Slashdot Mirror
Another Theory on Apple's Move To Intel
An anonymous reader writes "Why did Apple really switch to Intel? Larry Loeb thinks that it has everything to do with the Trusted Computing Group's TNC (Trusted Network Connect)." From the article: "The Trusted Computer Group is a multivendor association that grew out of Microsoft's pre-emptive Trusted Computing Platform effort. Microsoft realized it couldn't force this down the manufacturers' throats, so it formed the TCG to give it the veneer of respectability and 'open standards.'"
If there was any sense to the English language, the word "trust" would be a four-letter word.
Mod this flamebait if you like, but Apple isn't the paragon of virtue that many in the Slashdot community have made it out to be. DRM in iTunes. Okay. I get that one. They are out to portect the musicians and groups that make it possible to have iTunes in the first place.
But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes. For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple. How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.
Suing folks who scoop them on news. Embracing trusted computing (misnomer if I ever heard of one). Sorry folks, this ain't the apple of the 80's.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
but wouldn't anti-trust get involved real quick? If the Intel Silcon is exclusive for the TNC protocols, I can guarentee that a competing scheme will come up or the government will force it out to other people. And if it is on the Intel CPU, then AMD is really going to scream. So while it is a nice theory, I think that have a protocol which identifies the computer via a chip and then forces it to use the TNC scheme is doomed to failure.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
This x86 switch will surely cost a lot to Apple, changing all the architecture and going over all the code base to make it work on x86 architecture.
I think it is not so certain that they are doing all this just to comply with TNC, which is not guaranteed to be the rule...
hayalci
Personally, I think the Cringe is on target, as the "iFlicks" version of iTunes has been on the radar for years now.
Of course, being on /., I suppose we have to support the conspiracy theorists...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Of course, if slashdot posted somehting more reasonable, it would hurt their ad revenues and click-thrus as it would generate the flamewars and trolling than the typical slashdot articles nowadays.
It was all about laptops. Just before the merger was announced, a study was released showing that something like 40% of new PC purchases were laptops, rather than desktops. For Apple, the ratio is probably even more heavily-skewed in favor of portables.
Laptop CPUs were one key area where IBM just could not seem to get their act together. When it came to mobile G5 CPUs, Jobs probably just got tired of hearing one empty promise after another from IBM. You can't blame him.
I doubt the conspiracy goes any deeper than that. Laptops == the only PCs that still have any meaningful profit margins. Any computer vendor that wants to prosper has to have its laptop act together, and IBM was holding Apple back big-time.
Seriously, every reason beyond simple economics is complete nonsence. Apple switches to Intel x86 because thus they will get very, very cheap CPUs, which are just as fast as everybody else's, without investing huge sums in R&D, and geting nice chipsets as a bonus. That's it, period!
Apple and Intel Sitting on a Tree...e rIssueEntityId=330
http://www.charlesjo.com/newsletterissue?newslett
Sarcastech
Charles Jo
Apple switched processor architectures, an incredibly expensive and complicated multi-year undertaking... so that they could jump on to an unproven MICROSOFT technology, a technology that Microsoft isn't even using yet, a technology which consumers so far are reacting EXTREMELY badly to, and a technology that is based around a "Trusted Computing Group" that Apple isn't even part of?
Oh, and furthermore-- Apple did this by way of a cunning plan which keeps their developers totally in the dark about their Palladium plans, even after developers begin using receiving their developer transition kits? Great plan, that. Implement a major hardware change, go to great effort to get prototype hardware in the hands of developers so they can port their apps BEFORE the hardware change hits consumers, then suddenly spring "Hey guys, guess what? Here's ANOTHER major hardware change [Palladium] that your programs may or may not need to take advantage/caution of!" on the developers at the last minute.
Even if any of this made sense, why would Apple need to switch instruction sets? AMD is part of the Trusted Computing Group, and Apple's been using AMD technology (HyperTransport) since the G5. I see no reason treacherous computing and the PPC would be inherently incompatible.
I hate "analysts".
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Just my $/50 but, if it's a true Open Standard, Apple should have had to go to Intel to get it. If it's a true and valuable Open Standard then other manufacturer's would also provide methods of implementing it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Aqua is much easier on the eyes afterall.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
'Open standards' for closed computing?
I've been a Mac user for almost twenty years. But I'm not inclined to sign over control of my own computer. If that means I don't get the newest and coolest toys, I suppose I'll just have to suffer.
Long live Linux.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
IBM is also a member of the TCG. Getting a nub from IBM would be a whole lot less work than switching CPU architectures. Sheesh, Apple could do their own nub if it comes to that; they do their own system chips all the time.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Man, that Microsoft initiative was one of the reasons that I switched. Not the initiative per se, but the overall impression of a Windows platform that is getting more and more locked down. A small part of my motivation was indeed the search for alternatives to such a restricted platform.
My impression was (and still is) that Apple recognizes when technology is restrictive to a point where it harms the user experience.
i've been thinking this very thing for the past several days. on a hunch, i checked the registration for 'iflicks.' its no surprise that its already registered, but its registered to tucows!
seriously, maybe you've heard of East Fork, and Secure Premium Content Module? in the inquirer article they talk about how this technology will be used to keep linux out of the contant market. and the article about 'Longhorn to Require Monitor-Based DRM' here makes it quite plain why apple 'switched.'
in another report about next-generation broadband services from cablevision, speeds of 100 Mbps were achieved in a trial deployment.
so the answer is quite plain, apple wants to be part of the future of content distribution, and going with intel is the only way they can get there.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Oh well, people need entertainment, conspiracy theories concerning computer manufacturers is kinda funny.
That said, this theory may not be so wacky. Apple makes deals, they are not some divine group bringing together MASSIVE media companies because they are 'cool', but because they are in the belly of the beast. In order for ITunes to remain 'competetive' (with what, I am not sure), they have to take it up the ars from VIACOM/SONY/BGM. If one or all of the MEDIA GIANTS were to 'demand' better DRM from Apple, what would they do? Comply or throw their hottest product line in the trash?
Anyways, I am not reading into this too much, even if it has an air of plausibility.
That they felt that the x86 had a better roadmap, and would unlimitedly be the right platform. I honestly don't see the need for alternate theories (some of them quite out there). While not defending DRM, you have to admit that Apple's approach to DRM hasn't been especially draconian (when compared to others out there). This latest theory would make more sense to me if we saw an existing push by Apple to stronger DRM.
What do you know I wrote a novel
From http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/standards /st01041.pdf:
In other words, there are other vendors producing TPM silicon. Intel is one of the late-comers for sample hardware, not the sole driving vendor that Larry Loeb seems to think they are.
I'd file Larry's theory under "Tinfoil/Paranoia."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I have my own theory on why Apple fell.
Gravity.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Where have you been the last two months? Apple and Intel both stated their cases for the switch. We're suppose to take you seriously because why, exactly?
Larry, the problem with the argument from silence is that it runs both ways, and has the same amount of proof.
You are a fear monger, sir. There is no threat to Microsoft or Linux on the desktop. MS is firmly entrenched in the business world, and Linux doesn't have a real desktop/Joe User experience. Not that GNOME and KDE aren't trying, mind you.
IBM hasn't delivered on promises to Apple re: CPUs. And they don't seem to care if Apple moves on. No news here, Larry. Or I suppose that's why you're engaging in make-believe. Did your editor tell you s/he had whitespace that needed filled, or what?
