Slashdot Mirror
Apple/Intel Speculation Running Rampant
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.
the worst thing in the world would be for a Mac to have an "Intel inside" sticker on it, or even on the packaging. but as annoying as their stupid campaign is, would Intel make an exception to their rule for Apple? Apple's design is one of their biggest assets so I can't see them giving in either.
I'm a bit sentimental about PPC, but I guess this move probably makes some sense for Apple (see here)
I have a few questions that I haven't seen raised anywhere else though:
1. Will Windows run on these machines?
2. Will Apple offer some kind of Window compatibility using something like WINE?
3. What will happen to Yellow Dog Linux?
Switching the Mac over now would be really weird: for years Apple struggled with the G4's performance - then I might have understood. Now they've got IBM as a partner - one of the world leaders in CPU architecture, silicon fabrication, etc. It would seem truly bizare to ditch out from PPC at this point, especially given IBM's huge commitment to PPC world domination (and their manifest triumphs over Intel in another volume market - games consoles).
Using an XScale, I could understand. Intel are *the* market leader in high end portable processors at the moment (try to find a powerful PDA that *doesn't* have an XScale). An XScale would be the sensible choice for an Apple PDA or, indeed, the iPod / Phone combo that has been so talked about.
This "leak" might about buying Intel might a be deliberate publicity stunt but I find it really hard to believe the Mac will move away from PPC in the foreseeable future.
The third possibility is that Apple will introduce something new - something else they've not mentioned before. An ultra Apple / Windows friendly UNIX server? An appliance computer (e.g. a cross between iPod and a {web,file,database}server?) A set top box (*cough* *pippin* *cough*)? Personally, I think Apple could be good with appliance computing.
Could It not just be one of Intels mini chips the pxa27x etc.? As used in pocket pcs and palms? They might be using one in an iPod? THey tend to have WiFi and some nice multimedia and communications controllers onboard.
Performance is irrelevant to most consumers. Even if they care most of them would not notice the difference between 1 GHz and 2 GHz.
:
The real performance figure should be computing power per Watt usage.
So the move from lower powered PowerPC to high wattage (gas guzzling) CPUs seems extremely short sighted. I fail to see the advantage in changing chip architecture from one that is well designed and powerful and cheap to run, to the poorly designed, high energy wasting x86 design.
They should concentrate on the things that they are good at
system design, the os and software.
Yes, I do think the G4 was more than good enough for almost all people. The high end gamers would not have bought a G5 system anyway, most of them will continue to purchase x86 PCs.
The AMD link isn't really about how it'll hurt AMD, but about how Apple couldn't choose AMD because AMD can't reliably keep up with that level of demand.
That's a lot more interesting/reasonable, since a switch to Intel architecture for Apple would be *good news* for AMD, since then going from Intel-made chips to AMD ones would be possibile sometime later.
The "debunking" link sounds reasonable -- "Here's my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I'm only betting one dollar." Another possibility along those lines would be that Apple is switching to Intel *graphics chips*, which would make sense given the comment in the original rumors that the switch would happen on low-end computers first.
after reading all the forum posts here, arsforum, and the macrumors board, and then the daring fireball post, I too have concluded that Intel will produce ppc chips, and/or be in on a killer app type product like the iPod. a tablet iPad?
either way it has to have huge buzz to compete with these rumors, and Intel HAS to be involved.
maybe intel will license or buy from freescale the rights. maybe it is OS X on a pentium m in a mobile tablet for video, etc. Either thing would rock. The latter would have the same killer app quality as the iPod has, I think
Here's my theory:
If any of this is true, which I'm not at all sure it is, why does everyone think it's going to be an x86 chip?
Apple IIRC has the ability to license the PowerPC chip to others. What if Apple is licensing PowerPC to Intel because IBM can't deliver? No incompatability. The current chips are already made by two differrent companies.
If there is ANY fact to this rumor, and it all seems to be rehash of the cnet story, this where where I think the most logical answer lies.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Minor point, but the X-Scale wasn't an Intel design (at least not at the outset) - its one helluvan evolution of the venerable old Acorn Arm Chip.
I'm intrigued by this possible chip change though; there must be some pretty good reasoning going on in Jobs head (ie. there has to be some "cool factor" going on somewhere?).
Fact: Because IBM didn't meet their performance promises to Apple, they now have to give Apple a whole bunch of PowerPC intellectual property. Apple could take that IP over to Intel and either have Intel manufacture 3GHz G5s, or make an Itanic/Power hybrid chip.
In other words, don't assume that a move to Intel means a move to x86.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I've been told that Apple managed to put some very tough clauses into its contract with IBM over the chips. If IBM were unable to meet certain criteria, Apple would be able to take some of the intellectual property, basically allowing Apple to take the design and have somebody else make the processors.
I've noticed that the reports on C|Net don't say Apple will use Pentium chips. They say Apple will use Intel chips.
If you RTFD (D="Debunking") from the blurb, it's mentioned there that Apple pays a lot less for the chips it gets from IBM than it would pay for comparable Pentium chips.
