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.""
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.
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
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
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.
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.