Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
FTA Apple has said it would not allow Apple OS X to run on any machine other than an Apple Macintosh.
Seriously, I'm asking...how would they be able to stop it? I must be missing something.
You must be thinking of the fruit, because the computer maker has no such massive volume.
But not as much as how slashdot is becoming Apple's show pony
"For Great Justice."
Linux will be hurt by Apple moving to Intel like fish will be hurt by someone adding a bucket of water to the ocean.
KFG
Dell has proven that they only want to make cheap stuff... they used to brag they made "PCs" now they just make "clones" but make them cheaply. Intel needs somebody to really show off their cutting edge stuff...which no normal PC maker will do. Enter apple looking for a new partner. Intel just lost the Xbox account anyway.. and the writing on the wall is that MS will stab them in the back just as fast as every other partner.. It's foolish of Intel NOT to take the opportunity to develop hardware that breaks all the PC rules and start over from scratch.. frankly they'll be Intel's "demo" group and just let everybody else copy them.
Anyone who thinks the switch to Intel is all about cheaper components has surely lost their mind...
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Apple dropped IBM because IBM like Linux, and Apple needs Linux to fail so that Apple can be the next big thing.
You know I kind of wondered about that myself. After all, would Mac on Intel take market share from MS or Linux. Or neither. I can't decide.
This is all to complicated. I used to know who to distrust.
When I walk into a store selling Apple components, all of the prices have seem to have been standardized. I walk into Fry's electronics, and the thirty inch flat-panel is $2999. I walk into an Apple store and the thirty inch flat-panel is $2999. I bet if I walked up to an Apple Factory, they would sell me the thirty inch flat-panel for ... $2999.
Apple has never been in the game of "cheap" hardware, letting the market decide how much things will cost, etc. They like their components viewed as top-shelf, and I doubt things will change in the future. All Intel means to Apple is more profit, not lower prices for the consumer.
I'm confused by this logic. How would running Windows on a Mac lead to people stealing Mac software?
And how is this a new problem? Fair enough, it's claimed that there isn't as much software piracy on the Mac as on Windows, but it must still constitute more than half of the install base? At least for home users. I don't know anyone who has paid for Office or Photoshop, for example. It can't be that much difference, can it?
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.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Because AMD doesn't produce the motherboard chipsets as well as various other devices. I'd imagine Apple could buy the motherboard chipset and CPU from Intel at an enormous discount.
Hi, welcome to 2005. AMD's high end chips run cooler than Intel's. Thanks for playing!
Not fair! I want to be Intel's show pony!
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Apple has just released the first official benchmarks of the new x86 Mac. Steve was even kind enough to show how the P4 Mac related to the speed of the G5.
Nice try for a troll, but the truth is high-end Intel P4's these days dissipate more heat than high-end AMD Athlon64's.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Here's what I think is Jobs's plan. Apple sales will crumble anyway over the next year--he knows that--so I think we can expect massive discounts to employees of major corporations, of the order of 70 percent off with no restrictions on the numbers sold to individuals within those corporations for personal use--they buy them for relatives, friends, and so on. Apple will take the hit for a while because that way lots of powerbooks with OSX get into the hands of non-IT people in big companies--the people with the money. OSX is so spectacularly good they won't be able to help themselves being impressed. Then in 2006, just when MS begins its "upgrade to Longhorn" push, these managers who have had cheap Macs for a few months will think, "Er, no, we won't, thanks, lets look at these new Intel Macs." Then: Profit!
It was a tough choice, but I doubt Apple moved to Intel for cheaper chips, or better processors. Intel has always developed chips that aren't x86 or IA64 for "research" purposes.
I'd imagine that Apple are probably after Intels vast fabrication resources. They probably see that IBMs fabs will probably be under pressure to crank out chips for the XBox and Playstation.
For the volumes of chips that those two platforms will need, its hard for IBM to justify Apple taking up their valuable fab space.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
A low voltage Itanium 2 is coming at the end of the year in production quantities.
The support chipset for the Itanium is also quite impressive.
The Itanium roadmap shows support for up to 8 Itanium dual cores.
I understand that the proposed Apple / Motorola/Freescale settlement involves an unlimited Altavec X86/Itanium license.
I also understand that IBM is to make a significantly improved proposal to Apple about PPC supply and development within two weeks.
If much of this is true, Apple would have interesting options.
After the announcement was made last week, I began to wonder about something. Was the Intel mini that was unveiled a few weeks ago made with Apple's blessing? Proof that Apple could very easily rerelease their iMac mini with an Intel chip/guts?
