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.""
What are the possibilities we could have Thinkpads running on PPC chips?
I'd like to see IBM make some inexpensive ($2000) PowerPC workstations (like the PowerMac G5). PowerPC seems to be a nice processor. Especialy if it has a decent OS behind it. If we could get some solid Linux support for a IBM PowerPC workstation, it would be able to do some nice video processing. Look at how good Apple did, even with a hacked (thrown together) OS.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
To hear IBM, inventor of the "IBM PC" sounding off on the theme that the PC is dead is very signifigant. All us geeks here like the PC chassis for it's customization capabilities... not true of the general public.
Console manufacturers have, I believe, the largest number of non-PC systems sold. They've been pulling their punches as far as turning those systems into a general purpose computing platform, for some unknown reason. This may give them the "go ahead."
Someone had to do it.
Apple and Intel strategically have very little issues (aside from Intel's current partner Microsoft... but that's another story)
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I think IBM should make PPC linux PCs made just for running linux and nothing else. put only well supported proven hardware in them. Give us a desktop with dual core G5s and out of the box support for every bit of hardware via linux. They could price this about mac mini cost and give it commodity accessories like ide ram optical pci etc and make a killing by being THE supplier to the world's geeks.
My amigos at Freescale's Apple support division were actually quite happy that the Jobs monkey was finally off their backs.
Might even turn out to be a financial gain in the long run. Having to service a fussy, idiosyncratic customer like Apple, who didn't actually buy a huge number of chips, must have caused quite a lot of noise in the system.
Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
"one reason Apple switched is because it said IBM could not keep up with Intel's power-consumption technologies" A simple chart on power consumption of Intel/Itanium/AMD/AMD64/AMD_Opteron processors shows that Intel is far behind on increasing performance while stabilizing growth in power use in wattage. While I don't have data on PPC chips - AMD is clearly the leader in keeping power consumption down, while increasing processor performance. The article comment seems a little backwards to me... If taken literally, yep, Intel is on top of sucking more and more watts with each release, and although Intel states they will stabilize power use by 2007, I don't see the trend today.
Because Intel/AMD/x86 are not anywhere nearly as entrenched there as they are here, as very few people (percentage-wise) in China *have* computers yet.
This is a (nearly) level playing field for other architectures in China.
Also, if other architectures gain ground in China, they might start cropping up outside of China as well, giving us relief from x86 hell -- and a big boost to IBM's processor division.
Go IBM.
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
all this "IBM doesn't need Apple" and "IBM glad to see Apple go" is typical of somebody who just got dumped big time. they are just covering up the fact that Intel was a better mate. Let's face it, Intel processors aren't the best around, but at least Intel knows how to make a laptop chip, and Apple's laptops are way more important to them than their desktops. the only loss i see for apple is possibly their Xserves. I don't see Xeons competing. Hopefully, maybe Apple can keep their servers on the PowerPC hardware forever. Apple was never a server company, but they really hit something on those G5 servers that everybody uses as a cheap supercomputer solution.
"Yeah, well, so do Intel and AMD. Why does IBM think they have the inside track all of a sudden?
2 19.html
Furthermore, nVidia and ATI are marketing their GPUs as capable of taking over more primary PC functions, thus, thet makes 4 HUGE opponents for this kind of stuff. Personally, I believe this is IBM's attempt at wagging the dog. They're still screwed."
Except that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are already using IBM's PowerPC processors (yes, Sony's Cell has a PowerPC core as the primary processor). Which means that all THREE consoles are using IBM processors, for sure. And that means for the next five years, every console sold (about 150 million were sold this last generation IIRC) will have an IBM processor in it. There's only 10-20 million Macs, on the other hand.
Not only will these hundreds of millions of consoles have IBM processors...but they'll have to CONTINUE to use IBM processors to retain backwards compatability unless there is a massive speed breakthrough enough to get a competing processor and emulate the PowerPC's. That's why the XBox 360 will have to have backwards compatability with 'top selling games' via recompiled patches preinstalled on the hard drive; the processor architecture change. It won't have full compatabilty while PS3 and Revolution will.
So IBM is set for the next five years and unless the console manufacturers DESPERATELy want to change architectures and forfeit backwards compatability, they're set for the next ten.
IBM already is inside these new systems.
And the PS3, btw, may even boot Linux by default when you buy the hard drive, turning it into a full PC with six USB ports, a powerful graphics card, a decent processor, WiFi, Bluetooth, and three gigabit ethernet ports.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127
http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=29 ( MacOnIntel link )
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
Yeah I don't get it. /.'ers angry at Apple, supporting IBM, looking forward to seeing the PC knocked down a rung. WTF!? BLASPHEMY!
IBM is every bit as Evil as Apple and Microsoft, they're just on our side temporarily. Let the big shots duke it out. What we want is deadlock, no party ending up with a significant advantage over each other, but seeing profit in code portability.
Nerds don't use computers, they sculpt them like artwork. The current generation has warts.
