Slashdot Mirror
Apple Switch to Intel Not a Big Loss for IBM
KaushalParekh writes "An interesting article about how Apple's switch to Intel chips may not be that bad for IBM after all. "Apple sees an opportunity with Intel. But IBM continues the same chip development that allowed Apple to claim several firsts and fastests. Now, Big Blue will plow its research efforts into processors for game consoles and other consumer products that might one day knock the PC down a rung." Also, "a lucrative avenue for IBM in China, where the marriage of the Linux OS to PCs armed with [IBM] PowerPC chips presents some intriguing possibilities." And, "Large firms like Sony, Microsoft and Comcast are betting that a home-entertainment device, evolved from a game console or set-top box, will replace many of the PC's functions. IBM plans to be inside these new systems.""
IBM has so many area they are excellent in that I doubt Apple's departure will be all that bad. They are moving to be a very service oriented business and that seems to be a big market in the future. Add to that their dominance in the supercomputer market and their future looks very positive to me.
Voice your opinion!
Not just that, but IBM is as much a business services company as anything else theese days.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
It was already known when Apple announced the switch that it wouldn't mean a huge financial loss for IBM.
;)
The demand from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo is a lot higher so IBM doesn't need to cry
Yesterday I went to a client's home that has 2 PCs and 2 Macs, they are the Design/Publicity kind of crew. They are utterly unaware of the switch, and believe me, the will remain so AFTER it. IBM is probably right in pursuing this path, but I dont honestly see embedded/game consoles taking over corporate turf anytime soon.
"Certainly, Apple sees an opportunity with Intel. But IBM continues the same chip development that allowed Apple to claim several firsts and fastests."
How much of IBM's innovative chip design was pushed forward by Apple? I'm honestly not that familiar with the design/manufacture process but certainly IBM and Apple were working together on new designs for at least Apple hardware.
With Apple and Intel working together now we're sure to (eventually) see some products that Intel wouldn't have developed on their own.
If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
I've heard that Apple was a real pain in the ass for IBM. They may have even broke out the good campaign and threw a big party after Apple sent their "Dear John" letter.
Is anyone else completly skeptical of the theroy that the home entertainment center will take over the pc? I mean personally I'm not gonna want to do what I do on the computer, on my television. My opinion is surely not indicative of mainstream... but I'm sure there are tons of people who have similar sentiments
And Intel is a candy girl.
What makes you say they could price it like a Mac Mini? The mac mini uses slow 4200rpm laptop drives and G4 processors. Suddenly you're saying they could make a dual core G5 system, price it the same and "make a killing?" Seems like a stretch to me.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
look at the ten-millions of consoles that sell each year, then look at the (hopeful here) millions of apples that sell each year. which one is the better market to be in? especially considering that whatever next-gen console you buy, you're buying ibm.
seeing how the consoles seem to be a pissing contest for each company in terms of features and speeds, and that ibm's chips are both easier to develop for (i'm a risc fan) and are generally considered better, i think they do have an inside track.
best college pickem site ever: pickem.terrbear.org
Also, how can you make a killing supplying something at mac mini cost to geeks? That market is very, very small. They exited the PC business, so entering it with a Linux-only offering won't make them anything.
I'd rather be cycling.
I think its mostly that the PC market (Apple) doesn't have the potential to give the same ROI as the big iron or game consoles -the requirements and dynamic are very different.
Especially looking at the game consoles, its a different dynamic. For the PS3, IBM needs to produce a processor that meets requirements A,B and C. In general those requirements won't change for the life of the PS3. IOW, as the years go by, the processor will be cheaper and cheaper to make.
In contrast, for the PC market, nobody's going to be happy with a processor 5 years from now that's essentially the same speed as the one being sold today. That means continuously pushing the envelope, which means continously spending money on R&D. That's a lot of money spent on chips without the volume of the game systems and without the high margins of the servers.
Nobody was saying IBM couldn't do it. The question is did they want to do it for the money they would make?
Apple and Intel strategically have very little issues (aside from Intel's current partner Microsoft... but that's another story)
Actually, Intel and Microsoft really haven't been getting along so well lately. Intel has become a big supporter of Linux and open source software; it is one of the founding members of OSDL and has contributed compilers and tons of driver code and specs to the open source community.