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
What are you talking about? What "bubble" are you talking about? This is a hardware shift, pure and simple, not a change to the operating system.
The argument has long been that there are no (well, few) MacOS virii because with a reduced market share, the hackers have no interest in the platform. If true, that could change, yes.
But I think it's more a matter of:
a) Programming a Mac has a higher learning curve than Windows, and no script kiddie is going to spend the required time to learn it solely for the purposes of writing trojans (never mind that a script kiddie lacks the basic knowledge of progamming to even contemplate such a thing)
b) The operating system is designed with security from the bottom up, not some hobbled together patchwork of fixes slopped on to try and cover fundamentally flawed OS holes at the root level.
Is the platform vulnerable? I suppose that there aren't many that aren't.
Is it ever going to be even remotely as vulnerable as Windows? Fat chance.
Yes. Get the fuck out of here and don't come back until you exist.
1) Intel is sick of having most of its cool technology dropped through the narrow mindset of Taiwan^H^H^H^H^H^H^HChinese motherboard makers and the control-freak Microsoft. Microsoft's strategic interest is to blast hardware margins, differentiation and technology differences to zero, creating massive low price competition and a single software target. Then all innovation and profit margin goes onto the Microsoft side.
Intel hates this. Now, they have a cool computer maker who agrees with them and isnt' Microsoft's beeyatch.
2) Microsoft said "fuck you" to Intel on xbox.
4) IBM said "ok pay us....one TRILLION dollars" when Apple wanted them to actually make lots of performance and heat compatible chips at a fair price.
5) Intel to Apple: "Hey Sailor, new in town?"
That's it, I'm starting work on "The Leopard Post". Where OS X requires the root password each time MOV EAX EBX occurs. Where the Finder realizes it's lost. Where Job Steves outsources the BSOD code to Gill Bates. And where Clippy finally comes to OS X.
Apple Inside. Where do you want to think different today?
Has anyone else noticed any direct consequences of this move by apple?
The ones i have seen have been rather negative, my dad for example scraped his plans of buying an apple computer next year when his current pc has become outdated.
His reasons was fear that any current and future apples that come out before the new Intel ones and any software he will buy will become obsolete faster as software developers switch to the new Intel based platform and put more resources into that and that new versions of software might not be available to ppc apple users.
Also the net of sunshine, lollipops and grass is greener mentality i had shrouded apple with in my mind was ruthlessly torn off as my brain moved apple to the same category as dell and hp resides in.
Solid Splash design
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There's a presentation done by the guy who hacked the XBox. If you look at the lengths he went to, and how obviously smart he was, you'll see that Apple has zero chance of stopping OS X running on a normal x86 machine. I'll be very surprised if Intel fabricate a specialised x86 CPU just for them.
While I agree with you that many will still buy Apple machines because it's 'easy', and of course they'll still get tech support, It'll be well under a year after release before the first pre-cracked OS X/x86 torrent is available download, which will mean they could lose quite a bit of business from the geek population.
That is a 25+% profit margin on computer sales. To think this is going to chance is pure fantasy. It could if Apple did something totally radical to go head to head with Microsoft. But just switching a CPU will mean more of hte same thing.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
I got one ...
I heard it here that some people thought Apple will have problems if it is not a simple matter to install MacOS X on your regular 'wintel' hardware. Some people suggested that even for the developer release you should be able to start some kind of application that runs MacOS X inside Windows. Now this got me thinking again about a crazy thought, mainly, what if Apple and MS are in the same boat and MacOS X is an upgrade path for Windows. Since we know that Apple has experience in helping users transition from non-Unix OS to a Unix based one it sounds plausible.
So, Apple + MS + Longhorn = MacOS X
You always point your finger at the bad guy, but what if the bad guy points his finger at you?
The home media center market is going to be huge. Sony have PS3. Microsoft have Xbox3.
Now Intel and Apple are teaming to take them on. and IMO have the engineering skill, market credebility and design genius to do very well.
I can't wait...
1000s Warcraft Gold while you sleep
IIRC, USB was an Intel spec. And intel shipped it, and it worked, and nobody - I do mean NOBODY - gave a shit. Good luck finding hardware, etceteras.
Then in late '98, Apple dropped the iMac bomb.
Not only were they using Intel's USB, they'd dropped everything else. You either got on the boat or you stayed behind. Now EVERYTHING ships with USB - a spec everybody refused to touch until Apple made it trendy and sexy to do so.
Apple + Intel == a very, very good thing. Both companies will get to bust ass doing what they're best at.
