Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple/Intel Speculation Running Rampant

Posted by Hemos on from the is-it-anything dept.

6031769 writes "ZD Net are reporting a rumour that Steve Jobs will announce Apple are going to move to an Intel chip base at their worldwide developer conference today. Still just a rumour, but could this be the masterstroke Apple have been promising or is it a blind alley?" Lots of submissions about this one, but no one knows for sure - there have been stories about how AMD is hurt by this - but I think my favorite debunking of it is the piece by John Gruber on Daring Fireball.

29 of 623 comments (clear)

  1. Its all just talk. by Willy+on+Wheels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is all just rumors to get Apple users upset. Its being going since the 1980's, and its never happened. The G5 is too much of an asset to dump for the hell that is the P4. Even diehard Windows users are all migrating to AMD64 these days, Intel is just trying to get some free advertising and FUD to play with.

    --
    Do you play with your Willy?
    1. Re:Its all just talk. by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The PPC is a fantastic proc, but if IBM has come to Apple and said that they simply cannot deliver an efficient mobile PPC 970, given the way Freescale has totally dropped the ball on delivering a G4 with a clock and bus speed that belongs in this century, this would be the probable reaction by Apple.

      Laptops are the fastest growing, most important segment to the company, and the iBook and PowerBook lines are both hurting for serious updates. The continued failure of these updates to appear suggests that their are serious issues preventing their appearance. If Apple's portable lines were projected to be stuck with the moribund G4 line for the foreseeable future, they'd react in the only way possible to ensure the continued relevance of their computers in their most important market; they'd switch to someone who could supply the mobile CPUs they need to survive, even if that meant some tough times in their immediate future.

      "The IBM can't deliver a mobile G5" theory even explains the rumored roll out time line; the low-end minis and the portables will have fallen furthest behind the rest of the industry in another year or two if they're stuck with the G4, and be most desperately in need of an upgrade the soonest. The desktop G5s, thanks to the G5's excellent performance as a desktop CPU, will keep pace with the industry longer, and thus be in far less need of an upgrade than the heat- and power-constrained lines.

    2. Re:Its all just talk. by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. Going to x86 would be insanely stupid. Adding a third supplier of PPC chips would not be. And it would be a smart move for Intel to start making PPC chips - there's nothing stopping that from happening.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  2. Today... by brilinux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they are going to announce it today, why don't we just wait and see instead of posting that "it could happen" right before?

  3. Could be a disaster.... by eyegor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can you say binary incompatability?

    When Apple last changed processor families, there was a big problem with binary incompatability. Needless to say, there were a lot of very pissed off Apple users. The transition from PowerPC to Intel could be very painful given two different processor families.

    The LAST thing Apple needs to do is to piss off it's user base.

    --

    Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
    1. Re:Could be a disaster.... by mr_gerbik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but this could be the last time they do it, and it would give it more of a reassuring "once and for all" impression.

      Yeah, I hope this is the last architecture change they ever make. I really want to be using x86 20-50 years down the line.

    2. Re:Could be a disaster.... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Problems with this theory: 1. Intel probably wouldn't want to produce PowerPCs. 2. Apple has little or nothing to gain by Intel producing 970 clones except, possibly, fractional improvements in price.

      Apple's problem at the moment is two-fold: The 970 is capped at well under the 3GHz originally promised, and it's still a power hog. It can't be used in laptops. Intel building clones isn't going to help, the 970 will need some design work to get faster and/or use less power.

      Meanwhile, not only are we supposedly asking Intel to undermine the credibility of its own competitors to the PowerPC range, but also to make a CPU for one manufacturer that's come to it saying "We went to Freescale and they suck, so we went to IBM and they suck too, and now we're coming to you". For Intel to bite, it has to have real value for them, and being a second-tier chip cloner is not where Intel is at. They need Apple to confer credibility on what Intel does.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Could be a disaster.... by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think all of us late '90s and on BeOS users understand first hand why it would be a Bad Idea for Apple to find themselves straddling an endianness divide.