*sigh*
I'm sure I've missed one, but we've heard, A) Faster CPUs, B) Less power consumption, C) Cheaper CPUs (preferred vendor prices), D) Cheaper iPod CPUs (XScale is an Intel), E) Trusted Computing Platform.
I think Apple weighed several factors before switching. In short, F) All of the Above.
This is a boring sig
Apple has announced their Q3 2005 Financial Results today:
Apple said net income for its third fiscal quarter ended June 25 rose to $320 million, or 37 cents per share, from $61 million, or 8 cents a share, a year ago, on a split-adjusted basis.
Revenue rose 75 percent to $3.52 billion from $2.01 billion.
Highlights ;-)
- 1.182 Million Macs shipped for quarter (35% growth)
- 687,00 desktops; 495,000 portables shipped
- 6.155 million iPods shipped for quarter (616% growth)
- iTunes Music Store market share 80% according to Neilsen
- Tiger revenue $100 million in quarter; installed base of Mac OS X is close to 16 million
- Still planning on Intel based Macs to be available at this time next year.
- Apple noticed no significant drop in Mac sales following the Intel announcement, but only have a few weeks of data. Still are being cautious about 4th Quarter predictions/results. (maybe I'm not that much off-topic
- Question asked if Apple has considered advertising the Mac further especially surrounding the iPod "halo" effect, but no real answer was given.
- Question about Apple's thoughts on subscription vs purchased music model. Apple still feels that users was to purchase songs, not rent them and feels the 80% market share reflects this.
Apple also release updates to iPhoto and iSync.
Mod me off-topic if you want. It *is* off-topic. But the financial results are worth the read... well, to me at least! ;-)
Animoog.org
You only have to look at his history to see that he is more interested in the OS environment than he is in computer hardware. But how will he challenge windows on the desktop? If he tips his hand he will lose. He has to have an OS ready to do every thing that windows will do, by the time Dell starts to ship white box Intel machines with OS X on them.
IBM is in on this! They will be happy to sell Dell PPC chips to run OS X.
How is this "Another Theory on Apple's Move To Intel"? I've heard it a dozen times before, like in every bloody Slashdot story on the switch. But then I realized that this article is one fucking month old. So it may have been new then.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Your post postulates a
(x ) technical ( ) corporate-rivalry ( ) market-based ( ) long-term strategic
explanation for Apple's decision to switch to Intel processors. Your reasoning is incorrect. Here is why it is incorrect. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Apple has enough cash to keep it afloat for some time.
( ) Steve Jobs is not the only employee at Apple.
( ) IBM is a large corporation and does not get "upset".
( ) Intel has larger customers than Apple.
(x) Intel does not begrudge Microsoft for using an IBM processor in XBox 360.
( ) Linux is completely unrelated to this decision.
( ) Apple will not reconsider Mac clones, even if it would mean Dell-branded machines.
( ) The next generation Macs will not be Itanium-based.
( ) The next generation iPod will not be x86-based.
( ) Most of Apple's customers don't write Altivec assembly.
( ) XServe machines are not a significant percentage of Mac sales.
(x) Obscure functionality of Intel processors does not drive purchases.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
Do you realize that your whole point is based on this nonsensical sentence? What do you mean by "try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes"? Are you castigating Apple for not releasing iTunes for Pocket PCs? Or is your problem that you can't buy a Pocket PC with iTunes preinstalled? Or were you not able to sync iTunes with your Pocket PC? Or what? And who exactly got sued by Apple? I don't know of any Pocket PC software developers who got sued by Apple.
That said, the Intel decision is puzzling. Certainly there a fewer compelling reasons not to use commodity hardware. I know why Intel wants Apple. Apple will use the high end stuff that no one else wants. It won't necessarily forever demand x86 compatibility. Some hardware security might be an issue, but Apple is not putting excessive security into any of it's products. Just enough to meet the minimum requirements. And for people who buy Apples just because they work will likely turn to a *nix if Apple DRM becomes more onerous than installing a *nix. I can imagine certain content being linked to certain machines, as it done now, but, it is already being done, so why the bother. It might just be that Apple wants cheaper proccesors for the iPod line, and Intel has the stuff that will let the video iPod work.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The two major reasons, based on the success of Apple's current models, are 1) DRM and 2) application emulation possibilities with a mature and cogent CPU road map.
TCG is unfortunately, a joke. But so is the rest of the oxymoron called system security. Today in the NYT, there was a column about people simply throwing their machines away when they became too crammed with malware. Enter now, the era of dispoable computing.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I agree. One of the problems with these conspiracy theories is that they ignore the realities of give and take in a competitive environment. Apple had to get in bed with the RIAA in order to get the ball rolling with the iTunes store, which was a critical component of their iPod strategy. Apple seems to have figured that there's money to be made in a legal download market that doesn't include draconian DRM.
Apple may or may not like the RIAA, but that's beside the point. Their goal is to grow the digital music market and take a slice of that growing market. The only way for them to do that was to come up with a compromise solution, and they only way to protect that compromise is to keep iTunes from becoming a Trojan Horse for pirating.
You can look at Apple's use of DRM as the first step on the road to further restrictions on fair use rights, or you can look at it as the first step toward getting the RIAA to see that there's middle ground between totally unlimited sharing and no sharing at all.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"Brooke Shields: Tall Princeton honors student. Tom Cruise: Short high school dropout. You decide!"
Ok, first of all Tom Cruise's recent looniness is just that, loony.
Now as to Brooke Shields--Princeton honors student.
I clearly remember that there was a issue of Life magazine in which a professor was lambasting the state of undergraduate education in the US. Brooke Shields Baccalaureate was used a something of a case study. Her complete transcript was published in the same issue.
At the time I had not completed my B.Sc., but had earned an A.A. with a concentration in Engineering from Tyler Junior College. Frankly, given the courses that Miss Shields took my lowly A.A. was a vastly superior degree. I can't recall the details of Miss Shields Baccalaureate, but I do recall that it totally lacked any courses in mathematics, and had but one or two courses in the natural sciences. If memory serves, I believe that Miss Shields had *a* descriptive astronomy course. What her transcript reveled was a total lack of any rigorous course work on the part of Miss Shields while she was at Princeton.
It's not the fact that you're a college graduate, nor is it the fact that you're an alumnus/alumna of an Ivy, or other prestigious university that makes you an educated person. It's what you did, your course of study, that makes you an educated person.
FWIW
STB
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
A. Trusted Computing/DRM/other similar things
B. Steve Job's anus
Insert A into B until it will go no further
C. Linux doesn't look so bad after all*
*Yup, I am ready to switch to Linux and leave Macs behind if they start stuffing a ton of *AA appeasing crap into their systems
Apple fanboys defended Apple's right to futz around with "FairPlay" DRM between releases of iTunes, so the door is wide open for Apple to make retroactive changes to all of those songs that suckers... err users bought.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
This is the 3rd major article I have seen about apple 'could' use the DRM for something or another.
If the only goal was to go and keep OSX from running on beige x86 boxes they would have kept using open firmware instead of switching to BIOS. (which I still think OF was a better choice).
And clearly Apple doesn't do the bidding of the RIAA, otherwise iTMS would have crippling DRM. Which it doesnt.
