[SuperMi]

Hi,

I've been looking into some of the specs offered by Dell and Acer. One thing for sure that Intel Core Duo (aka Yonah) is an expensive processor.
The price difference between using Pentium M and Yonah Duo is staggering, I even conclude myself that the next upcoming Yonah Solo wouldn't be that cheap after all.

Unless they are using a lower end chips say Pentium-M or even worst Celeron (Ultra Low Voltage), it is impossible to drive the price down to $799 as being mentioned @ ThinkSecret.

There are two types of Intel Pentium-M, normal voltage and Ultra Low Voltage, in which Intel charge a hefty lump of money for the later one. Perhaps Apple have to use ultra low voltage for iBook, allowing it to have 6 hours battery life or even more.

At the mean time for the sub $1500, Acer and Dell remains the biggest threat for Apple. However, looking at design especially on the polycarbonate iBook chassis, Apple still a winner. Dell and Acer feel a little bit less robust than iBook.

I'm not sure about this, but I believe that Apple have to pay quite a bit for polycarbonate chassis. With the move to Intel, they may have to change its material or remove some parts for remaining competitive.

Honestly, I don't really like seeing low cost iBook that have bad quality control.

Maybe, the move to Intel is not that good after all, from customer point of view.

I don't know about this, but maybe Apple will still use G4 for the next upcoming $799 iBook. This will allow them to empty their G4 stock and slowly increasing the price for Intel Ibook. Although G4 is slow, it is still operate at lower voltage and consume less power than Intel. More importantly, it is CHEAPER.

Changing to Intel is a very expensive move. I really wish they have used a cheaper solution such as Turion64 (AMD).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by SuperMi Unless they are using a lower end chips say Pentium-M or even worst Celeron (Ultra Low Voltage),

Um, LV and ULV versions aren't cheaper, they're more expensive. You're confusing "low voltage" with "low-end" and "low price".

it is impossible to drive the price down to $799 as being mentioned @ ThinkSecret.

Well, of course they're going to use lower-end chips, if only to separate themselves from the MacBook Pro. They've always done this. An iBook has 1.42 GHz max. A PowerBook has 1.67 GHz max. The iMac G5 had 2.1 GHz max. The PowerMac G5 had/has 2.5 GHz max, at four cores.

Now that there's a dual-core CPU in the MacBook Pro, there's one more way to distinguish it from the consumer-level version. The future iBook/MacBook/whatever will either come with a lower-clocked (thus cheaper) version, a single-core (thus, again, cheaper) version, or with a combination of the two.

There are two types of Intel Pentium-M, normal voltage and Ultra Low Voltage, in which Intel charge a hefty lump of money for the later one. Perhaps Apple have to use ultra low voltage for iBook, allowing it to have 6 hours battery life or even more.

You're contradicting yourself. The ULV version is vastly more expensive. It is not fitting for a low-cost consumer solution.

At the mean time for the sub $1500, Acer and Dell remains the biggest threat for Apple. However, looking at design especially on the polycarbonate iBook chassis, Apple still a winner. Dell and Acer feel a little bit less robust than iBook. I'm not sure about this, but I believe that Apple have to pay quite a bit for polycarbonate chassis. With the move to Intel, they may have to change its material or remove some parts for remaining competitive.

Negligible side note: the case is magnesium, i.e. metallic. Only the outer shell is plastic.

I don't know about this, but maybe Apple will still use G4 for the next upcoming $799 iBook.

Hardly. A Core Solo will work well enough and, while more expensive, also more performant.

Changing to Intel is a very expensive move. I really wish they have used a cheaper solution such as Turion64 (AMD).

What makes you feel it is a more viable option? It is slower, hasn't been updated for a while and only supports one core.

[SuperMi]

thanks chucker for your explanations....

i think dell use an endoskeleton metal...but it is not magnesium for sure (inspiron 6000)....while Apple use exoskeleton polycarbonate...I've dismantled Dell and for sure it is not even a magnesium alloy.

by the way, i thought it is the main emphasize of Apple iBook to attract more consumer from Windows' world. With hefty price, I am sure it will scare students away like me...