      On BeOS, it was a constant annoyance to find that xxx cool program was only available to BeOS PPC users or BeOS x86 users because the author of the package didn't write code that works on both big endian and little endian machines. BeOS may not have been hurt too badly from it because most of its users were geeks who were willing to try an altOS anyway, but I seriously doubt that Apple users would handle the problem charitably. A great many wouldn't be able to understand the problem beyond the "Damn it, I just spent good money on this app that says it runs on MacOS but won't run because I have a CPU! What the FUCK is wrong with Apple!?" level.

    4. Re:Could be a disaster.... by Intron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another way to do it would be to put both a PPC and Pentium chip on the motherboard. Be able to run Windows binaries on Intel and native Apple on PPC. There are lots of dual-CPU systems on the market, but very few with two different processors. I know of a Sun clone made by Tatung some years back that had Sparc + x86 and did this.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    5. Re:Could be a disaster.... by NetRanger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually this could be a very good thing. Let's stop and think about this from a developer's perspective. First off, since the majority of hardware interface issues will come from the driver and kernel levels, and the BSD-based kernel is very portable, there should be little issue with respect to recompiling binaries for the x86 instruction set.

      The bad part: this will also allow far easier binary compatibility with Win32 binaries. OS/2 made the mistake of emulating Windows too well: everyone ran Windows programs under OS/2 and didn't bother developing native applications. MacOS might share the same fate, especially with Redmond's habit of causing (intentional?) compatibility issues with competing products.

      The biggest thing about moving to Intel is bringing down cost: with all the offerings available for the x86 platform, I would suspect that Apple hardware will fall about 25% in price. Imagine a Mac Mini for $350 -- it's very possible.

      Apple usually has great hardware (and backs it up well) but moving to an Intel platform doesn't mean compromising that quality -- look at Asus motherboards, for example.

      All in all, if the rumors are true, this will be a major threat to either Apple or Microsoft -- because it's the equivalent of going "all in" on Apple's part. Is it a bluff, or does Apple hold the aces?

      --
      -- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
    6. Re:Could be a disaster.... by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You forget that Intel has some of the best engineers in the business. IBM has very good engineers, but they're scattered around a bit in terms of specialities. Intel has very talented people devoted entirely to processors. It's quite possible Apple thinks Intel can do the engineering work better than IBM.

      From Intel's point of view, they need to diversify. Itanium is finally going the way of the dodo. On the x86 side AMD has them beat, and as soon as the market realises that they're in trouble. Getting into making another chip and engineering it to be better than it was could be just what they're looking for. Imagine the attention they'd get if they could say "we did what IBM couldn't".

      --
      I am trolling
  4. The best of this wave of debunkings, you mean by ianscot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure, that's a pretty good set of debunkings linked to at the end of the posting. I'd even go with something like the guess at the end -- seems like Jobs wouldn't just be announcing "We're on the intel bandwagon, hook link and sinker," for all the reasons people usually mention. (What would it do to the existing sales base? I mean, my God, who would buy a G5 iMac right now knowing that in a year it'd be a cut-off technical backwater for the company?)

    But, you know, we have at least five or ten years of people debunking this particular rumor. Describing this list as the best ever is jumping the gun a little. Maybe we'll have another five years of the same, and then we can judge better.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  5. Re:a few questions... by tolan-b · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Supposing this were to happen, I'd say:

    1. No
    2. That would be interesting, although it's likely to face similar problems to regular WINE. Perhaps they could join the WINE development effort though.
    3. I'd say there'd still be room for it, as even if the processor changes there would still be differences in the architecture between Mac and PC.

  6. meh, cell processors are not good enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's review:

    IBM marketed its cell processors to xbox and ps3 that outperforms older super computers. And is rumored to be the next generation CPU platform for PCs.

    AMD's Athlon 64 technology out performs current CPU sets shipped by Intel by leaps and bounds while still maintaining cheaper price margin.

    x86 archetecture wont be compatable with Apple's older codes (OS and applications)

    It makes no sense for Apple to move to Intel. It's baffling why anyone would leave an optimized platform, switch to another, and choose the most expensive yet not the best solution.

  7. Stock price? Re:Its all just talk. by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems likely that this frenzy of speculation will affect the stock price in the short term. It seems like no matter what Apple announces at WWDC today, the headline will be related to this speculation. The folks who drive the stock price probably don't read Slashdot, and the headline "Apple did or did not switch to Intel" may drive some pretty big buy/sell movement as soon as the keynote is over.

