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.""
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
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
"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.
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
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.