Turion64...Well although slower it is still cheaper solution. Further, a possibilty of advancing to 64bit OS era

[chucker]

That would be the Mac mini, no? A $499 price tag, the ability to re-use pretty much all your existing hard ware, etc.

The iBook is mostly a students' laptop, and it's very popular amongst universities. I don't think the $899 education price tag is all that steep, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go down a little further.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by SuperMi by the way, i thought it is the main emphasize of Apple iBook to attract more consumer from Windows' world. With hefty price, I am sure it will scare students away like me...

On the contrary. Apple's conference calls after key educational seasons usually highlight how well iBooks are selling in the higher ed space... Apple's $999 price point for a well-built 12" notebook helps with that.

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by chucker The iBook is mostly a students' laptop, and it's very popular amongst universities. I don't think the $899 education price tag is all that steep, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go down a little further.

I agree about that, but I guessed hoping $899 for Yonah Solo iBook + 13" widescreen is merely far from reality.

As always, Intel charge more for the newest chip. Maybe not that much in comparison with Yonah Duo, but I'll bet more expensive than pentium-M.

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by MCQ On the contrary. Apple's conference calls after key educational seasons usually highlight how well iBooks are selling in the higher ed space... Apple's $999 price point for a well-built 12" notebook helps with that.

Hmm...Well, I am just saying to Chucker that the move to Intel will boost the price up since Intel is notorious with hefty one...

With Intel, Apple have to put their price tag higher, unless they do what Dell did, low quality control.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by SuperMi I agree about that, but I guessed hoping $899 for Yonah Solo iBook + 13" widescreen is merely far from reality.

I wouldn't say that. It seems very possible in just a few months.

As I have stated before in another thread, I expect the MacBook to arrive in time for the next semester, so around March or April. Is there some kind of education exposition at that time? Apple might show it off there.

I don't see Apple using the (old, Dothan) Pentium M or Celeron M CPUs for this. The Core Solo should be cheap enough. Even a low-clocked Core Duo might be.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by SuperMi Hmm...Well, I am just saying to Chucker that the move to Intel will boost the price up since Intel is notorious with hefty tag

Why? Did the iMac's price tag change with the move from G5 to Core Duo? No. It stayed the same, and at the same time, Apple actually added a feature (mini-DVI with spanning), improved the GPU, etc.

Did the MacBook Pro's price tag change with the move from the PowerBook G4 to Core Duo? No. Again, it stayed the same, and again, Apple actually added a few features, replacing CardBus with ExpressCard, introducing the magnetic power plug, etc. (Yes, they removed and downgraded some stuff as well; I'll give you that.)

If anything, Apple seems willing to lower their margins just so they can maintain the prices and stay competitive.

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by chucker I wouldn't say that. It seems very possible in just a few months. I don't see Apple using the (old, Dothan) Pentium M or Celeron M CPUs for this. The Core Solo should be cheap enough. Even a low-clocked Core Duo might be.

Hopefully, Apple will manage to do so without sacrificing quality. Well I don't mind with integrated graphics as long it got Core/Yonah Solo

But anyway, I'm happy that I can ruled out Celeron. Their cache is way too small to handle things in the perfect sense.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by SuperMi Hmm...Well, I am just saying to Chucker that the move to Intel will boost the price up since Intel is notorious with hefty one... With Intel, Apple have to put their price tag higher, unless they do what Dell did, low quality control.

I think the premise that Apple will be using a higher priced chip ($200+) in an iBook isn't necessarily going to hold.

It's hard to get several sites that confirm, but it sounds like Intel may release a 1MB L2 Cache version of the Core Solo in Q2 into the price point area of the current Celeron M. If that happens, then Apple should have the ability to maintain their current prices, and possibly lower by $100 if they want to push for marketshare.