    Which direction will it move? If it moves down, how long will it take to recover?

    There is enough uncertainty in such a move that it sure seems to me -- a slashdot reader who doesn't affect stock prices -- that it could only move down if such a switch is announced. However, when I think about it from the perspective of a trader who probably doesn't know all that much beyond the headline that shows up on his pager at say 11:01 PST today, I wonder if a switch would be considered good, and a series of PowerPC related announcements would be considered as a sell indicator.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  8. Re:Dvorak is bragging by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful
    basically bragging he "called" this x86 switch a couple of years back.

    Yeah, along with every two-bit prognosticator in the business since 1985.

    Unless we start to calculate batting averages, this game is really too easy. You just spout a lot of things that are likely, a few things are possible, carefully leaving some wiggle room so you can argue that you were right, but your timing was off. Or maybe your idea was right, but it turned out that they decided to do what you predicted, but with somebody else. The reasons for this were only obvious later, but of course you suspected them; the only reason you didn't call it exactly as it came off was because you don't engage in irresponsible and wild speculation. Then throw in some really wild speculations you pulled out of your ass.

    After some time has past, go over everything you ever predicted, and pick out the successes, trumpeting them while completely ignoring all the things you predicted that didn't happen, and fudging the stuff that could still be possible if anybody objects. If any of your wild speculations turn out to be true, you really hit paydirt.

    Here is a small essay in the art of punditry:

    Apple will not go x86 at this time but they will milk the speculation for all the publicity they can. After the hooplah dies down, they'll quietly explore this possibility, and decide the time is ripe because of ** insert handwaving here **. This will be kept top secret, then announced with enough hooplah for the Second Coming. However, they may not go with Intel, but with AMD. But it won't matter, because they will continue to play the major chip vendors off of each other. If they aren't doing it publicly, you can bet they are doing it secretly. All the while they'll be toying with with aquiring their own CPU design capabilities (Apple picking up Transmeta at a bargain price?).

    Later, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates will file for domestic partnership in California, but it won't last, and Gates will file charges of domestic abuse. Civil law cases will grind to a halt as the supply of lawyers is exhausted by the mother of all palimony proceedings.


    Now, if Apple does announce an x86 switch today, then I'm not wrong. I predicted it. It just happened that they were further along in the ** handwaving ** than they let on. If Steve Jobs and Bill Gates file for domestic partnership, then I will be promoted to pundit godhood. If they don't it could still happen some day. If one of them dies, they would have had he lived.
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Re:Meanwhile Microsoft and Sony are using IBM PPC. by dick+johnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Chip supply. IBM and Motorola have had repeated problems supplying Apple with the number of chips that Apple needs. Intel will not have this problem.

    IBM is now something like two years behind on its promised 3 Ghz chips.

    2) Laptops. Apple needs a low-heat G-5 chip for it's laptops. From all accounts, it may be as long as two years before IBM or Motorola will be able to provide these chips.

    3) Cost. Apple, according to today's NY Times, in its latest renegotiations with IBM wanted a discount on the price of the PowerPC chips. IBM essentally said forget about it.

    4) There's no way Apple will NOT have a way for users to run their old applications on the new Intel/Macs. There will be some form of emulation available -- count on it.

    --
    - dj
  10. Re:a few questions... by saider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A PC (aka "IBM PC clone") is more than just the microprocessor that runs it. There is quite a bit of legacy equipment and behavior that is included (like BIOS) that makes a computer a PC.

    In short, a PC must be intel, but an intel based computer need not conform to the PC specifications.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  11. Re:AMD, and other speculation by ebuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Debunking, my foot.

    There's nothing to debunk, because there's no news to report. This is still (until Apple says something) not much more than wild speculation. It's a shame that it has become the primary hardware news story at Slashdot since the weekend, but so far, there's been nothing to back it up.

    It's like saying, "Of course I don't believe in chain letters, but I've sent it off to 20 of my friends, and I'd like you to distribute it too; just in case."

  12. Re:Dvorak is bragging by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dvorak is a professional troll. I don't know why someone who whined that Windows was slow "because the system idle process was thrashing 95% of cpu time!!111oneone" can ever get front page news on Slashdot. He's basically a clueless dolt.