Feel the love.
"While I agree with you that many will still buy Apple machines because it's 'easy', and of course they'll still get tech support, It'll be well under a year after release before the first pre-cracked OS X/x86 torrent is available download, which will mean they could lose quite a bit of business from the geek population."
They may lose some "business from the geek population", but I doubt it will be significant. I suspect the folks who run a cracked x86 version of OS X would not have been Apple customers anyway.
There are a significant number of people, like myself, who switched to OS X from Linux because it works without having to spend a weekend tweaking, testing, and swearing at the screen. It's likely we'll all line up to buy the new x86 (or whatever Intel chip) Macs. The guys who are running the cracked x86 will be the ones who don't mind having to spend hours playing, writing custom scripts, tweaking, and swearing in order to get the initial install to work, and then repearting that process every time they want to install a new application (which of course won't have been purchased either).
#DeleteChrome
Though likely subtle at first, the implications of Apple Computer dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape.
So, uh, the implications start subtle but end by straddling, somehow putting their metaphorical legs on either side of a landscape? And who knew Intel was only announced earlier this week?
Jeez.
"Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" -Jacob Bronowski
With IBM looking at the hundreds of millions of units going to the console market vs the few million Apple would sell, it's easy to see IBM's point of view on this.
I believe that some people are way too bothered with Intel/Apple and are actually forgetting to look a little further into the future.
IBM has just sold its PC-department and is yet actualy massively supporting the Linux development. While that started out on Intel/x86 boxes, it is now an operating system that supports an incredible variety of processor platforms, including the recently premiered Cell Processor.
I believe there is a dying horse out there and it is calle Intel/x86. While it might have been a smart move on Apple's side to switch to Intel based processors in the short to mid term range, stragically speaking Apple has just abandoned its platform for the future and I doubt they will switch back to IBM in the foreseeable future. Apple customers would not accept another platform move.
IBM is not interested in short to mid term profits, IBM wants a firm piece of the entire pie in the very long run.
I suspect that IBM's unwillingness (or inability) to met Apple's demands for the G5, I tink this has something to do with its production facilities that are currently undergoing a massive reconstruction to meet the future demand for the cell processor.
Give IBM another two years and it will have produces cell processors for workstations, notebooks and embedded platforms. Not only will they have the fastest platform available, they will also have an operating system available that is already tailored to the specifications of the computing platform of the future.
Apple has had the opportunity to use that very platform, but decided against it.
I am not so sure whether that was a really smart move.
Until Apple has a Intel powered Mac out, I'd imagine that OS X will run on anything with supported hardware. However, if you check some of the MacRumors sites (thinksecret.com, MacRumors, Apple Insider to name a few), the general opinion is that they will use a different BIOS
Apple also makes excellent hardware designs. How about a Dual P4 iMac in a case the size it currently is? Apple is about hardware and software. Moving to Intel just means that they will be just as fast as anything you can get Windows to run on.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
One hallmark of Mac Advocacy is eternal optimism. No matter what, they're always saying the same thing:
With LATEST_APPLE_HARDWARE and the LATEST_APPLE_SOFTWARE. Apple is going to take over the world!!
The reality is that Apple is stuck at about 3% of market and some very loyal customers and few strong niches, but no real "momentum". They're profitable and make customers happy but they're never going to take over. Stealing desktop marketshare from Sun or Linux barely makes any statistical difference.
At this point, people have the right to be cynical about the eternal unpopularity of the Linux Desktop, but that only translates into Mac Advocacy because the editorial biases of this site.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
The risk is that the sales of the game units falter, and the market of cheap computer components used by the Cell processor never materializes. On the other hand, the benefit is that the future Apple Macintosh will provide a graphical experience that rivals the very best animation created by Industrial Light & Magic. Another benefit is that Apple retains its status as a rebel fighting the establishment.
However, Apple management chose the evolutionary establishment-approved route: x86. It is a safer bet than the Cell. The next generation Apples will hawk significant price reductions due to the use of all those cheap Chinese components manufactured in the Taiwanese-run factories and R&D facilities in China[1].
side note
---------
The Taiwanese voluntarily invested more than $100 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China. More than 1 million Taiwanese voluntarily emigrated to China to live and work. More than 50% of Taiwan's GDP is now dependent on commerce with China.
Look, people are forgetting one fact about running OS X on run-of-the-mill PC hardware. And it actually has to do with PPC MLBs...