I really wish these talking heads would meet the guillotine. Their speculation doesn't fit.
The only speculation i have seen that makes sense is to get a volume discount on doodads for all the products from ipods up.
My personal suspicion is that there may be some connection between apple, who tends to be on the innovation vanguard, and a number of Intel's 'gee whiz' doohickeys. Apple is exactly the kind of company that would grab a new technology and try to use it quickly, whereas intel has to go and try and shop around the stuff to slow moving wintel vendors. For instance, Apple came out with the mac mini, Intel slapped together a x86 look-alike, but it made no waves and the wintel vendors mainly ignored it. I think there is a hot steamy semiconductor romance brewing here.
...is that this is supposed to be for Longhorn. Longhorn is (roughly) a year a way. Significant market penetration of Longhorn is YEARS away (look at how many people are still using Win2k today 3 years later).
You think there's going to be such a thing as a TC-only network in any immediate future? No way; I'd guess 2010 at the earliest.
It's all about $$$.
I already modded here so it's AC-ville for me. But since you're already at +4 and there's no proper reply I thought I'd point this out for you:
Suing folks who scoop them on news is a different matter than suing folks who make unauthorized extensions to their DRM technology. And if you have a third party selling a mechanism that allows unauthorized duplication of the product they are selling then you are threatening their entire existence - if I can easily duplicate my itunes files to an insecure device then their packages amount to nothing more than MP3s.
THAT is how this is about "protecting the musicians." And protecting Apple's business model as well. The DRM is a "feature" for Apple and they have to protect it in a credible fashion.
If you have a pocketpc and it won't play itunes, don't fucking pay apple for downloads - problem solved. Go get music from some other website... or from the newsgroups and p2p like everyone else.
Switching to a chip that makes buffer overflow attacks easier because it's got a dense instruction set that lets you avoid string-truncating NULLs? To fight malware?
I don't think so.
People love to analyze big changes like this after they happen, but the analyses are almost always wrong. The problem is that the explanations carry an underlying assumption that only evolutionary changes make any sense.
Is there any real reason to assume that Steve Jobs, with his history of making big and frequently unpopular decisions, would refuse to call a switch like this just because he was unhappy with the price/performance numbers IBM was quoting him? Not really. Is there any reason to assume that his decision to call the switch took place in a vacuum? Not really.
One difference between leaders and followers is the willingness to make big changes on small justification. The people capable of thinking farthest outside the standard comfort zone are the ones who see the interesting possibilities first. You can build a retroactive chain of continuity after the fact, but those 'reasons' are *not* the reasons for taking the leap. They're merely reasons the person in charge (in this case Jobs) didn't reject that particular leap out of hand.
FOSS is doing the same thing to the entire software business model. People in the industry who Just Don't Get It (*cough*DarlMcBride*cough*) talk about how FOSS needs to be made 'acceptable to business' if it wants to 'succeed', because they can't think far enough out of their comfort zone to see how 'giving stuff away' works better for everyone.
One hallmark of genius is the ability to bridge the gap between "nobody ever thought of that before" and "totally obvious to anyone who sees it." I don't think this particular change rates as high as 'genius', but there's a similar gap between "unthinkable" and "justifiable after the fact".
This story-behind-the-story conspiracy theorizing is pointless. Cringley, Dvorak, et al, aren't worth what one pays to read them. Others, like Loeb, are just using the platform-switch to garner interest for their cause d'jour.
If you want to know why Apple switched to Intel, listen to Steve's keynote at WWDC. It's all the information you need to know. Mr. Jobs, like President Bush, is a strong leader because he says what he's going to do & does it; when it doesn't work out, he flip-outs, takes responsibility, moves on & tells you what he's going to do next, or rather NeXT.
Steve's intent is to deliver the best possible personal computing experience. It always has been, it always will be. His other motivations are moot. The effects of Apple's platform transition won't be clear for years, but are sure to include many of the notions that people are now describing as the "real motive" behind the shift.
Apple could continue to shove money into Armonk's pockets, but why bother? IBM isn't interested in designing or manufacturing personal computers; they're a "services" company that bilks their customers out of big "consulting" dollars by pimping second-rate "enterprise-class" software running on first-class, high-end, high-margin hardware to the slow-witted drones who populate IT departments around the globe. Their awesome microelectronics designs are beyond the oompahloompahs running the place, who have never figured-out how to manufacture and sell the company's best products @ anything beyond boutique levels.
It should be clear to everyone who's used Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X over the past three years that Mac OS X delivers the best user experience for 80% of the things end-users wish to use their computers for. Anyone who's been paying attention will tell you that Linux and Mac OS X mindshare are accelerating while Windows continues along on the momentum of a trillion-dollar, decades-long monopolist boondoggle. Innovation in the personal computer space will focus on improving the end-user experience after a decade of neglect due to the sweeping improvements in communications, efficiency, and performance. A stable, reliable partner with a history of delivering is in the innovator's interest, why bother with unreliable partners when their contribution is irrelevant to the end-user experience?
Same # of letters, same 1st two letters, 3rd letter is a consonant, fourth letter is a vowel, and the day of the month is the same.
No wonder someone thought this was news.
Apple Switch to Intel for the Laptop Market. That's it. That's the whole reason. Any Wacky consipracy theories anybody wants to share, while we're on this story?
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
Did you not get the memo? Apple sold even more Macs this quarter than they did last quarter. They posted record-breaking profits. I think you're a little confused.
Although Trusted Network Connect (TNC) is being created under the auspices of the Trusted Computing Group (TCG), formerly TCPA, TNC is really not "trusted computing" as it is known and hated on the net.
Trusted Computing is a technology where user computers can be configured to report what programs the user is running in an unspoofable way, and to keep the user from being able to hack on various programs and data that he has downloaded. Many people object to this because of the need to give up control over their own computers in exchange for being allowed to download certain data. It has many uses for DRM.
I don't think TNC has these properties. It is a way of authenticating on a network. Yes, it can use the same TPM chip that is used in the regular TCG specification, but the protocol is not nearly as all-encompassing and doesn't have those features that are so objectionable, limiting what people can do on their computers.
So the whole conspiracy-theory angle loses one of its key selling points, namely that this is all tied into DRM and restrictions on user actions. TNC is completely different and there is no tie in to the kinds of things that conspiracy theory fans are interested in.
Revelation 13:16-17, "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
Actually all that it revealed is that she wasn't a science/engineering student.
I have a Comp.Sci degree but along the way I took a great many "arts" courses and it is certainly not correct to say that my engineering courses were any more difficult than some of the 4th year Philosophy courses I took. Do not make the mistake of thinking that because English/Economics/whatever were easy for you in high school or even as freshman courses in university it means that the disciplines that they are introductions to are easy to master.
Gee, I wonder if anything has happened recently that will change those results next quarter, and the quarter after that...
Fuck off dummy.
Ok this article is way out there. First of all if this is going to be an Intel only network protocal the hardware will not be cpu based but network chipset based. Going to Intel has nothing to do with this. The ars tech post makes a grat point as to why no more IBM chips. The Apple/IBM partnership was just not working out for either. Apple needed specific chips that mfg and research costs did not make sense to IBM any more.
