-01-14, 13:23
it appears the MacBook Pro's 1.67/1.83GHz processors are drawn from the lower voltage variant of the processor, while the iMac's 1.83GHz/2.0GHz processors belong to the higher voltage performance variant.
I don't know if that's to be trusted, but they make it sound the the MacBook Pro is the "L" variant.
Wow, I never "got" the E/T/L/U thing until now. Extreme, Typical, Low-Voltage, Ultra-Low-Voltage. Simple enough, I guess.
What makes the Extreme Edition different from the Typical Core processor?
rollercoaster375
2006-01-14, 13:35
Wow, I never "got" the E/T/L/U thing until now. Extreme, Typical, Low-Voltage, Ultra-Low-Voltage. Simple enough, I guess.
What makes the Extreme Edition different from the Typical Core processor?
E2700 vs. T2700 is What I asume you're talking about - Same clock speeds, different power usage. The E2700 would be cheaper, that's all.
What? Intel's Extreme Editions are never cheaper.
They're supposed to be faster - that's why they use more power.
I just never got exactly why they were supposed to be faster...I was never much for the Pentium 4 spec soup.
rollercoaster375
2006-01-14, 13:56
What? Intel's Extreme Editions are never cheaper.
They're supposed to be faster - that's why they use more power.
I just never got exactly why they were supposed to be faster...I was never much for the Pentium 4 spec soup.
Well, I was applying the comparison between the L2500 and the T2400... L2500 is more expensive, even though they run at the same speed.
But then, I don't know if the "Extreme Edition" branding will be going on the same way it has with the Pentium 4.
T2400 = 1.83 GHz
T2300 = 1.66 GHz
L2400 = 1.66 GHz
L2300 = 1.50 GHz
According to Intel's site. Also, the old P4EE (Pentium 4 Extreme Edition) was really just a P4 with L3 cache.
The confusing thing is that they use "Extreme" as though it belongs in the power consumption category. You'd think that the price would decrease as the need for low power consumption decreases, but when they throw Extreme in there as well it doesn't necessarily do that.
I'm not sure if an L2400 is supposed to be "equally as fast" as a T2400. It's running at a lower clock speed, and it has the same bus speed and the same amount of L2 cache. I know that with at least a few versions of AMD's chips, the mobile versions got the same speed ratings as their desktop counterparts despite having a 200 MHz slower clock speed, by virtue of having more L2 cache to make up for it. But I don't know if there's anything in the L-series and U-series processors to help them, or if you can only compare the numbers to each other.
It doesn't help that Intel seems to be keeping their old numbering system in place for the older chip lines - Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D, Pentium M, and Celeron M all use the old three-digit numbers, and only the new Core Duo and Core Solo chips have the new numbers. I wonder if they'll ever apply the new numbering to the old chips, or if they'll just gradually introduce the new system as the older chips are discontinued and replaced?
infinitespecter
2006-01-14, 16:21
I don't know if that's to be trusted, but they make it sound the the MacBook Pro is the "L" variant.
I doubt that, unless Intel has moved their plans for the 1.83 L series up from the second half of the year. As it stands right now, the 1.83 L2500 isn't out yet, so that can't be the processor used.
rollercoaster375
2006-01-14, 16:48
I doubt that, unless Intel has moved their plans for the 1.83 L series up from the second half of the year. As it stands right now, the 1.83 L2500 isn't out yet, so that can't be the processor used.
Nor is the MacBook Pro ;)
oldmacfan
2006-01-14, 21:05
What really surprises me is that the Yonah chips where to be be an interim product until the Merom based chips hit the market this summer and I just don't see Yonah production getting into full swing until April/May. I believe that Intel might be having issues that are not getting reported and that Merom based products might not be ready till Christmas or MWSF '07.
As for the 30 Anniversary, he said it and if he wasn't planning something big I do not believe he would have mentioned it.
Granted, he did mention the 20th anniversary of the Mac in 2004, and the only thing that came of that was the online version of the "1984" ad.
infinitespecter
2006-01-15, 01:46
Nor is the MacBook Pro ;)
Yeah, but it will be in a month or so. The L2500 won't be available until the second half of the year. If they mean the fiscal year, they *might* be able to get it in there a little ahead of time, but based on that roadmap, it doesn't seem like they will be able to. Expect that chip around July or August.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.