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by chucker Why? Did the iMac's price tag change with the move from G5 to Core Duo? No. It stayed the same, and at the same time, Apple actually added a feature (mini-DVI with spanning), improved the GPU, etc. Did the MacBook Pro's price tag change with the move from the PowerBook G4 to Core Duo? No. Again, it stayed the same, and again, Apple actually added a few features, replacing CardBus with ExpressCard, introducing the magnetic power plug, etc. (Yes, they removed and downgraded some stuff as well; I'll give you that.) If anything, Apple seems willing to lower their margins just so they can maintain the prices and stay competitive.

Thanks for the infos Chucker. I really appreciate it a lot.
Maybe it is hard for me as old heavy user of x386 to acknowledge Intel as cut cost solution.
I think I lean too much on AMD...

[chucker]

AMD is currently a great choice for desktops, especially compared to the Intel Pentium 4s, 4EEs and Ds. On the power-efficient laptop market, however, only the Turion 64 can even begin to compete with Intel's Celeron/Pentium M and now Core Solo and Duo offerings. I know little about AMD's plans wrt/ future Turion 64 models. Its HyperTransport-based bus is a strength that even the Core Duo doesn't match, but it would appear that in practice, the difference is negligible. The new "Taylor" series will have a new socket, DDR II and apparently two core, and it's slated to arrive this quarter, so maybe that will make it more competitive. I'm not holding my breath though: Intel has a big advantage here.

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by MCQ I think the premise that Apple will have be using a higher priced chip ($200+) in an iBook isn't necessarily going to hold. It's hard to get several sites that confirm, but it sounds like Intel may release a 1MB L2 Cache version of the Core Solo in Q2 into the price point area of the current Celeron M. If that happens, then Apple should have the ability to maintain their current prices, and possibly lower by $100 if they want to push for marketshare.

Hmm...that's a good news but hopefully Intel don't degrade too much on processor for their low cost alternative.
I'm really hoping that Core Solo is far better option than Celeron....and hopefully will be much cheaper (perhaps due to Merom).

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by chucker AMD is currently a great choice for desktops, especially compared to the Intel Pentium 4s, 4EEs and Ds. On the power-efficient laptop market, however, only the Turion 64 can even begin to compete with Intel's Celeron/Pentium M and now Core Solo and Duo offerings. I know little about AMD's plans wrt/ future Turion 64 models. Its HyperTransport-based bus is a strength that even the Core Duo doesn't match, but it would appear that in practice, the difference is negligible. The new "Taylor" series will have a new socket, DDR II and apparently two core, and it's slated to arrive this quarter, so maybe that will make it more competitive. I'm not holding my breath though: Intel has a big advantage here.

Perhaps my feelings toward Intel is distorted by the fact that in 2005 Japan's Fair Trade Commission found Intel contracts that specifically made pricing rebates dependent upon limiting competition to 10% or even excluding competition entirely. That doesn’t seem like volume pricing discounts to me.

Anyway, business isn't always fair

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by chucker AMD is currently a great choice for desktops, especially compared to the Intel Pentium 4s, 4EEs and Ds. On the power-efficient laptop market, however, only the Turion 64 can even begin to compete with Intel's Celeron/Pentium M and now Core Solo and Duo offerings. I know little about AMD's plans wrt/ future Turion 64 models. Its HyperTransport-based bus is a strength that even the Core Duo doesn't match, but it would appear that in practice, the difference is negligible. The new "Taylor" series will have a new socket, DDR II and apparently two core, and it's slated to arrive this quarter, so maybe that will make it more competitive. I'm not holding my breath though: Intel has a big advantage here.

Ahh yes, AMD and the on chip memory controller and the HyperTransport links. This Q&A will give you a bit of fat to chew on.

http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20060124PR201.html

Not all that glitter's is gold for AMD although I'll take some of that glitter any day.

There is always a bottleneck somewhere...