The bigger question is why Intel or AMD. AMD is the leader in 64bit tech, as well as speed per watt. AMD would have also fostered the different image that MAC has. You can make arguements that Apple wants deals on all chips like DELL has with Intel to supply ipod chips. If you think about it, it is fairly simple. AMD cannot make chipsets. Intel makes mobo chipsets and designs mobo's, AMD does not. Apple has always had a small part in mobo developement but IBM and motorola did a large part if it in the past. Again Apple found in Intel a full service, chip and Mobo design, something AMD could not offer them. If they had gone with AMD they would have needed to partner with VIA, Nvidia (not going to happen since it would force a gpu issue), ATI (ditto, since they are venturing into chipsets). Pick Intel take an off the shelf chipset and you are done.
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
I believe that Apple is switching to Intel because Steve Jobs was kidnapped by aliens and taken to the Mother Ship. While he was there, he was brainwashed and ordered to switch Macs to Intel's X86 architecture. So he did. End of story.
:-)
OK. So there might not be any evidence to support my theory, but there's at least as much evidence to support mine as there is to support the rest of the theories I've been reading. They're ALL just pure speculation, including my little green men.
I've read a few columns by this guy Larry Loeb over the past few years and he's been dead wrong just about every time. This guy is a Cringley wanna-be, only he's no where near as astute. Sorry Larry, but speculate all you want. The truth is many years away, and only a few (count them on your fingers) really know what it is.
" They are out to portect the musicians"
B.S. If they were out to protect the musicians, they'd give an actual cut to the musicians instead of the RIAA.
Please, Apple cares about the musician the way the RIAA cares about the musician the way the farmer cares about the pig. Its an asset they'll eventually kill and eat when the time is right.
Going to Intel and buying PC and handheld chips from them will give Apple a single vendor to purchase from. This will cut parts costs, engineering costs and a ton of other costs. Intel is big enough that it can also provide engineering support so Apple doesn't have to design chipsets from scratch. Apple is about the experience and software. They don't care what the hardware is under the hood. Just like Microsoft.
I'll get marked for a troll, but who cares.
Yanno, instead of sounding like a gossiping tabloid by posting "theories" on why a company did what it did, why not wait to post news on the reasoning of the switch when it comes instead of posting news stories that should be posts in some forum somewhere.
This is why slashdot has no solid credibility among people outside of slashdot.
"Hell, apple was a bunch of hypocrites back in 1984. Woz dumped 'em; he was the real rebel spirit of Apple. Jobs was and is the ghoulish ghost that made Microsoft the King. Apple functions as a jail for non-Microsoft users. It's a pretend Wintel independent realm subsidized by Microsoft. Apple users conveniently forget that Bill Gates saved them many times, including the time he bought Apple's near bankrupt stock. "Gee, those I can't control will flee to the new Linux thing, better prop Apple up again" thought Bill. Things sure worked out for Bill on that one."
Is that you, Winston Smith? Didn't you repent your crimes against Oceania?
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Oh lord, where to begin...
"Jobs knows the only growth area for Apple is DRM laden media devices. He'd love to jettison the whole OS X/Mac hardware stuff today if he could get away with it."
Now you see, you just don't get it.
Apple is about providing the "complete widget." With the digital-hub concept, that means Macintoshes. The whole "Apple wants to become a consumer electronics company" thing is totally ridiculous. What Apple wants you to do is buy Macintoshes, iPods, and Airports. Apple will link them all together with software so that the sum is greater than the parts.
What makes me laugh is when Apple releases one piece of the puzzle and everyone decides that is Apple's new aim--they're dropping the Mac and going after such-and-such. Again, the Mac continues to be an important part of Apple because it is the platform that they can control.
"The first full quarter of Mac sales after the WWDC announcement of being forced to turn to Intel is going to be ugly, real ugly. Only an idiot would wasted money on obsolete hardware."
Welcome to the exciting world of FUD!
Well, supposedly Intel is coming out with a whole bunch of really rockin' CPUs. Does this mean that no-one is going to buy an Intel-based PC because it will obviously be obsolete? Do you really expect to get decent performance out of Longhorn on your 3.6 GHz Pentium IV? Only an idiot to buy any kind of Intel-based PC in the next year or so!
And yet, people are doing so.
(Oh, and to you AMD fans, why would you buy an AMD machine when Intel's CPUs are going to be so much better? You'd have to be an idiot to buy an AMD-based PC because when Intel comes out with their stuff, your machine will be obsolete.)
So there's some FUD back-atcha. See how it works?
Now, to refute the FUD. First, those who need machines buy now. That's true even in the PC world. If you need a machine now, you buy it now. "Oh, I'm not going to buy my kid that iBook for college because Apple will have new iBooks in January which use Intel CPUs." I don't hear that one very often.
And, actually, I've met a few people who want to buy now! They want to get the best PowerPC machine before Apple switches them to Intel and Macs end up sucking like PCs do. (These are people who do lots of floating-point calculations)
Second, some of those people will wait and Apple may see a drop in sales. Fair enough. But, from a corporate standpoint, Apple has $7.5 Billion dollars sitting in the bank. I think they'll be able to hold on for a year of declining sales if people decide to wait. And keep in mind that those people are waiting--once Apple does release an Intel-based machine, people will snap them up. And, with Intel providing the CPUs, Apple will finally have a supplier that can keep up with demand. Which means Apple will end up making that money back anyway.
In short, only an idiot would believe the FUD you're trolling.
When you say ''Laptops account for MORE THAN HALF of apple computer sales,'' you are in error. If you were to look at Apple's most recent financial release here (note: PDF), you would see that laptops, described here as "portables" are outpaced by desktops in both unit sales AND revenue, by a fair amount. This is not to say you aren't necessarily right about Apple's motivation, just that you have made a mistake.
I'm about as interested in wat the "pundit's" have to say on mactel as that lady with a cristal ball who i saw at a fair last week. it's pretty obvious that G5s have some serious power problems (come on, liquid cooling on a stock desktop?) and besides, given that there are some inherent vendor lock in qualities to TCP, and mac's meazly market share, they'll want to do everything they can to stop this technology.
Baldrick:M'Lord, I have a cunning plan, which cannot fail.
His Steveness: Let's hear it Baldirck!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Mr. Jobs, like President Bush, is a strong leader ...
Bush a leader ...
I suppose you were going for a +5 Funny.
SteveM
I doubt if a proposed hardware fix for flaws in the Windows OS has anything to do with Apple changing to the Intel CPUs. IMO, Apple/Jobs knows that OS X is ready to take on Windows and they just want to get the hardware platform difference behind them. No more arguments on PPC vs x86. The public will consider the x86 Mac a PC and "feel" more comfortable with a head to head comparison with Microsofts OS(s).
Just watch and see where it all goes. Apple will be releasing a how truckload of x86 machines, ready to interface easily with all those iPods and and ready to handle security, reliablity, And ease of use issues.
Will it work? I think it'll gain some traction but not a wholesale migration. Maybe 20% marketshare in 6 years is my guess. GNU/Linux will proabably have a 20-25% share by that time too. After all, opensource apps will cover most home and SMB applications needs. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
If Apple had wanted this they could've just paid whatever licensing fees are involved and implemented it in their next PPC chipset.
So I really doubt this had anything to do with the switch to x86.
I doubt this. TCG is no secret, has not been for a long time, and Apple does not need to panic-move. They could just have added such a feature to their own systems when people first started talking about trusted PCs, or made efforts to provide this on their own systems. I doubt that Intel is interested in using this to shut Apple out, but as a means to enter the home entertainment market. Sony is the one to get twitchy, not Apple.