It's also interesting (mentioned in the "debunking") that Apple has NOT been warning its developers about a pending change of endian-ness, as you might expect them to if a change to little-endian Pentium chips from big-endian PowerPC chips.
But... if it's true that Apple can take the chip design to Intel, then Intel could conceivably make PowerPC chips for Apple. That's about the only way I can see this rumor being true. It would still be tough, because I don't think it would be easy for Intel to get production of a new chip going at the required volume within a year, but I am not a silicon expert.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Because it's fun. How about a new rumor, since we've only got a few more hours.
How about... Intel cut Apple a sweet deal on Itanium chips for the Mac line?
I know there has been speculation about Apple taking PowerPC into the Intel fab, but IMHO that seems even less likely than OS/X running on x86 chips. Apple has been struggling for years from a weak point. Even though at the moment they're behind the performance curve, Intel is still dealing from a strong point. Doing PowerPC chips, even from a foundry contract, would be another coffin-nail for Itanium, on top of doing x86-64, and I don't think Intel would do that, at least not right now.
But it's worth remembering that Steve Jobs has been more able than most to turn lemons into lemonade. Despite his "reality distortion field," Jobs is one of the few CEOs to focus on growing his markets, rather than just cutting costs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
In a sense. The iPod contains two ARM CPU cores. Intel makes them, though the ones in the iPod might have been made by PortalPlayer. I'm not sure whether PortalPlayer would have paid Intel for the privilege, or if they would have paid ARM.
If PortalPlayer pays Intel, or if Intel does their chip fabrication, then there's already an Intel CPU in a product that most people would say is quintessentially Apple.
2. Pretty unlikely. Cloning the Windows API is not just the mother of all emulation challenges,
I dunno.
Let's say they figure they can do a good enough for twenty or thrity million bucks. That will by a lot of high end enginering talent. And Apple is one of the few companies that could muster these kinds of resources and potentially exploit the results in a way that would allow them to recapture this investment.
The thing is, even if they had the project all laid out, it's unlikely they'd do it for half or a quarter of that cost. The result would be a whole bunch of windows programs running on MacOS. Two things would happen. First, the Mac experience would evaporate for people who chose Windows software. They'd be getting an imitation of the Windows experience on Apple hardware. Secondly, many developers would abandon Mac APIs for windows APIs.
Apple might as well get into the business of making PC clones with their own value added applications like iPhoto and the like. This would actually make more sense, although not necessarily enough sense.
Apple would continue selling their hardware, software, and services like the iTunes music store, and cut out the expense of operating system development, using a "good enough" XP or Longhorn base. They could even tailor their Windows enviornment with their own shell, APIs and suite of applicaitons/services, creating a more Mac-like experience and plugging many security holes that are dependent on user interaction.
Again, this is not going to happen, in my opinion, but it is a lot more likely to happen than Apple trying to create its own Win32 emulation layer.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm glad that at least one person isn't taking this "Apple goes to x86" thing as gospel.
There are dozens of possible situations where an Intel/Apple partnership could work. Apple using x86 processors in Macs just isn't one of them. Though there are some good points, it seems like a shot in the foot.
Pro:
1. Cheap(er) to mass produce
2. Name recognition
3. Could run MS Windows code natively through translation layer (much the same way that "Classic" mode works)
4. Higher clock speed
5. No fabrication quantity worries
These points don't even begin to offset the problem with binary compatibility. Apple is already in a transition from 32bit to 64bit and the only reason that that is working is because the G5 can fall back and run the old code natively. Trying to emulate the PPC would be technically possible but real world performance would be terrible. Commercial software vendors would be outraged.
I still believe that this alleged announcement is for something else (net hardware, iPod chips, set top box, etc) and there is really no need for speculation on something that will be offically announced in mere hours, but there is one way that this could work.
If Apple owns much of the PPC, they could work with Intel to create a "G6" that could continue to run older code and still reach speed goals. If they are simply going to retool factories to pump out G5s then I could see them getting chips out the door by early 2006 but this may take a while. This would be a win for everyone; Apple, Intel, and the users... everyone except for IBM.
I hope I'm right.
Some posts argue that Apple switching to Intel would mean switching byte endianness, and that would piss off a whole slew of Mac developers and require enough software rewrites to be extremely uncomfortable.
That's a good arguement, but it's interesting to note that IA64 can go both ways. I'm not saying they'd go IA64, but that Intel is capable of making that a non-issue.
Personally, I think this while notion is awesome entertainment no matter what happens. And I don't think Apple will be going Intel any time soon.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
What Apple gets from IBM is more than just parts, they get a solid future in R&D. This is why they left Motorola 68K family: no future.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
there are a lot of problems with the G5 though. It's a great chip, but there are major issues with power and size on it, so much so that it's looking unlikely it will make it into a laptop any time soon, and remember it's the sexy titanium powermacs's that everyone has been drooling over in recent years. + they have had so much trouble sorting out supplies for power chips with motorola and IBM messing them about in recent years. It makes sense to shift to intel. the architecture isn't as good, but the supply is readily available and development is going on a lot faster than with the power chips. A move to AMD 64's or pentium M's would do apple a great deal of good, especially with the integtation into advanced motherboard architecture which again is a problem with the Power.