On the Microsoft side of coin, Microsoft tapped IBM to produce a custom-made CPU based on the PowerPC architecture for the Xbox 360, rather than using the x86 architecture the original Xbox used. Microsoft continues to work towards a Microsoft PC, which will marginalize Intel's role in the PC business if it succeeds.
No, Intel and Microsoft aren't the partners they used to be. Microsoft wants total domination of the PC industry, and that leaves Intel out in the cold. From what I can see, Intel's partnership with Apple gives it more than just shipping more units to another customer -- it gives Intel a strategic advantage against its growing enemy, Microsoft.
My blog
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are selling at loss. IBM is selling the chips to those three at profit.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
"has" and "announced" are two very different meaning words.
Try to find a shipping date on the 970FX chips. See if the PentiumM is either cooler or faster by then.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It's a troll, but I'll bite. If you want, you can download Fedora, Gentoo, or Debian and run it on your Power Mac G5 right now, if you so desire. The rest of us will enjoy Mac OS X, thankyouverymuch.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
People like to take shots at the x86, but it is hard to deny that there are brilliant people working on it, really making implementations that fly. Intel's development team has a long proud history (they pretty much single-handedly turned the perception of CISC/RISC around with the Pentium Pro after all), and the AMD K8 team looked suspiciously much like the Alpha team at one point.
That is not to say that the POWER4 and derivatives are not impressive, they are, but the performance of chips like the AMD K8 really proves that if you have a competent team small details like the ISA don't matter all that much. I see no easy way for IBM to sneak into China, and it is actually a good thing; We are all better off with:
By comparison the PPC would be a fairly serious case of lock-in, only two companies manufacture chips (Freescale/Motorola and IBM), and Freescale mostly bothers with embedded applications.In summary, having some PPC around is nice, but having it take over a market would be a bad thing at this point.
The switch is a huge mindshare loss for PPC. While most people dont' care what processor is in there computer, it hurts the PPC in software development/ mindshare.
its only a short matter of time (5 years I guess) before gcc and associated free software stuff is not ported to PPC. Linux will be much more expensive, if available at all. You will still be able to buy compilers from IBM/Freescale and development kits and the like, but for the home hobbiest the platform is dead. Nobody is buying POWER boxes from IBM to develop Linux on due to excessive cost.
I work on HPUX which is a platform on the outs. Some gnu tools come our way, but not a lot compared to linux/freebsd/solaris. There are not a lot of HP pa-risc machines floating around that allow development testing and optimization to occur.
Also I know a couple of folks working in the embeded space with PPC. Have a supply of workers that can get up to speed on PPC is much easier when you have a computer platform based on it.
I doubt Apple's move to Intel is particularly harmful to IBM either.
But it does paint a bleak picture for the future in locking consumers into one architecture (x86) and this is an extremely dangerous and uncompetitive situation for consumers.
Sure Apple are under no moral responsibility to keep using PPC to avert that outcome, but it hardly represents a step forward for choice.
Whilst someone could theoretically put G5s into a new desktop PC and bundle Linux with it that doesn't seem a very likely outcome, and you have to wonder about IBM's appetite for continuing a line in PowerPCs suitable for a desktop machine when most of their stuff seems to be geared toward consoles these days.
The repurcussions of Apple moving to Intel are, in a wider sense no joke and a very real. Quite frankly customers deserve better.
Not all big companies are Evil(tm). Big companies are when they become so dominant their customers have no choices. They can't help it, they may not even WANT to be Evil, but they will become Evil if given the chance. Companies in self-regulating markets will go out of business if they become Evil, but the computer business is not one of those, yet. Microsoft is Evil and dangerous. Apple has been Evil in the past. IBM is simply not good at being Evil, but it's not for lack of trying.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, if any of these companies subdue their competitors they WILL become Evil. It is a guarantee. They are all in a position to do this because Microsoft has dropped the ball and there is a vacuum that needs filling.
Fundamentally the world still lacks applications that are truly platform agnostic, such that we, the consumer, can pick and choose platforms, operating systems & applications without "lock-in". If anyone is successful at dethroning Microsoft until this is solved, they will then become the new Microsoft.
Hasty generalization, Appeal to the 'knowledge of large populations'. I have a hard time believing it was "insignificant". However, we will certainly see over the next few years whether it is a drag on IBM's finances.
However, what it clearly shows is that any one customer's needs is also insignificant to IBM - no matter how large the customer.
