Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · Apr 14, 2004, 07:52 PM

Apple Q2 04 call with financial analysts

"IBM is working very very hard" to bring supply demand in balance for (Xserve) G5 chips, expects to catch up with demand this quarter. IBM is the only supplier that's delaying the shipment.

juanvaldes · Apr 15, 2004, 12:53 AM

does anyone know the status of the quad CPU servers IBM was going to sell?

The Placid Casual · Apr 15, 2004, 01:16 AM

Burn them! Burn them! Burn them!

Bring back Moto, bring back Moto!!

ryju · Apr 15, 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Burn them! Burn them! Burn them!

Bring back Moto, bring back Moto!!

Now now let's not lose our heads here!

djohnson · Apr 15, 2004, 09:00 AM

LOL! IBM will get the chips out... eventually, the wont take as long as Motorola though!!!

buffalolee · Apr 15, 2004, 09:17 AM

Even if Motorola makes the chips, it would still lag behind in technology. SOI...wait a few months after IBM does it. 0.9 micron? Wait a year or two, then we will get you the chip.

Even if IBM is slow for this part, they have always been innovative in CPU technologies.

Sarc · Apr 15, 2004, 12:01 PM

wasn't the fishkill plant sopposed to be operating at ~1/3 capacity ?
would't IBM just need to "power up" the rest of the plant to meet demand ??
damn you blig blue.

Eug Wanker · Apr 16, 2004, 09:55 AM

Article about IBM's yields (free registration required):

The Microelectronics Division has been in the red for some time. During a conference call with analysts, John Joyce, senior vice president and chief financial officer for IBM, said the former technology unit lost $150 million on a pro forma basis in the first quarter of 2004 alone.

One of the problems is ongoing yield issues within the company's 300-mm fab in East Fishkill, N.Y. For months, IBM has been struggling with yields in the fab, a 130- and 90-nm plant.

"We do see demand, but we need to make the products," Joyce said. "We need to improve our yields in our 300-mm plant. Our yields did see some improvement, but not as fast (as the company had hoped)."

IBM is seeing better-than-expected yields within its 200-mm plant in Burlington, Vt., he said. But profits within the 200-mm fab did not offset ongoing losses within the 300-mm fab and a sudden drop in IP revenues in the first quarter, he said.

Joyce believes the technology unit will become profitable in 2004, due to increased chip demand, improving yields and flat IP sales.

djohnson · Apr 16, 2004, 10:52 AM

Nice article! It helps to see exactly what is going on.

Eug Wanker · Apr 16, 2004, 11:59 PM

So I hope Apple's and IBM's statements of ramping quickly in this quarter really are true, and it happens earlier this quarter rather than later.

However, people are still get getting their Xserve G5 orders delayed. eg. Original Feb. ship dates are getting delayed until May, although the singles and some of the duals are starting to trickle in.

If they can't ship Xserve G5s in volume until May, maybe the dual 2.5 GHz Power Macs won't appear until later.

Eug Wanker · Apr 17, 2004, 12:43 AM

Article about IBM's yields (free registration required):

This link doesn't require registration.

Eug Wanker · Apr 21, 2004, 01:31 PM

Now that the dual Xserve G5s are arriving, I wonder if it means we'll see G5 Power Mac updates in May.

A WWDC 2.5 GHz G5 update would be somewhat of an embarassment for Jobs.

Lateralus · Apr 21, 2004, 01:43 PM

A 2.6 rollout late this month or in May would be fine. And if 3.0s were to debut and ship around September, I think pretty much everyone would be willing to overlook Steve's 12 month WWDC-to-WWDC promise. Well, except for Switched2Mac. But he does nothing but bitch and moan, so that isn't too much of a shocker.

BrunoBruin · Apr 21, 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
And if 3.0s were to debut and ship around September, I think pretty much everyone would be willing to overlook Steve's 12 month WWDC-to-WWDC promise.

I agree, especially since everyone seems to conveniently forget that Steve himself backpedaled later and said "next summer," which in Applespeak means late September.

I still maintain that Apple could roll out a lineup of, say, 2.0, 2.4 and 2.6 machines as soon as they can, and then simply add a 3.0GHz model to the lineup in September. They don't have to overhaul the whole lineup to add a faster model. And while I can't remember Apple ever doing this in the modern Jobsian era, they can always fast-talk their way around it. Hell, they can call the 3.0 a special 20th-anniversary model, and who's going to complain about a faster Mac?

G4ME · Apr 21, 2004, 03:18 PM

when it takes forever for them to ship

BrunoBruin · Apr 21, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by G4ME:
when it takes forever for them to ship

Well, that's a given.

zubro · Apr 21, 2004, 04:01 PM

a G5 at 2 when the new PB haqve a 1.5 now!...
Com' on IBM, don t let Moto over take! ;o)

Eug Wanker · 10:55 PM

Originally posted by BrunoBruin:
I agree, especially since everyone seems to conveniently forget that Steve himself backpedaled later and said "next summer," which in Applespeak means late September.

I still maintain that Apple could roll out a lineup of, say, 2.0, 2.4 and 2.6 machines as soon as they can, and then simply add a 3.0GHz model to the lineup in September. They don't have to overhaul the whole lineup to add a faster model. And while I can't remember Apple ever doing this in the modern Jobsian era, they can always fast-talk their way around it. Hell, they can call the 3.0 a special 20th-anniversary model, and who's going to complain about a faster Mac?

I don't see them having a 4-speed lineup, although it would be interesting to see that. How would they price that dual 3.0? $3799?.

Nah, I'm still thinking a traditional 2-stage update:

May 2004: 2.0, 2x2.25, 2x2.5
Oct. 2004: 2.4, 2x2.7, 2x3.0

Or something like that.

BTW, Another article about IBM's yield problems.

BrunoBruin · Apr 22, 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I don't see them having a 4-speed lineup, although it would be interesting to see that. How would they price that dual 3.0? $3799?.

Well, there is historical precedent; they did have the 466/dual 533/667/733 lineup in early 2001, at least until they dumped the 667 after a few months.

If they priced the top model of a revised line at $2,799 rather than the current $2,999, they could slot an additional uber-Mac above it at $3,299. And you know it would sell at that price, there are folks out there who have been panting for that 3.0GHz machine since Steve (idiotically) mentioned it and won't buy anything less.

I agree that a two-stage update is more likely, and for my sake I hope that's the case as I'm ready to buy the instant they are released. If I have to wait until the end of June I will be making this face a lot: -->

(Unsurprisingly, I still haven't heard back on pricing from my campus computer store, but I'm sure what I'll hear is that the dual-2.0GHz models are still $2,699 here. And I just can't bring myself to buy them at that price.)