[mjteix]

Just an update on what is supposed to be available from Intel:
As you all know the Core Solo chip @ 1.66GHz should be available in Q1 for (list price) $209.
Most of us believe that this chip costs too much to be in a $499 Mac mini or a $999 iBook.
Not yet officially announced but in Intel books: the Celeron M family based on 65 nm Yonah Core Solo, but with only 1MB of cache (instead of 2) and a 533MHz FSB (instead of 667).
The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively.
List price between $100-140. Available in Q1 or Q2...
I can see the Mac mini and the iBooks getting a 1.60GHz/533MHz Intel chipset in march/april and later getting up to a 1.67GHz/667MHz Core Duo when Merom is available and powering the 2nd generation of MacBook Pros (and iMacs).

[rminkler]

I'm pretty certain that osx86 relies on SSE3, which is not supported by the pentium-m. The first intel (maybe from any manufacturer) mobile (low heat) chip to support SSE3 is the Yonah (or Core).

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by mjteix Just an update on what is supposed to be available from Intel: As you all know the Core Solo chip @ 1.66GHz should be available in Q1 for (list price) $209. Most of us believe that this chip costs too much to be in a $499 Mac mini or a $999 iBook. Not yet officially announced but in Intel books: the Celeron M family based on 65 nm Yonah Core Solo, but with only 1MB of cache (instead of 2) and a 533MHz FSB (instead of 667). The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively. List price between $100-140. Available in Q1 or Q2... I can see the Mac mini and the iBooks getting a 1.60GHz/533MHz Intel chipset in march/april and later getting up to a 1.67GHz/667MHz Core Duo when Merom is available and powering the 2nd generation of MacBook Pros (and iMacs).

I can't see Apple using Celeron (Celeron = cheap junk)(Apple = high end), and for that matter I can't see them releasing a Core Solo product. Rosetta will dog it on a Core Solo or Celeron, and Apple doesn't want a dog on it's hands. Also I think Apple would like to avoid having a Single core Intel product that can be more easily compared to the G4 and G5 single core chips.

[mjteix]

oldmacfan and rminkler, i used to think the same before I read that the Celeron M 4xx family will be based on the 65nm Yonah Core. I also would like all macs to be dual core, but with the price of the Core Duo and Core Solo, I can't believe they can put them in Mac minis or iBooks and keep the current price points (even if they keep the same other specs).
Else Apple could choose not to Intel-ize the mini/iBook before Merom is available and Yonah is cheaper, but I can't imagine them waiting for next fall... What do you think?

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by chucker Why? Did the iMac's price tag change with the move from G5 to Core Duo? No. It stayed the same, and at the same time, Apple actually added a feature (mini-DVI with spanning), improved the GPU, etc.

G5 unlike the predecessor G4 is costly chip. Replacing them with Duo would be insignificant to Apple.

Originally Posted by chucker Did the MacBook Pro's price tag change with the move from the PowerBook G4 to Core Duo? No. Again, it stayed the same, and again, Apple actually added a few features, replacing CardBus with ExpressCard, introducing the magnetic power plug, etc. (Yes, they removed and downgraded some stuff as well; I'll give you that.)

Yes that's true, however 14" G4 PowerBook is already expensive anyway.
It's way too much for a laptop that still run under an aging G4.

Originally Posted by chucker If anything, Apple seems willing to lower their margins just so they can maintain the prices and stay competitive.

Sorry mate but Steve isn't really a generous guy !

Price difference between vendors that using Duo such as MacPro, Dell Duo, and Acer is marginally slim. Furthermore, the price of the overall product is mainly dictated by Intel.

I am skeptical that the new upcoming iBook will use Core Solo...not this year...perhaps somewhere in 2007.
They rather wait until Merom which by all means will lower all other Intel lines.
At the mean time, they might use Pentium M 1.6Ghz 400Mhz.

The new Celeron, well...I don't think so.
its trademark will always leave a terror for an avid gamer.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by SuperMi G5 unlike the predecessor G4 is costly chip. Replacing them with Duo would be insignificant to Apple.

Could I see some numbers here? I've heard a lot of debate over the price of the G5 vs. the G4, but I haven't seen how they compare to each other or Intel's and AMD's chips.

Originally Posted by SuperMi Price difference between vendors that using Duo such as MacPro, Dell Duo, and Acer is marginally slim. Furthermore, the price of the overall product is mainly dictated by Intel.

