Teardown: Apple’s Intel-Based iMac

Teardown: Apple’s Intel-Based iMac

malebolgia on 19 January 2006 - 22:03 · 20 comments & 3478 views

Advertisement (Why?)

Apple Computer Inc.’s first desktop PC to be based on an Intel Corp.-manufactured microprocessor carries a bill of materials (BOM) cost of $873, according to a teardown by El Segundo, Calif.-based iSuppli Corp.

The new Apple iMac desktop PC, introduced by Apple head Steve Jobs at last week’s MacWorld Expo, is based on Intel’s Core Duo microprocessor, marking a major departure for Apple, which has never used an Intel-made microprocessor in its PCs, instead opting to employ PowerPC chips made by IBM and Freescale Inc. over the past decade.

News source: Electronic News

About the Author

Full name: Unknown
User name: malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: View All
More: View Profile

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 20 additional comments

(1 reply) #1 tOta on 20 Jan 2006 - 08:07

That bastards

#1.1 perochan on 20 Jan 2006 - 08:28

ditto

(2 replies) #2 jimbo11883 on 20 Jan 2006 - 08:47

If you ask me, they aren't making too much of a profit...

#2.1 matt74441 on 21 Jan 2006 - 11:16

Well like the launch of any new product, they don't usually make a large profit at the start, but give it time.

#2.2 thorazine on 21 Jan 2006 - 22:03

I dont think anyone out of Apple can calculate how much profit they are making with each iMac sold but considering that Intel iMacs are selling at more or less the same price PowerPC iMacs and assuming (without any facts) that Intel chips are cheaper for Apple I would say they are increasing their profits (same prices, lower costs).

(3 replies) #3 Jayzee on 20 Jan 2006 - 10:17

I was expecting that Intel based macs woule be cheeper (that is why they made transition) but they are not! They also stated that a Intel based mac would not cost more than a PC...

When can we expect price drop?

#3.1 roadwarrior on 20 Jan 2006 - 21:56

Price was never a major factor in Apple's decision to switch processors. They also never stated that an Intel Mac "would not cost more than a PC". If you seriously believe that, you have been reading too many rumor sites.

#3.2 rIaHc3 on 24 Jan 2006 - 14:24

Price was never a major factor in Apple's decision to switch processors.

Yes it was. Apple could not pay IBM enough to get PowerPC chips to advance tech. speaking. So they switched to someone that was cheaper to produce chips for them (Intel).

#3.3 sphbecker on 02 Feb 2006 - 18:39

No, the big reason for the switch was that IBM had no apparent plans of making a G5 for a laptop (dispute the fact that they kept talking about one). Price we just an added bonus.

#4 indiehead on 20 Jan 2006 - 14:12

yeah, and when can we see price drops on the powerpc-based kit?

i mean, if it's soo faster and all.

#5 CubanPete on 20 Jan 2006 - 20:44

I'm surprised that you'r surprised

Apple have recently mentioned that they havent sold as much as normal possibly due to the wait for the intel switch. If they now start shipping loads of systems and it stays high enough i dont think they will lower the price, 'cheap' and 'good deal' are something i dont describe anything of apples.

As for the PPC stuff, i alos expected that to be lower, obviously not. I can't see anyone buying anything like a Mac Mini until they either lower the prices or release the intel versions.

#6 farmeunit on 26 Jan 2006 - 00:08

I'd say they switched because of the performance difference, not necessarily the price. The PPC chips just aren't comparable speed wise if you look at side by side (so to speak) comparison. I do mean general performance, BTW, not just video.

Last edited by farmeunit on 26 Jan 2006 - 00:16

(1 reply) #7 evo_spook on 27 Jan 2006 - 18:26

I think you will find that the PowerPC chips are actually cheaper

#7.1 Zenith on 28 Jan 2006 - 01:38

they are cheaper for Apple to buy, but they have to contribute to the huge cost of making the chip (ie making Altivec technology work). With the Intel chips, everything is done for them; they dont have to worry about the production of the chip. Therefore it is cheaper.

#8 evo_spook on 29 Jan 2006 - 13:59

I think theres a flaw

To make a IBM powerpc chip work (get it in a laptop) they would have had to supply a third party funds to produce a product, this I think besides not meeting mhz factors was one of the reasons for the switch

#9 simeandrews on 29 Jan 2006 - 19:54

Come on, they're allowed to make a profit. And did these people include all the software that's preloaded on the iMac?

(2 replies) #10 quixos on 01 Feb 2006 - 03:27

there is nothing wrong with making profit. people complaining about this must not work for a living.

#10.1 mikeyj on 01 Feb 2006 - 04:03

I couldn't agree with you more

#10.2 MrCobra on 02 Feb 2006 - 00:52

Nothing wrong with making profits, but when a company bulds basically the "same" system for less cost to them (no money to IBM to help with developement of the cpu) and still charges the same prices as before is rediculous.

#11 Jack31081 on 03 Feb 2006 - 15:47

Not only is there nothing wrong with making a profit, there's also a lot more that goes into the price of an iMac than just the price of parts + profit.

There's the labor that puts it all together. The testing of all the units. The included software.

Then there's the R&D that went into creating the machine in the first place. It probably costs many millions of dollars to create the first intel iMac. It'll be a while before all that's paid off.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)

Neowin.net

Teardown: Apple’s Intel-Based iMac

Share this Article

About the Author

Related news