I think that the simplest explanation is the best -- Intel/AMD just provided the fastest/cheapest chips, and the economies of scale of the x86 market made sense for Apple. They've been bringing their systems up to parity for years (dropping ADB/NuBus, and probably lots of other stuff after I stopped paying attention.)
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I don't know if anyone read the article on arstechnica, so far it's been the most logical article i've read about this entire mac+intel saga, here's a short resume, and the url follows below:
r s/
" I've worked with Apple
Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 08:56 PM EDT
and I can tell you, there's a very good chance that they outsmarted themselves into a "no bid" response from IBM.
Part of Apple's longstanding complaint against IBM was that Apple would announce a new computer with a new IBM processor, sales would skyrocket, and IBM wouldn't have adequate supply. We've all heard the story. Here's my take:
Apple negitiate for a new processor chip. Being Apple, they want "most favored customer" treatment, with fab-fill margins for the vendor. What's more, they want this for what amounts to a custom processor chip, so any oversupply will just sit on the shelf until Apple decides they want them, and sometimes Apple will let them sit a while to see if they can get a price break -- it always pays to remind the world that one is, after all, the Steve Jobs.
With terms like that, custom chip vendors only start as many lots as the customer contracts to accept right off the line. Apple, not exactly rolling in cash, isn't going to highball that estimate. In fact, they play it conservative and only order a small startup batch. The rest follows, of course: the product sells, Apple orders more to cover the demand, and IBM tells them that processors have a 6-month lead time.
Apple complains publicly about IBM (does this sound like anyone we know?) IBM, being grown-ups, doesn't say anything that might be perceived as negative about a customer.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Well, time goes by and IBM has other customers who actually pay up front for custom designs and who don't insist on having IBM tailor their product roadmap around a few million units a year. Apple again demands that IBM dedicate their CPU design teams to making an Apple special that will never generate much revenue. If IBM won't play, Apple will go to Intel.
IBM does a Rhett Butler, and the rest is history. Note that you aren't hearing one way or the other from IBM on this story.
Class bunch, IBM.
Apple has been pulling these stunts for a long time, as anyone who followed the company's relationship with Motorola knows. Compare the quote above to the following selection from a five-year-old Paul DeMone article describing Apple's dysfunctional relationship with Motorola and the reasons for Motorola's long clockspeed stagnation:
In many ways Apple is the author of its own misfortune. Years of work and billions of dollars of investments are required to design, manufacture and maintain the competitiveness of a family of microprocessors for the desktop computer market. Time and time again Apple has changed business strategies abruptly, only to reverse itself again a short while later in ineffective attempts to stem its gradual but consistent losses in market share. The PowerPC semiconductor partners, Motorola in particular, has written off hundreds of millions of dollars in losses caused directly by the erratic actions of Apple Computer, such as encouraging and later crushing a nascent market for Macintosh clones. The mercurial nature of its primary customer, combined with its minuscule and generally diminishing share of the desktop computer market, have meant that at least the last two generations of PowerPC processors have been designed primarily with embedded control, and more recently, digital signal processing applications in mind. This has left Apple in the position of only being able to differentiate itself on the basis of curved system form factors and translucent plastic. "
Full article at http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.a
http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/
Hello? Anyone home? IBM is a huge proponent of the TCPA initiative and arguably its best implementor. Intel doesn't have anything IBM doesn't already have in in spades. The article is uninformed garbage.
One strongly possibility that no one has acknowledged (at least not that I've seen) is Windows compatibility. MacOSX is built on top of Unix, so how hard would be it be to port some of these Linux tools (e.g. Wine) over to Mac OSX, by bringing them over to the intel
One of the "carrots" of trusted computing is, To get access to this site (or perhaps even to get past this router) you have to turn on your trusted computing.
The thing I came away from the article with was: Apple is going to Intel, so they can have Trusted Computing, so Apple users can surf the Internet without getting "Error 666 Your trusted computing is not turned on, Turn on Trusted Computing and re-load"
This is a good theory, but the journalist truly doesn't get the Trusted topic, nor even ties it to a company making a MASSIVE transistion to a new platform.
I don't even want to waste my time with explaining how wrong the assertions in the article are.
If the PowerPC (CPU) Architecture was UNABLE to implement TNC, then all NON Intel networked devices would also not be TNC compatible. This is NOT how it works or would work.
Microsoft is NOT tied to the Intel platform, nor did they force TNC on manufacturers, this is insane. Anyone use a PocketPC lately? Many of them have NO Intel chips what so ever.
So if you believe this article, you would also have to believe that Microsoft fought against technologies it OWNS as well, like the new CPU in the XBOX 360.
If anyone out there thinks Microsoft wants to or is going to cut off access to Network Content to their precious XBox 360 as well, then you will easily believe this crap article.
1) Processor Don't Matter
2) Microsoft didn't Push for TNC like article suggests.
3) Intel has more (under the hood) projects that are SCREWING consumers than people realize. Look up HDCP, and realize if your Plasma display doesn't support the FCC regulated INTEL technology, you won't be able to watch HD content at over 480p.
-But this DOES NOT MEAN that the devices have to use Intel Silicon to support HDCP, as this journalist suggests for TNC as well.
Except for one thing. The question of Macs (and other non-PC devices with Ethernet ports) on the network with 802.1x type stuff is implemented has been an issue in the company where I work, which wants to implement this in the next year or so. There won't be a Mac supplicant for this in the near term. It looks like the general plan will be to identify Macs via their Ethernet MAC addresess. This should work fine except for those using PCMCIA wireless cards (there is a reason for the use of non-Apple PCMCIA wireless cards in Powerbooks at this time which I will not go into).
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. PortalPlayer manufactures iPod chips, which are specialized XScale processors. Apple doesn't buy these chips, so it doesn't fucking matter because they can't pool purchases with another company.
Sheesh.
Seems unlikely that this had anything to do with the reasoning. "You won't see it soon in other processors..." And its an open standard, and you won't see it outside intel because????
Its too far fetched... this isn't the reason. The author of the article is grasping at straws. If apple told Intel, we want your processors, but you must supply X and Y, IBM would inevitably do it.
Wow, a guy who can use the words idiot and trolling in the same sentence.
Only talent he has but still a doozy.
It was all about laptops. Just before the merger was announced, a study was released showing that something like 40% of new PC purchases were laptops, rather than desktops.
/. coverage.
That study doesn't take into consideration the many home-made desktops out there, and probably other local computer shops, but most likely does represent the retail sector well. Here was the
Regarding Intel. Here's an end to all the theories. This is the real deal:
Apple will do what's best for their business in all areas. If Intel's cheaper, well that's probably a good reason to use the chips.
If it gives Apple access to other embedded chips, well hell, that's good, too.
If it gives Apple access to DRM technologies, hey, I bet they like that, too.
If it gives Apple some extra developer clout, that's another good reason.
If it helps Apple with volume purchases and reaching customer demand, kick ass.
There, story's over.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
No, that was the last transition, from 68K to PPC.