Not entirely. Apple sells laptops for $999 and up. Dell sells them for $499 and up. Clearly Dell is doing a lot more cost-cutting than Apple is, both in the form of using cheaper components and accepting smaller (or nonexistent!) profit margins. Is that because Dell uses Intel and most Apple notebooks use G4s? No, not really; it's because Dell uses shared VRAM and includes 256 MB of RAM and sells the machine with a 90-day warranty and throws it in a thick and heavy case. They cut costs everywhere.

Originally Posted by SuperMi I am skeptical that the new upcoming iBook will use Core Solo...not this year...perhaps somewhere in 2007. They rather wait until Merom which by all means will lower all other Intel lines. At the mean time, they might use Pentium M 1.6Ghz 400Mhz.

Why? Why are you skeptical of the iBook getting the Core Solo? Apple wants to move all their machines to the Intel platform this year, and the iBook is the next logical choice. The Core Solo processor is ideal for the iBook and the Mac mini. Why would Apple bother using an outdated chip that's ready to be replaced when the Core Solo is right there, ready to be used? I mean, you could say that the Core Duo will be outdated when Merom comes along, but Merom isn't here yet. The Core processors are current, which means that's what they'll use.

Originally Posted by SuperMi The new Celeron, well...I don't think so. It hasn't come yet and its trademark will always leave a terror for an avid gamer.

Why would an avid gamer buy a Mac? I agree that Apple most likely won't use a Celeron chip (they will use a Core Solo), but I am not sure what avid gaming has to do with Macs. The two ideas are virtually mutually exclusive.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Luca Could I see some numbers here? I've heard a lot of debate over the price of the G5 vs. the G4, but I haven't seen how they compare to each other or Intel's and AMD's chips.

No, you can't, because such prices are not publicly available. The only prices you get are those of retail sellers, which are massively inflated.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker If anything, Apple seems willing to lower their margins just so they can maintain the prices and stay competitive.

You hit the nail on the head I think.

I think besides the pro vs consumer dimension, Apples *price spots even define their target groups*, as opposed to companies whose target groups are rather defined by what the product is used for and the benefits that are required. Or companies who start with components and then look who they can sell them to.
The latter two can fiddle with prices without getting in conflict with their product positioning logic, but if you think that your target groups are *defined by the amount of money spent on a computer*, which I'm pretty sure Apple thinks, you can't.

So now that they move over to Intel, and PCI Express, and thingies like cameras, seperate dvi out, remote controls, they must currently be in a cyclic process of consumer research and fiddling with tech specs to find out what each component is precisely worth to their customers.
This is also another reason to keep the design the same as much as they can: since it's such an important factor in many customers' buying decisions, changing the design would spoil Apple's view on them.

So in regard to the starting question: yes we'll get cheaper Intel Macs, but they won't be iMacs.
They'll be Mac minis and it's very hard to predict what tech specs they'll have. But their price points should remain (nearly) the same.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker If anything, Apple seems willing to lower their margins just so they can maintain the prices and stay competitive.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I think besides the server vs pro vs consumer vs mobile entertainment dimension, Apples *price spots even define their target groups*, as opposed to companies whose target groups are solely defined by what the product is used for and the benefits that are required. Or companies who start with components and then look who they can sell them to.
The latter two can fiddle with prices without getting in conflict with their product positioning logic, but if you think that your target groups are *defined by the amount of money spent on a computer*, which I'm pretty sure Apple thinks, you can't.

So now that they move over to Intel, and PCI Express, and thingies like cameras, seperate dvi out, remote controls, they must currently be in a cyclic process of consumer research and fiddling with tech specs to find out what each component is precisely worth to their customers.
This is also another reason to keep the design the same as much as they can: since it's such an important factor in many customers' buying decisions, changing the design would spoil Apple's view on them.

So in regard to the starting question: yes we'll get cheaper Intel Macs, but I don't think they'll be iMacs.
They'd rather be Mac minis and it's very hard to predict what tech specs they'll have except that they won't have screens or keyboards. But their price points should remain (nearly) the same.