    --
    Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  13. Re:Dvorak is bragging by sg3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > Yeah, along with every two-bit prognosticator in the business
    > since 1985.

    Absolutely. It's a pretty easy prediction to make. Back in 2002, I posted how Mac OS X could allow Apple to switch to x86 on Slashdot:

    It's very unlikely that you'll see such a project until Apple can safely move as many Mac users there as possible, while stranding as few users as possible. The Mac market is too small for it to be successfully fragmented into Mac-PPC and Mac-x86 camps. But there is a path for Apple to get there.

    1. Introduce Macintoshes running on as much PC-compatible hardware as possible. CHECK: current Macs use the same video cards, video memory, bus ports, and other parts as regular PCs. Just the processor is different

    2. Introduce an operating system that can be run truely architecture independent. CHECK: Mac OS X is based on NeXTStep that used to run on x86. All they need is to get the majority of their users onto Mac OS X. Right now they're at 20% penetration.

    3. Get Mac users off of Classic so they don't have to worry about PPC compatibility. IN PROGRESS: with Mac OS X 10.2, expect a lot more users spending all their time in Cocoa and Carbon. It'll probably be until 2004 before Classic will fall to a minority of users (once the specialized apps are replaced by Mac OS equivalents)

    4. Introduce a Mac that uses a non-PowerPC processor (like AMD Hammer) which gives a definite performance advantage or price advantage. You'd better bet that Apple is at least considering this

    5. Allow other PC makers to build Mac clones. But this time, Apple will have to negotiate from a position of strength, rather than one of desparation like before.

    Clearly, I'm no expert. I think the AMD part I wrote is unlikely in the extreme, and I don't think Apple will be switching to become a software-only (item 5) business since their combination of hardware/software allows them to have a finely-tuned user experience. However, making such a prediction is pretty easy (particularly if you leave out the specifics), so Dvorak gloating about it is just silly.

    That said, it's more likely Apple is announcing a WiMAX deal with Intel, or they're going to license PPC to Intel to make. Switching to x86 could be done, but it will be difficult to manage the transition (even with Mac OS X's advantages over Mac OS 9). Then again, Apple handled a processor change fairly successfully with the 68k to PPC, so maybe they can pull that off.

    But it's probably best to not second guess Apple on this, and just wait until the announcement comes out. Apple sure knows how to get people to pay attention to its developers' conference!
    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  14. WINE, DRM, etc. by Zobeid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some quick points. . .

    Macs with X86 processors probably wouldn't be able to install and run Windows, and Mac OS X probably still won't be able to run on a Dell. Somebody will of course try to hack it and make it work, but Apple will be against them. Generally, a Mac will still be a Mac, and a PC will still be a PC.

    X86 will raise the possibility of WINE becoming practical on the Mac. Whether this is good or not depends on your viewpoint. Some would say a single box that can run Mac programs, Java programs, Windows programs, and a lot of Linux programs (via Fink, etc.) is the Holy Grail. On the other hand, it might decimate Mac software development. Why spend money developing a Mac version of your app when users can simply run your Windows version under WINE?

    Wired Magazine raised speculation about this all being a DRM ploy, saying what Apple really wants is the Pentium D so they can sell movies over the internet (just like iTMS) with DRM up the wazoo. I agree with the guy who said this is the worst possible reason to switch processors.

    On the balance, I'm against it, and I hope this all turns out to be merely a rumor that ran out of control. The DRM aspect worries me the most -- as a die-hard Mac lover, this is the one thing I can imagine that might possibly drive me to Linux.

  15. Well, there goes journalism.... by gadgetbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to this:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ RTGAM.20050605.wapchips0605/BNPrint/Technology/ it's a done deal. It's amazing to watch the progression of the Apple/Intel stories go from total speculation, all the way to "it's a done deal!!" (see link above). You would *think* that major newspapers would wait until there was something a bit more solid than "according to published reports" (The story is posted on the front page!!!) But....considering the downhill slide of news reporting lately, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

  16. Re:a few questions... by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a few questions that I haven't seen raised anywhere else though:
    1. Will Windows run on these machines?

    I seriously doubt it. Regardless of these machines were to have Intel chips, they will not be PCs. Apples have always had some kind of bind between their hardware and OS via firmware that is unlike the standard PC architecture. If Windows were to run on a new Mac, it would be some kind of a hack, it would not be likely that it would run out of the box.

