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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!"
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.
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."
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.