It's also possible of course that Apple is going to introduce one or two new product categories.

If you see Apple's positioning matrix as consisting of a price spot dimension (rows) and a server vs pro vs consumer vs mobile entertainment dimension (columns), I would personally add a fifth column consisting of non-mobile entertainment and redefine the consumer column as 'active consumer'.

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by Luca Why? Why are you skeptical of the iBook getting the Core Solo? Apple wants to move all their machines to the Intel platform this year, and the iBook is the next logical choice. The Core Solo processor is ideal for the iBook and the Mac mini. Why would Apple bother using an outdated chip that's ready to be replaced when the Core Solo is right there, ready to be used? I mean, you could say that the Core Duo will be outdated when Merom comes along, but Merom isn't here yet. The Core processors are current, which means that's what they'll use.

The price is the main factor.
Intel ?? Will they capable enough to produce Solo in mass production just to keep the price down.
They may....But they won't do it for sure.

Originally Posted by Luca Why would an avid gamer buy a Mac? I agree that Apple most likely won't use a Celeron chip (they will use a Core Solo), but I am not sure what avid gaming has to do with Macs. The two ideas are virtually mutually exclusive.

It is undeniable that most avid gamers are STUDENTS.
They may need OS X for works related projects and Windows for recreational games.

Together with OSX and upcoming Vista in late November, the new window of possibilities will be opened.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by SuperMi It is undeniable that most avid gamers are STUDENTS.

High-school students. Aka teenagers. Hardly the kind of target audience for an iBook/MacBook.

University students? They might be playing games in their spare time, but if they're halfway serious about what they're doing, I'm sure they can get by with not having the latest crazy technology. And if they can't, well, too bad. They're gonna have to buy a dual-core dual-GPU (SLI) 2 GB RAM / 512 MB VRAM water-cooled + 10 additional fans AlienWare-based modded screwed up piece of hardware for $3,000 that breaks down after three months because they overclocked it too much.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by chucker University students? They might be playing games in their spare time, but if they're halfway serious about what they're doing, I'm sure they can get by with not having the latest crazy technology. And if they can't, well, too bad. They're gonna have to buy a dual-core dual-GPU (SLI) 2 GB RAM / 512 MB VRAM water-cooled + 10 additional fans AlienWare-based modded screwed up piece of hardware for $3,000 that breaks down after three months because they overclocked it too much.

Not to mention that most college students are not typically people who have large amounts of disposable income to drop on such products. Most of the ones I've seen usually do gaming on a console, or a mid-level gaming PC.

IMO, SuperMi's opinion is flawed as well. Yeah, don't use a new Celeron (or whatever it'll be called) based on a Core Solo that is technologically better than a P-M 1.6 GHz, because of the branding name. Because gamers, who know the most about PC components, won't know that anything based on the Core Solo is much better.

Besides, who does serious gaming on a $999 12" laptop?

[SuperMi]

Originally Posted by MCQ Not to mention that most college students are not typically people who have large amounts of disposable income to drop on such products. Most of the ones I've seen usually do gaming on a console, or a mid-level gaming PC. IMO, SuperMi's opinion is flawed as well. Yeah, don't use a new Celeron (or whatever it'll be called) based on a Core Solo that is technologically better than a P-M 1.6 GHz, because of the branding name. Because gamers, who know the most about PC components, won't know that anything based on the Core Solo is much better.

Celeron reduced the L2 cache ...even smaller than P-M....
Normally this will slash out performance...

Originally Posted by MCQ Besides, who does serious gaming on a $999 12" laptop?

My brother Jack and mostly my mates from the land down under, AUSTRALIA

[Dr_LHA]

Originally Posted by SuperMi It is undeniable that most avid gamers are STUDENTS. They may need OS X for works related projects and Windows for recreational games.

I know plenty of avid gamer students who own iBooks. Guess what - they all own Xboxes, Gamecubes and PS2s. PC gaming is dying a death and quickly becoming a marginalised activity, and I think on Mac is such a small consideration as to be negligible.