That's what the Cell processor is for. It is a POWER-like processor with several number-chunching sub-processors on the same die. This allows much better communication between the units that the classic CPU/GPU couple, besides the sub-processors are more general purpose than GPUs.
If they can demonstrate that it can be programmed efficiently, I think the PC has real competition. Initially, it will probably be most interesting to game developers and scientists who are willing to invest time in performance.
My opinion, based on vague things I've seen and heard and a lot of guessing, is that IBM never really wanted Apple's business in the first place. The plan for the PPC alliance always seemed to be that IBM would take the high-end kinda stuff, Motorola would target the PPC area, and Apple would buy chips from Motorola.
Unfortunately then Motorola lost interest in the CPU market, their CPU group started getting neglected and sucky, Motorola spun off their CPU group into Freescale, and Freescale turned out to be sucky as well. So Apple wound up pretty much having to buy from IBM instead. But IBM never seemed very enthusiastic about this-- for example there were reports they didn't really want to bother with altivec/VMX/"velocity engine", and altivec was the or a cornerstone of Apple's CPU strategy. (Though, ironically, VMX is a really big part of all those new video game CPUs IBM is making, so I guess that kinda turned out well for IBM...) When I heard Apple really was going to Intel, honestly one of my first responses was to wonder whether this happened because Apple was pushing IBM away, or because IBM was trying to push Apple away and Apple was just complying..
I really wonder what's going to happen to Freescale at this point.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
apple probably was a small volume but high profile buyer. they bought a few million units every year but the cache of apple and PowerPC, yada yada, carried more weight than the dollars from Steve and the boys. are PPC chips in the iPod? I don't know, but I'd gather that that's at least as vital a chip demand.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I believe that the reason that MS switched to the PPC platform was software. They knew that Nintendo and Sony were using PPC and, if they continued on x86 they would be the odd man out. If you were a game developer and two of the three platforms were PPC, would you invest a lot of money to port your game to x86? MS's move to PPC opens up the xbox to more developers. This all builds critical mass for IBM and PPC.
Game consoles as home computers are a disruptive technology. PC's cost too much(even at $500) and are too flexible for the vast majority of computer users. Artificially limiting choice(software applications and features) is comforting to people who are overwhelmed by computer terms that they don't really understand.
Look at cars. Do you really care if cars on your shopping list have EGR, preheat CATs, electronic throttles, etc. No, you determine if you like how it looks(color, shape), how may cupholders it has, the HP, and maybe 3-5 other features.
As an IBMer, let me tell you - IBM *never* thinks losing business is good. Doesn't matter if the customer was the biggest pain in the ass, used up 90% of your support staff, and even lost money on, you still keep the customer as a reference and for potential new business. And before you point to Apple as not much business, I've seen people bend over backwards for contracts a tenth the size of Apple.
No, IBM may not have particularly liked dealing with Steve Jobs, but they certainly didn't have any desire to lose Apple as a customer.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
I can believe this. An unnamed company that I used to work for found out our long standing talks with Apple were for naught when we saw our competitor on stage with Steve Jobs at a MacWorld in SF.
Oh well...
IBM loosing Apple is more of a marketing shot to IBM that a $$ one. Now IBM is the only major company producing PowerPC based server/workstations. Not a good sign for the power architecture long term.
Apple is going to push Intel, make demands of Intel, get moody and pout, and bitch, bitch, bitch.
What, exactly, will they have to bitch about? Seriously. Are they going to tell Intel they need to make faster chips while Dell and HP kick back and say, "you're cool, dude, slow chips are just fine"? Will Apple really think they can wrangle faster chips out of intel then their competitors get?
The only real bitch point will be price and Intel is going to be able to show them bar graphs up the wazoo to point out that they get the same pricing as every other company that buys X number of chips.
Apple was able to be a pain in the butt for IBM because they were basically IBMs only customer that sold into the personal computer market and because they were always able to compare IBM chips to Intel. Now that they're in the same boat as everyone else on the planet they're going to find they have no more complaint about the product than anybody else. Since they're much smaller then everyone else, they'll find any complaints they do make will get the same attention as the rest of the peanut gallery.
Intel will simply not care if little Apple bitchs unless everyone else is also bitching. Then it will become an industry issue, not an
Apple issue. Apple has to know this. If they don't, they're fools.
TW
Apple used to be faster at tasks like this. You know, when the software developers actually gave a damn about optimizing code.
Adobe and heaps of others just kinda gave up on Mac software years ago, and as a response, Apple was forced to make faster (read: dual processor) machines. When the Mac market started to wane and alot of design firms moved to PCs, Adobe et. al discovered that instead of selling 1000 copies of Photoshop a year they could sell 100,000 copies.
With that in mind, if you were Adobe, which OS/architecture would you spend more time optimizing your software for? It's not too hard to decide.
Here's the dream:
A lot of graphic arts, music production, and film production folks use them. Some folks who have serious security concerns also use them because of FileVault.