Working for the (other) man
Could Apple be doing to IBM what IBM intended to do to them so many years ago with the XP?
One theory says that IBM got 3 companies to build PC prototypes and they picked the worst of the 3 because they didn't want it to hurt their mini computer business. The idea was to flood the market with IBM made computers, wait for Apple and Tandy to give up because they had much slower computers and then apologize to everyone for their junky computer and give them a huge discount on the trade in on a brand new real computer.
I've heard different versions of that story and it fits in with what IBM did in other industries and a friend worked in the factory for the 1st run and claimed there was a letter in there that mentioned that if the computer didn't meet the customers needs they should contact their IBM dealer about a 360 (or whatever was their mini at the time)
Now what would happen if Apple introduced a new computer that would dual boot out of the box with both OS X and Windows . Then after they get a bunch of people using them, they decide to drop the windows side of things. The result could be an increase in market share.
Of course to make a pc that does both windows and os x, someone will have to start shipping a 2+ button mouse so it will never happen.
The case for the Itanium is that the reason it failed in the Wintel world was the difficulty of programming for it, notably its ramant use of out of order instruction capability. And when Windows did not really embrace it that was the death sentence. But Apple has a unique position of controlling the hardware and the OS. Thus they could potentially master this beast. Going Itanium could let them leapfrog the x86 world and have more headroom for growth. I also wonder if the itanium has, like the Power series, support for both big/little endian, thus making the transition easier?
Pentium-M. Well this is no brainer. They need a new chip for the laptop and there's none on the horizon. The interesting thing here is that if they went with a hybrid strategy of Pentium-M in the laptops and G5 in the desktops they have a good transistion strategy available. The graphic artisits and application-specific power users will not settle for emulation of their favorite applications. Thus they have to keep G5 on the desktop till all the applications like Photoshop and Maya have swithced over.. But that class of folks wont be using Laptops as their main machine. And the laptop users might be well satisfied with a fast pentium-M machine that occasionally had to run some applications in a slower emulation mode.
Surely intel has some response to the Cell. Are they going to cede the entire video game/ digital hub market to xbox, sony and the cell? I suspect not. But to enter that market they need a partner. And who better than the maker of the ipod and the only company with a coherent home digital hub strategy (think iLife). Well that would be apple. You cant argue market share dictates windows since the ipod proves that wrong and Microsoft already has its bets on the xbox.
So maybe this is about a video console and not about general purpose computers???
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What's changed between this article and the one on Friday?
Alex.
The Itanium supports both big and little endian. thus switching to this processor would be simpler than X86.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I think that it will almost certainly be the case that Intel will simply be taking over production of the PPC 970 architecture from IBM
While this is true, the bigger problem right now is endianness. There are lots of developers on the Mac that don't pay any attention to the endianness of their binary data; why should they, the endianness isn't going to change, right? While some of the changes could be trivial, some graphics formats, like TIFF, are a specific endianness, and it would be a pain to have to redo graphics intensive code to deal with these things. Now, I know that people are going to say, "Well, if you're not using NSImage, you get what you deserve", you have to look at the TIFFRepresentation method of NSImage: it returns an NSData, containing, that's right, the binary data of the image file. And, that's just one example.
So, I think that switching endianness might be a bigger deal than what people think, and fixing these bugs are tedious and time-consuming.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
;)
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
P.S., we'll probably learn that it's just a matter that Intel will start making some non-important chip for them (i.e. the RTS clock or something), *NOT* the processor
do() || do_not();
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I remember before the G5 was announced when most sensible people agreed that the PPC P4 was no longer competitive with Intel's latest. Apple kept telling its users "megahertz myth", etc, and talking about "pipelines". Then they switched to the P5 architecture--finally competitive with Intel. That made all their statments during the end of the P4 era suspect.
When the G5 was announced I was watching Steve live. He said something about 3 GHz in a year. I'm still waiting.
Mac users have it in their head that Intel is bad. That will confuse the Mac loyalists. I remember a conversation I had a few weeks ago. There was a Mac user working on Photoshop. He shouldn't care what CPU his computer used as long as it was fast enough. He was watching me do some custom video stuff on an Intel computer.
"I thought the Intel was bad for video", he told me. "It'th got a thegmented architecture." (Lisp was because of a tounge piercing, which seems more common among Mac users.) Now, I don't know where he heard that, or why it matters to him how the Intel chip addresses memory. But somehow he was duped--sucessfully--by the Apple PR machine that Intel is inferior.
Apple has an advantage because of their "closed box." By controlling both the hardware and software they can select the best technlogy available and integrate it. For low power, and perhaps for dual core, Intel may be the best choice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel used effectively by Apple for:
- Headless Servers
- A Mini-Mac "ilife" machine
- Some sort of Tablet machine
That would make a lot of sense.Best Buy can have you arrested