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.'"
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
Correct. Apple is a business and it's trying desperating to hold on to it's trendiness as iPod fever dies off.
Not that I have anything against Apple, I'm typing this on a Powerbook.
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.
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.
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.