Assumption (Fallacy of interrogation): Your statement presumes facts which are not in evidence: You are assuming that IBM had a hand in Apple's decision. The truth is that there has been a LOT of speculation in the press - and very few facts - regarding why Apple switched to Intel. I certainly don't know the truth, and without further evidence, will doubt you do either... but keep in mind Apple has the most control, since they are the customer.
It also shows that IBM does not honor commitments they make to their "partners".
Non-sequitur; speculation without basis. Even ignoring the fallacy of interrogation above, that does not necessarily lead to failure to meet commitments. More importantly, there is no evidence of failure to honor commitments. If you're referring to the "3GHz" issue, part of the speculation in the press has been that IBM never made the 3GHz commitment to Apple (that Jobs made it up to push IBM into it). Note the treatment of the issue in this article (and subsequent discussion on the Ars dicussion boards). If you have evidence to tip the balance, by all means present it... otherwise it seems you're just out to find a way to tarnish IBM's image.
While the same thing can be potentially said for any large company, if you're a company who is a partner or looking at partnering with IBM for some reason, Apple-IBM should be a case study to consider when making your decision
Sweeping Generalization, shifting the burden of proof, potentially Post-Hoc argument: Your argument is based on what material facts? The problem is, you apply culture of "any large company" to IBM, claim IBM must defend against the claim without you providing any evidence (shifting the burden of proof to the defense) and make an argument based on a result (the proper term isn't post-hoc, but I forget the actual name at the moment). Importantly, in order to use it, you need data to be both measurable and actionable. In this case, there is a lot of speculation, which leads me to conclude that you can't meet the first criteria - you can't measure it. You have an output (relationship ended) without understanding the root cause. Making decisions based on such data is risky, at best.
I suspect this will be discussed in b-schools for years (they'll say IBM did the right thing in screwing their customer Apple).
Speculation, Appeal to the virtuous poor: Any of my professors who said that would have been called on it on the spot. One of the things you learn in business school is the cost of acquiring a new customer. Another is the (intangible) cost of dealing with a public relations issue (which could lead to morale/productivity issues, etc. in your employees). I highly doubt this is fun for IBM. IBM's finances over the next few years may tell us it worked out okay, but even then, I suspect that IBM's general silence on the issue (like many other issues) would make it hard for any professor to get enough data to know the decision was conscious. If any improvement was an accident, it's not very insteresting for a b-school to talk about it, since it's pretty hard to learn how to act from accidents (not impossible, just rarely hit on in b-school).
Whether the "chip" business is in reference to the "PowerPC chip" (which, knowing USA Today, it could be), or IBM's overall CPU business, or IBM's general semiconductor business as a whole, Apple still represents a vanishingly small proportion of IBM's business. Sure, no company wants to lose 2% of its business - on this scale, that can account for millions - or tens of millions - of dollars. However, 2% is still small enough, regardless of the frame of reference, that Apple was most certainly not significantly driving IBM chip development. In fact, since raw clock frequency is about the last thing IBM cares about (at least from a specification one-upsmanship standpoint), Apple was probably a thorn in IBM's side in that respect. (It might pay to remember that at the time of Jobs' Intel announcement, IBM had missed its 3GHz commitment to Apple by over a year, and was/is still only shipping 2.7GHz parts.)
It's also probably worth mentioning to all the people who think that IBM's recent 970MP and low-power 970FX offerings are "perfect" for Apple that, while the 970MP may certainly be attractive for the Xserve and Power Mac lines (and may in fact be used), the low-power 970FX can't just be popped into a PowerBook. The support chipsets (e.g., HyperTransport) required for the G5 all generate substantially more heat than the similar support chipsets with the G4 (74xx) family, making the total heat profile of a hypothetical low-power G5-based PowerBook still much higher than even the highest-end G4-based PowerBooks.
As for the Apple/Intel FAQ, I am the author of that site (and it is completely non-commercial, non-profit, not associated with anything monetarily or financially in any way, and is exclusively for informational purposes), so that's why it's described as such. I'll try to confirm whether it is PowerPC, POWER + PowerPC, all CPU products, or all semiconductor products. Ultimately, though, whatever it actually is, Apple was still a very small part of IBM's business, and, as such, was not "driving" PowerPC development in any significant way, and the truth of my statement remains.