Apple May be Intel Show Pony

Robert writes "Computer Business Review reports that the implications of Apple dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape. Apple stands to gain a competitive edge by partnering with Intel because it will have access to slightly cheaper stuff."

Comments

Skewed headlines

[dcclark]

Is it just me, or are the headlines and summaries becoming more and more sarcastic and twisted, especially with regards to anything Apple-related?

Apple May Be Intel Show Pony
Indeed, twisted by the Dark Side of the Source, young Zawinski has become.

And that's just on the front page this morning! It's not that I have anything against a little editorializing, but these don't even seem like relevant comments any more...

Re:how could they stop it?

[wtmcgee]

There are a number of ways, and it's silly to think any will work 100%. I think they'll use custom motherboards along with a custom BIOS that OS X will have to recognize to run.

Of course the slashdot type crowd will find a way around it, but Apple will never sell copies for the general public, and they will never support it for non-macs. As long as they make it *difficult* for the general user to instal OS X on their Dells, etc.

I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't "allow" it.

Quite true

[doormat]

Apple will be able display the tons of technology Intel has developed. Look at the cool shit they have every year at the Intel Developer Forum. Look how little of it has been adopted into the mainstream (BTX for example). Intel can put Apple on the cutting edge.

Re:Wrong

[MightyMartian]

Why would Apple care about where else IBM is selling processors? The reason Apple is moving to x86 is because IBM has not been able to deliver cool-running PowerPCs. As we've seen from another /. article, laptops are now overtaking desktops in sales, and very clearly if Apple wants to retain the market position it has, or even grow it, it can't afford to wait for IBM to get its ducks in a row.

Re:how could they stop it?

[hey!]

It would be a weak protection though.

So? What would some enthusiasts getting MacOSX running on their Athlon 64s mena to Apple? Nothing.

But it will stop a significant clone industry from developing. Even if it's relatively trivial to get MacOSX to boot on generic hardware, doing this as a business means you'd be a nice fat target for Apple's lawyers under the DMCA.

Re:Surely not...

[guet]

Then what's the point? I'd only try OSX if I could get it to run on generic, non-proprietary hardware. I don't currently buy *anything* from Apple and never have due to their draconian hardware lock-in that allows them to rape the consumer.

Instead, you buy from Microsoft, who would never dare do such a thing.

I think that was sarcasm, so responding with 'Exactly' is not really appropriate ; )

Exactly. I can install Windows on just about any old computer I can scrounge up from thrift shops....

You can't buy a PC with anything but Windows installed on it, and competing OSs have a habit of dying inglorious deaths (Be, OS/2, Next). I wonder why?

You think Microsoft has your best interests at heart?

If it weren't for Microsoft's ruthless and illegal suppression of any competition, we might have a vibrant OS scene with several alternatives on x86. It might not have taken us till a few years ago to have decent web browsers. Consumers might actually have a choice of hardware and software. You haven't even noticed because you're so focused on the cheap hardware side of the equation. If you can't see how you're locked in there to MS products, you must be blind.

I doubt Apple will ever fully support any old PC that you find in a junk shop, however at some point they might start making deals with PC OEMs to sell OS X - that would seem the most likely long term reason for jumping to x86, along with the removal of the roadblocks on the PPC roadmap. It fits with the previous Next strategy, and Next has slowly taken over Apple from the inside. This time, if they manage the transition well, they have the big software providers with them, already producing the major apps for their platform. That's a lot of momentum all previous contenders didn't have.

PS, Apple don't 'rape' their customers, they are more expensive than cheaper, often cut-down PC alternatives like Dells. You might compare their laptops to things like IBM Thinkpads, in the same price range, and with the same range of features. I have no idea why you feel this is comparable to rape.

Re:how could they stop it?

[ericdano]

Thank you! Finally an intelligent post here!

I can't see Apple using some generic PC board in a production Macintosh. They WILL use a board that they design, and it won't be like a PC board. As the above poster stated, Apple doesn't need to support Legacy crap.

Just because the development machine is a standard PC, doesn't mean that the shipping product is going to be one. The development machine is to just get developers started in getting their code working on Intel powered machines. And Steve Jobs did say they would want them back (the machines). So, I'd think that in 6 months, a lot of Developers are going to be asked to send back the machines and receive real Intel Macs before they become available to the public.

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[SteeldrivingJon]

i am sure they also like powering what is considered the cutting edge personal computer company. for their market share, Apple gets a LOT of headlines and that can only help Intel's public profile.

And it makes sense to support Apple on Intel.

Up until now, Intel has had to rely on their periodic festival of dreck, where they feature some cloners' ideas of cool computer designs, which usually suck (PC ottomans?), and generally include something that looks an awful lot like something Apple recently shipped.

It doesn't help that nobody is really betting their company on those designs succeeding.

Now with Apple, Intel doesn't need to rely on second rate designers or whimsical-but-useless designs produced without any concern for marketability.

And on top of physical attributes, these showpiece machines will be running OS X, which makes the Apple machines more distinctive. Otherwise, Intel has to say "It's an ottoman! That runs Windows! Isn't that... great?! Huh? Huh? Pretty cool, huh? Comfy, too! Haven't you wished your laptop was an ottoman sometimes? No? Oh. But, wait, you can get it with a Green Bay Packers logo on it!" (yawn)

Re:Revolutionary? Try the Cell processor.

[FortranDragon]

Arrggh! :-D I wish this fascination with the Cell processor would die. Yah, the Cell is derived from the Power architecture, but it is not a drop in replacement for a desktop CPU. It might not even be that great of a game console CPU. The Cell is designed to make graphics processing easier (well, to feed vector units, IIRC).

Also, as a game console oriented chip, the Cell isn't about ramping up processor power/speed. It is about cutting manufacturing costs while holding the processing power steady. Do you really want Apple to make major transition to an unproven CPU architecture that is going to remain at the same speed over its lifetime? At least with x86 Apple has five years experience with making the code run. Going to the Cell would mean starting with no experience.