    2. Will Apple offer some kind of Window compatibility using something like WINE?

    Why would they? There has been Virtual PC and whatnot for years, I doubt that Apple would waste their time with windows. Yuck.

    3. What will happen to Yellow Dog Linux?

    Nothing. Well, maybe Yellow Dog proper will go away, but Linux will always be the whore OS to run on any given machine with a CPU. That will not change.

    My guess is that if Apple were to go to Intel it would be with their low voltage Itanium offerings. Apple is a marketing machine, but I don't see how they could pull off being a nonPC compatible PC with the same specs as any generic white box (aside from the peripherals) out there. Granted they do have the best OS out there, but its clear the people don't care about that. Apple is also at a big disadvantage in that there is not nearly the amount of 3rd party software out there for their systems. Take a look at my .sig.

    Again, this is a big if, I would guess that they would go with the low voltage Itanium chip. Once they are offered at the higher clock rates, they will be excellent for a very fast PC. It would also be cool in that the price of the Itaniums should drop.

    In looking at the issues Apple have had with their G5s, heat, heat, and heat. And there does not appear to be any signs of this changing any time soon. Intel has been working hard the past couple of years by reducing heat from their chips with things like the Pentium M, and the low voltage Itaniums.

    It seems like most people assume that they are just going to throw Pentiums inside of their boxes. I seriously doubt that. If so, I believe that this would be a big flop for them.

  17. At this point... by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone is basically parroting what everyone else said... Except for 'The Enquirer' - they at least seem to have some sort of other source that confirms this...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  18. The beginning of the end for Power Processors by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this report is true, and Apple is switching to x86 based CPUs, then it's the first nail in Power's coffin. Despite the marketing push, IBM doesn't sell nearly as many power boxes as intel boxes. And if Apple drops them, that'll radically cut down production at IBM chip fab plants. We may even see the day when IBM has to change cpu architectures for their big iron. I've often wondered if IBM simply wouldn't purchase a big chunk of Intel and move their mainframes to an Itanium family of chips. HP would support it just to get Itanium in wider use. And this would fit IBM's trend from a company that actually engineer products, to a services-mostly company, a transistion that seems to be well underway at IBM.

    Oh, and Apple should have gone for the Athlon 64 instead...but Steve Jobs is such a label whore, he probably coudn't bring himself to do it.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  19. Re:fact vs fiction by megalomang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Intel manufacturing PPCs is far more probable than Apple jumping to x86

    But...

    Why would Intel go this route. They have higher margins than any high-volume silicon foundry in the world. There are very few other companies that come close to that revenue. This approach wouldn't add much of anything to their bottom line. I don't think Intel would go for that.

    It has to be either (a) Apple spooking IBM (a la Dell and the annual AMD bluff), or (b) Intel increasing their x86 proliferation

    If indeed (b), then Apple will certainly provide virtual layer to emulate the IBM platform. Perhaps they are ready to move forward on this and can make a free H/W decision. It would also follow that Apple can run Windows apps as well, like Wine, or at least full-blown windows itself.

  20. Re:AMD is getting hammered by Phil+John · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quoth the article:

    AMD's processor business had another excellent quarter, posting record revenue and profit figures. Overall company revenue was $1.23 billion, slightly higher than the estimates of analysts polled by Thomson First Call. The processor business accounted for $750 million of that revenue in the company's first quarter, which ended on March 27.

    So they're going to leave the field to intel when they have a 16.9% market share and have just posted record revenue and profit figures? I think not.

    --
    I am NaN
  21. Uh huh by Von+Rex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Press releases from left-wing groups"...that's funny.

    The press has been nothing more than a stenographer for the far right for years now. Consider whitewater, the starr report, the lies about the white house being trashed, the lies about wmd in Iraq, and so on. Try to imagine what the press would be saying if, for example, Bill Clinton had given phoney press credentials and a fake name to a gay prostitute so that said prostitute could derail press conferences with softball questions scripted by the white house. Then consider that this actually happened with Bush and the press has hardly said anything about it.

    Sounds to me like you're just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his clones. Keep watching Rush, maybe he'll tell you how to think about Intel chips in Macs, too.