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.
Protecting their deal with RIAA labels? Oh no!
Suing people for violating an NDA? Double oh noes!
Embracing trusted computing? Even though this article is complete rubbish, oh no!
'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.
I have my own theory on why Apple fell.
Gravity.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
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.
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 think the reason they're called "analysts" is because they're usually pulling stuff out of their ass.
In this case, the entire article, I would say.
Mr. Jobs, like President Bush, is a strong leader ...
Bush a leader ...
I suppose you were going for a +5 Funny.
SteveM
That's okay. Someone else will merge some `break WINE on anything other than Linux' patches into the tree soon.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News