OS X and its APIs are platform agnostic. By starting with NEXTSTEP - a portable O/S (ran transparently to users and programmers on at least 4 very different architectures, from M68K to PA-RISC, SPARC and Intel) - Apple always had the ability to change underlying hardware with minimal impact. By transitioning all application developers to Carbon (which is platform agnostic) all the hard work was 95% done for ISVs - and that transition was completed years ago.
Internally Apple has been running the entire OS X system on Intel for years - that is simple prudence, or bet hedging. So changing the silkscreen on the CPU was hardly more than flicking a switch. I don't know why everyone sounds so surprised. The move was quite predictable (Aug 2002).
you had me at #!
My theory on Apple's move to intel is a whole lot simpler than most.
Since it doesn't appear to matter which processor Apple uses to power a Mac, this move is most likely a publicity stunt, carefully put together by the master of marketing, Steve Jobs. He knew you'd all sit around and speculate again and again about why the move took place, and from that, generate a wealth of free publicity.
Lets not forget that at the heart of Steve Jobs lies marketing slime. I mean, this is the same guy who used the death of a child to pretty much get his name in the news again. I don't think there is any low that this man wouldn't stoop to in order to sell a few more units.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be extremely concerned about TNC and its proprietary counterparts. (As well as NAP, there's a Cisco one called "NAC", which isn't entirely vaporware.) The Bush administration has even suggested making something like it mandatory for everyone who wants to access the Internet, which would scare me a lot if I thought the technology would actually work. But none of that has anynthing to do with Apple using Intel.
Hmm lets see OSX = = FreeBSD
...
That runs on x86
Could we release OSX on x86 and make money?
(I mean everyone says its better than Windows but they still use windows, Macs are too expensive)
No, pirate's bay x86 all those p2p cracks warez etc
How about a h/w lock?
Nah, Autodesk cad fing nah needs to be on the mobo, or Hornblower will quaff thy seed!
Okay lets sell an x86 mobo and OSX
Ha might as well sell the bloody computer, change the whole line to x86, be less trouble!
Make it so Mr Wolf
Yeah and we get a G5 laptop just in time for the CELL to come out, just as everyone thought "Great, I'll get a Mac when they use the CELL and bingo..."
Ah yes but OSX works on the PPC?
Could we release a version on CELL and make money?
I believe laptops accounted for more than 50% of Apple shipments by volume recently; the introduction of the Mac mini and the iMac G5, added to the lack of recent significant updates in their *book lines probably accounted for desktop sales currently being above laptop sales.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Sorry to be malcontent, but why should I care whether or not apple uses ibm or intel inside their computers. Will it effect the outcome of apple's computing might in the near future? Doubtful. Additionally the manner in which apple operates supposes that the end interface and integrity of their computers will change very little. Perhaps the only difference will be an ugly sticker on the case that says "Intel Inside". Perhaps apple will ritz that up also...
Really, how important is this? The only one's I've heard really excited about this is Microsoft. Others may be players, but that doesn't mean it's going to fly necessarily. I think you'll be hard pressed to get non-MS users onboard unless it's forced upon them and even then moving off will be seen as more "in."
why in the world would a broadband ISP decide to arbitrarily force off most of their customers for using older equipment?
Excuse #1: "virus protection". Excuse #2: Time Warner Cable is owned by a major member of the entertainment industry. This would happen in 2010 or thereabouts, once 95 percent of deployed home PCs have a TPM. Many broadband ISPs have already forced off users of Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and the like.
Apple figured they needed these laptop chips, their OS is already cross platform, Intel has a more complete chipset/processor solution, and intel chips are faster for the money, why wouldn't you switch in this situation? it's a really obvious choice, there isn't some super secret motive behind it.
Larry Loeb is just recylcling this article. which I came across the day the Intel switch was announced.
"Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet.
According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini, which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.
Hooked to the internet, it will allow movies to be ordered and stored, and if this News.com piece is correct, loaded onto the video iPod that's in the works.
Intel's DRM scheme has been kept under wraps -- to prevent giving clues to crackers -- but the company has said it will allow content to be moved around a home network, and onto suitably-equipped portable devices.
And that's why the whole Mac platform has to shift to Intel. Consumers will want to move content from one device to another -- or one computer to another -- and Intel's DRM scheme will keep it all nicely locked down."
I don't think this was the SOLE reason for Apple's decision. but I bet it was the deciding factor. Bottom line is that the success of the iPod has influenced Apple's focus. Now a majority of people associate Apple with iPod and iTunes not OS X or PCs. They pretty much own the portable music player market and will try to extend this to video as well,.. blah blah blah... Anyways, The real question is whether they will be able to use this newfound brand awareness coupled with cheaper systems to increase their share of the PC market. Maybe, just maybe, they can generate enough revenue selling media devices and start licensing OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. Would you like your new Dell with OS X or Windows? Ha. Its not unimaginable anymore.
All things being equal, i dont think this is the most simple explanation.
Your delight in Apples perceived downfall can only be exceeded by Apple supporters who realize the truth - that many people don't even know about the Intel switch, and of the ones that do not that many even care and that hardware sales will have almost no impact from the Intel switch.
You seem to be incapable of understanding what a processer switch really means so lets lay it out again. Current software all works on PPC. Software for several years will also work on PPC due to market share. So why would a person not buy a Mac now??? And so indeed the first few weeks after the announcement you see more macs sold than before. You have the trend in plain sight but are unwilling to follow it to the logical conclusion, listing only to the bitter parts of your heart that wish for the downfall of Apple, for some unknown reason.
The real tricky part comes when the Intel Macs comes. Then the question is how much key software people use (PhotoShop for one) is ready with native builds. If they have enough of those ducks in a row then Rosetta carries them the rest of the way. Otherwise sales of INTEL macs may falter at first until they are more accepted by the software makers.
But in ether case you'll note the sales of PPC macs did not suffer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i also have a theory why apple switched to intel... it is because ibm made them.
apple was whining because there was no g5 which they could build into ther so well selling powerbooks. this was a not accaptable situation for apple, because the powerbooks are a important part for apple.
ibm said, no there won't be a solution in the near future.
well, than apple switched... because of the better power per watts (sic) situation on intel
and than there was nintendo... telling about two weeks after the apple announcement, that theire new revolution console will have a dual g5, passivly cooled
so it is obvious... apple was using the SLOWEST and WORST and CHEAPEST processor of the powerpc family. the powerpc, usually a LOT better than the intel, was in a somewhat bad light, as the slowest version was not really a lot faster than intels, which puts the powerpc at all in a not so good light, because most people haven't ever seen any other powerpc system than the apple.
ibm had to find a way to end this, if they didn't want to lose theire face. that few processors apple bought, were in no relation to the publicity loss ibm was getting out of this relationship
i personally - as a former mac user - am really happy about this, because it shows that i was right switching to other systems years ago, this incident show what i was always knowing: apple is no single bit better than microsoft. they give a shit about there users - which where ALL proud about not using that lame (an ancient) intel hardware.
Publicity stunt? Are you seriously suggesting that the CEO of a major public corporation would bet the future of said corporation, spend unimaginable amounts of money and man-hours, and potentially alienate droves of loyal customers and developers for a publicity stunt? You've got to be kidding. I personally do not like Jobs, but you seem to be harboring some sort of deep-seated pathological hatred of the guy. As to your contention that he called the parents of the murdered teen just to get his name in the news, that's beyond ridiculous. It sounds like you need a hug.
This is the most stupid and idiotic analysis I've seen on the Apple switch (in fact it comes close to being the dumbest I've seen in the IT world over the last 20 years)
... grew out of Microsoft's ... [realization that] it couldn't force [trusted computing] down the manufacturers' throats"
... Apple realizes it will be shut out of these networks for years using its current hardware. Apple collectively freaks"
"The Trusted Computer Group
"The TCM won't be available on non-Intel machines any time soon
B#%#%#%#%S$$&$&T. Gold plated, fried-in-hell garbage.
Since when have Apple *ever* worried about compatibility???? Their whole business model is driven on locked-down, incompatible hardware to *own*, absolutely _own_ an entire market segment.
And, and, they have iTunes - they have the lock on the music market. Not Microsoft, not Intel.
The labels want to sell over the Web? Well MS won't help them - that Secure Digital Media (or whatever it was called), where is that exactly?.
Nowhere. That's where.
Does this idiot think for one second that Steve Jobs - a fanatically competitive guy who makes Gates look like a tellitubbie - would for one moment contemplate abandoning a commanding market position to run away and adopt the WinTel stategy which is currently very-very-very much an also-ran position?
"Smoking crack"? I don't think so - if he were only smoking crack, he might realise the idiocy of his statements and stifle the thought before it left the last 2 neurons in his head.
I mean really, how hard is it to understand why this happened?
Board member: "Ahh Steve????"
Steve Jobs: "Yeah?"
Board member: "IBM can't deliver - you have to stand up for the third year in a row and say 'G5 laptops real soon now'"
Steve Jobs: "I can't do that"
Board member: "No. Got a better idea?"
In the short term, everyone wins. Users ecstatic, they can dual-boot OSX and Windows, woohoo! But development shops at some point are going to ask why port apps, or continue to develop for OSX, when Mac users can run the apps native under Windows anyway? This has to reduce potential revenue for OSX-specific software, and therefore OSX will be diluted by hardware compatibility with Windows in the long term.
Right now, because of the penetration that the idea of iPods has had on the general consciousness of the public, yeah, more iPods are selling than ever. Also, they've released really cheap versions, so people that have been waiting for them finally are buying.
:)
However, that doesn't mean that the fever is still going strong. It's a strong current business position, true, but whether they'll remain such hot commodities is another question. Right now they are the only ones most people have even heard about, iPods are synonymous with portable digital audio, and that's why people are buying them so damn much. But as far as the "omfg sew koool" factor goes, they're getting a bit . . . well, "stale" is not at all the right term, but they aren't piping hot anymore, the hype doesn't still burn the tongue. And people are, in fact, finally realizing that there are perfectly viable alternatives, and some of them actually have features and streamlined support rivaling the iPod.
Yeah yeah, argue that they still aren't there, but some of them are just plain better in some areas, even if they have other faults, and that's the key: the iPod isn't the only alternative. People are starting to compare them to Zen, iRiver, even some fancy new Samsungs, and that's the part where Apple is trying to hold on. People are actually comparing, instead of just automatically buying iPods. So even if they're still predominately buying iPods when the day is done regardless, Apple's position isn't as carved in stone as it was previously.
--------
Admitting my bias up front, though, since if anyone replies it'll probably include attacks, this being slashdot and whatnot: I really don't like iPods, in both technical and fashionable senses. Technically because they don't play the kind of audio I want (ogg-vorbis and flac) and require things I also would rather do without like iTunes, etc, and don't keep the files neat and tidy on the player, nooo, they're in random folders, grrrr, and a million little things like that. So, without the vertical integration of the iPod that sells many people (such as mac users, who are already using things compatible) the iPod starts to lose alot of ground in my books.
But then the fashionabilty. Oh, hell. I met one person last year who wouldn't have dared considering buying anything other than an iPod, even after admitting that others might be better in both price and practicality; they just weren't nearly as fashionable. What a worthless sheep. And that's just it; to me, iPods are just a mark of "ooh, look at me, I'm going with the flow." And so, if you disagree with my assesment and are certain that it can't possibly be objective, then go ahead and use ad hominem arguments
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
its economies of scale in pc chipsets, componants & peripherals. if apple can buy cheap componants off the shelf, theres no need for expensive custom ones & it makes sense to use the cheaper standard parts.
laptop power consumption was probly their second reason.
anything else is either a minor reason, or a conspiracy theory.
I have heard more than one seemingly knowledgeable person wonder who left whom. Gary Edwards, who is active in the OpenOffice.org community, and who has always struck me as being quite knowledgeable, has speculated that it was IBM who refused to license the PPC6 because IBM wants to leverage Linux against Intel and Microsoft the same way that Microsoft and Intel commoditized IBM PCs and migrated the value from the whole PC to the key components, the chip and the operating system. http://www.sauria.com/blog/2005/06/05 I have not found anything on Google or Yahoo that confirms the suggestion that it was IBM who left Apple, not the other way around. Did IBM leave Apple? Or did Apple leave IBM? Clearly, we know that Steve Jobs made a very public announcement to the effect that it is Apple which is leaving IBM, but is that just a marketing ploy? Any solid evidence would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
DRM isn't as much a conspirac theory as a fact of life, and regardless of whether that's the reason for the Intel migration, it _will_ happen.
The fact is, being a monopoly is every CEO's wet dream. Pure idea capitalism, neo-classical theory style, is where no-name white boxes are now: a place where everyone and their grandma can start building their own and undercutting your prices. _That_ is what an ideal free market is. It's good for the consumer, but it's not where you want your company to be, if you have a choice.
What you want is a locked-in customer base. A hi-tech-style captive market that you can milk and fleece to line your pockets. (Well, that is: what you'd want if you were an MBA instead of a nerd raised on ideals of honesty and of playing nice.)
And historically, the _whole_ history of computing has been about that: whoever thought they owned a market segment, fought tooth-and-nail to keep you locked in, by any means necessary. Back in the stone age of computing, IBM went to court to try to stop the software market from even being born: they wanted to be the only ones you can buy software from for your IBM computer. And from there it went on to be a long sordid tale of FUD (again, it was by IBM, long before MS), connector patents, undisclosed APIs, discriminatory contracts, the Unix fragmentation (noone really wanted portability, if they could have you locked in instead), etc.
And Apple isn't immune either. E.g., the iTunes DRM may be necessary for the RIAA to aggree, but being locked-in so only an iPod plays it, isn't. In fact, the RIAA openly dislikes that. It's all about Apple very much enjoying having a locked-in market.
It's no conspiracy theory, it's no paranoia, it's just human nature. Imagine you're a CEO and there's this techological thingie which promises to give you complete control over what can run on that machine, and how much the user must pay to be allowed to run it. Or if you sell entertainment ormedia, you can control what the user can do with it, how often, etc. Make them pay _again_ as often as you wish, or make their whole collection unusable Napster-style if they dare cancel their subscription. (How's that for a lock-in?)
It's the thing that screams "TEH BIG MONIES!!!!11" in your face.
It's a wet dream. It's _the_ kind of wet dream where you don't just wake up to change your underwear, but rather you wake up sticky and have to change the mattress and blanket. _That_ kind of a wet dream.
So make no mistake, it _will_ happen.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Who cares why they switched. They did, now just leave them alone. These theories are getting old. If they don't have the facts then shut UP!
Could someone please explain me why TNC needs to be implemented on the hardware side?
OS X != FreeBSD
OS X != FreeBSD
They're both BSDs, yes, and they both intermingle code, but there are significant differences. Just like OpenBSD and NetBSD, they share common heritage, but calling one the other now is asking for trouble.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Something sure does not add up, so here is my guess as to what is going on.
Apple is making most of its money with IPods. But those run the risk of eventually loosing out to converged devices, specifically mobile phones that also play music. So, Apple would be wise to react by selling mobile phones that are ITunes ready.
But they lack the technology. Intel has it, but has not been able to sell their phone chips. In part because of bad execution: big company ills. In part because people are weary of a monopolist. So Intel is in need of a good and loyal brand to push their mobile tech.
It is therefore likely that the computing deal is only stage one in a wider-ranging cooperation where Intel provides the technology and the money, and Apple the design and the cool.
My admittedly faulty assumption was due to the level of information that I had to base it on. You mentioned an A.A and an BSc. It is apparently the case that you personally took major-level liberal arts courses. I give you full marks for this because it has been my experience that most technical people do not do that because they simply do not have to. I do note that you say that even your course of studies had 2 "appreciation" courses. To my mind they are the very type of course that you have said do not exist.
As to the comment about the GRE marks, I was under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that they supposed to be indicative of ability or aptitude but they say little or nothing about the rigour of programme that is chosen. I do not deny for one moment that most of the extremely bright people that I have personally known have chosen to go into the sciences. That could simply be due to the fact that we have a tendency to value science highly. Let us be serious after all, in our society we really do not value any type of a liberal arts education as highly as one in science, engineering or business. Human nature being as it is, if someone is a polymath they will often choose their direction based on perceived rewards.
This alone could explain the higher test scores and the perception that the liberal arts would be an easy path since it would be true that people that have chosen to go into the sciences would have also have been able to succeed equally well in any other degree they have chosen.I do not think that because you can say "science majors do better on all parts of the GRE" you are necessarily saying that science is harder to do. The most that you could be saying is that smarter(by some definition) people go into science. It is my belief that Liberal arts and science are simply different and we happen to value science more highly. The question as I see it is why we do that. That is a question that I am not prepared to hazard a guess at since we value the ability to hit a golf ball into a little hole with great ease very highly as well.(yes I am watching the British Open)
I would also suggest that part of the reason that undergraduate liberal arts coursework is seen as accessible to more people is that science education has become, in general -- I know that there are counter-examples, less and less rigourous at the highschool level. To me this is an odd situation given the fact that we seem to value a higher education in science highly but I think that it is trumped by the fact that salaries for teachers in most jurisdictions fall far short of technical jobs. Just think about the number of engineers/programmers (since they are who we started out talking about) that make more money coming out of university than a veteran teacher. Now I am not for a moment saying that financial calculations are the only things that are used but I would submit that someone living in our society would be led to to choose a career at least partially on that basis.
It seems likely to me that if our society attached a substantial value to a knowledge of poetry or comparative religion we would be having this conversation flipped on its head because the very brightest/most talented people would go into liberal arts and would be saying "well the sciences are just so simple, how could they possibly compare in difficulty to my course of study in (fill in the blank)".
I haven't heard anybody mention the word heat so far. If anyone has ever held their hand behind the radiator of a dual ppc machine...well it feels like a goddamn space heater. There was just no possible way ibm could keep upping those clock speeds without some sort of space-age cooling solution (or they could market the chip on the basis that it can be used to heat the average-sized hangar). You guys hit the nail on the head when you said it was all about laptops, but i think the subject of interoperability also comes into play. This new intel chip purportedly can dual boot tiger and winxp at blazing speeds. If they can pull it off, shit, i might even by my first mac.
Any networking system that can't accommodate the billion PCs currently in existence (none of which have the hardware in question) is doomed. Either there would be a dongle, PC Card, or some other solution that the Mac could use, or the technology would become irrelevent quickly.
Microsoft does not have a good track record in creating network systems/protocols that operate outside their own limited domain, and I wouldn't expect this one to be any different and certainly nothing Apple is going to bet the farm on.
No, I'm pretty sure Apple is switching because Intel CPU+chipsets are cheaper, faster, cooler, and come in never-ending supply.
E pluribus unum
There's truth in what you're saying (especially in the case of Sony, IMHO), but I still think Apple is focusing more on media from a slightly different angle than the others.
Basically, Apple is courting the artists who create the media. They already had a foot in that door since the early days, when graphics artists and creative types started comprising a large part of Mac sales. But now they're leveraging those connections in new ways.
Dell may be selling televisions in their catalogs now, but that doesn't make them a "shoe in" as the choice of those needing to edit film footage for a new movie production. That's just a reflection of Dell's attitude that "computers are just more pieces of commodity electronics goods that consumers buy". Dell is all about finding out what's desireable to the masses and using their buying power and connections/clout to start offering those items at prices lower than anyone has seen before. (EG. They now have the world's cheapest 24" LCD flat panel monitor, and one of the cheapest laser printers ever offered.)
The fact is, other than some cheesy front-end overlays to the Windows desktop and customized toolbars, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Dell, Toshiba, and the rest of the lot aren't really selling any noteworthy applications software focused on content production and editing. Apple sells quite a bit of it, and it's generally considered "top tier" in the industry.
768 should be considered the MINIMUM for running Tiger smoothly (vs 512 for Panther). And if he keeps a fair number of apps open all day, he'll need more than that.
Quote from the article:
I stoppd reading right there. Curiouser is not a word and anyone who uses it should not be listened to. Apple is moving to Intel for obvious reasons. Laptops. Most of their computer sales are laptops and IBM clearly has not and will not be able to deliver the kind of chips that Apple needs. Jobs looked at IBM's laptop processor roadmap and decided now was the time to make the change. With sales of iPods going through the roof now is the perfect time to make the switch. If sales of Apple systems are hurt during the switch to Intel because users decide to hold off until after the switch is complete, sales of the iPod will help to offset that. You combine that with the price discounts that Intel will throw their way (especially if they find a way to use Intel mobile processors in future versions of the iPod) and it's a no brainer.
I didn't ascribe "honorouble" motives to Apple. I clearly stated that they were trying to grow the market and make money. That seems fairly pragmatic to me.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I was referring to the sharing of music once it has been downloaded initially, whether from a P2P source or iTMS. If I am using unrestricted MP3 files, I can share them over a P2P network once I obtain them from someone else. If I am using FairPlay-protected AAC files, I can burn CDs for friends and pass the files on to different computers, but not in an unlimited fashion.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of your message. I did not support the DMCA, and I *do* support the DMCRA. But you're conflating two very different issues.
The first issue is whether in the United States the interpretation of fair use of copyrighted works should be radically restricted, restricted somewhat, or rolled back to where it was when the Betamax ruling came down from the Supreme Court. You could certainly make the case that the DMCA is draconian and utterly unbalanced in favor of copyright holders, and I'd agree with that.
The second issue is whether a company that is trying to expand the market for paid music downloads (and make money in the process) is going to be capable of doing so without introducing some form of DRM, *given the current state of American laws*. As a business case, there are several ways to incorporate DRM, and Apple chose a DRM that for the vast majority of users seems to present no problem (it may be that there is a huge underground of disgruntled iTunes purchasers, but I haven't seen evidence of this).
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