There are plenty of cheaper, more standardized PPC MLBs available from various vendors like TerraSoft and Pegasos. They are G3s or G4s, some with standard PC-style serial ports, etc. OS X does not run on these boards. That is because the Mac needs a custom boot ROM. If people were able to slap together a cheaper PPC box (which they can) and then put OS X on it (which they cannot) there wouldn't have been such a clamor for x86 Mac OS X.
Also, Apple does not use the typical northbridge/southbridge approach to MLB design. They have custom designed ICs, and we have heard nothing as to whether they will try to modify HyperTransport to work with x86 or use something else entirely. Apple makes a whole widget - and while I have no advance knowledge whatsoever, you can be damn sure that the Apple x86 MLBs are going to bear little resemblance to an off-the-shelf VIA board.
Put the issue to bed. Beyond these two facts is the simple fact that if you WERE able to just build a box and throw OS X on it, it wouldn't necessarily work correctly or be supported at all. And most people DON'T BUILD THEIR OWN BOXES ANYWAY. It would have minimal effect on sales because most people buy computers as appliances and tools, NOT as a HOBBY KIT. There will always be some that choose that path, but they are the grand, sweeping minority.
That all being said, i REALLY hope this switch offers us the ability to use a wider range of video cards and upgradable CPUs.
I believe there is a dying horse out there and it is calle Intel/x86. While it might have been a smart move on Apple's side to switch to Intel based processors in the short to mid term range, stragically speaking Apple has just abandoned its platform for the future and I doubt they will switch back to IBM in the foreseeable future. Apple customers would not accept another platform move.
Now why would Apple owners care about another platform move? With all of the developers having to do work that makes programs essentially endian-neutral, Apple actually has the freedom to possibly dare to make a line of computers with different processors! They could for instance release a cheap Cell based computer in a year or two, that could possibly either run the PPC stuff as if native or perhaps make it work with tweaking from Rosetta.
I'm not saying they will do this, I'm saying that most Apple owners neither know nor care what processor is actually in the box, and furthmore that developers are going to HAVE to write platform neutral code and ship universal binaries for years to come.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Buying a Mac now would not be a bad descision at all, there's still a 4-6 years of life left on the PowerPC.
I see a lot of wishful thinking about this. Remember the OS X transition? Within 2 years Jobs is up on stage sticking OS9 into a coffin and killing hardware support for the thing. Developers got the message and OS9 software disappeared.
I personally believe that Apple is going to quickly move to x86 hardware, and both Apple and ISV software support for PPC is going to start dying off in 2008. That doesn't make your shiny new PowerMac worthless, but it does mean you better be happy with only one generation of new software.
But, yeah, there's a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about PowerPC right now, and rightfully so. Apple could alleviate things if they just released a software/hardware road map.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
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.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
A lot of that stuff is either outdated, opinion, or paranoid.
Linux has lost momentum, but so has Windows. IE no longer has 90% of market share.
Jobs said Intel Macs could run Windows, but he says "who would want to?". I think he's being disingenuous. I for one, would love to be able to dual boot Windows and OS X on an Intel-powered Powerbook. That's one less computer I need on my desk.
Mark my words: more machines that _can_ run Mac OS X means more machines that _will_ run Mac OS X. Apple better have a good plan to make a Windows partition and an even better plan to reclaim abandoned Windows partitions.
My father is a blogger.
Licensing died the first time because the cloners were undercutting Apple's ridiclously high hardware margins. But, Apple is now a "cloner" themselves, which means the hardware margins are going to inevitably drop -- and that means Licensing will be back on the table for Apple.
Plus a HP or a Sony would be a much stronger partner than that crappy PowerComputing outfit.
Folks need to understand that Apple has just turned itself inside-out. You can no longer make any assumptions based on how they handled things in the past, their business model is going to have to change.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).
Yes, there is a ROM image file but it was introduced with the original iMac which from then on are called New World Macs. The previous Mac models, the beige G3s, are called Old Word Macs. That file also contains more than just the contents of the Old World ROMs, I believe.
I learned more than I wanted to about the ROM file when I tried to perform a clean install of OS 9 (or was it 8.5?) on my original Bondi Blue iMac. The ROM file had to reside within the first gig or so on the hard drive and as best as I could determine, the clean install placed the new file past the limit.
That had to be one of the most frustrating day I ever spent with any Mac -- and I've been working with them since 1986 (or 1984 i f you include the Lisa 2). Since then I do not do a clean install unless I have a specific reason to do so. Think about it: Apple engineers put a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that an upgrade will work for the 98% of their users who do an ordinary update, not the rest of us geeks.
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein