Intel chips maybe NOT "only good for apple"

[Sunborder]

Now, as a preface, I own three Intel P4 based machines, and like them. Having said that, the idea posted on the main [H] page today that moving to intel chips will only be good for apple is perhaps a bit glib.

I was just talking to a Japanese Apple distributor based not too far from Tokyo (personal friend), who said that Apple will be able to reduce the cost of their products, and improve their processing power, however, they are always VERY worried about copycat clones and reverse engineering in order to produce such clones; which would likely be much easier if they were using intel x86 architecture for their new machines.

Based on what happened with the early IBM x86 machines, Apple doesn't want there to be a million knock-off, Apple-compatible clones. I mean, isn't it ironic that IBM branded PCs these days use Intel processors?

Granted, my contact is not really an "insider", in the truest sense, but what he says rings true. Can anyone else think of ways that switching to Intel processors might be BAD for apple?

(btw, I didn't see whether or not they said simply intel chips, or intexl x86 chips....could it be a non x86 architecture?)

 

[robberbaron]

Since Intel is very capable of producing non x86 chips (see: Itanium 2 ) I'm sure they could produce a good high IPC core for Apple.

 

[Sunborder]

Yes, but ARE they? Is apple going to switch architectures(x86 or new) and port back, or are they going to simply switch vendors for the same architecture?

 

[robberbaron]

Yes, but ARE they? Is apple going to switch architectures(x86 or new) and port back, or are they going to simply switch vendors for the same architecture?

It would be a gigantic letdown of their niche if they switched architectures and didnt have a decent transistion. I'm thinking they'll probably switch vendors for the same architecture.

 

[Donnie27]

Yes, but ARE they? Is apple going to switch architectures(x86 or new) and port back, or are they going to simply switch vendors for the same architecture?

Deerfield (Itanium Lite) was planned for the G5 but IBM beat it out! Now not just Apple but maybe IBM is trying to back out of something that might be a Money Looser. Same reason Intel seemingly didn't loose any sleep over XBox. I could be wrong and that's just an opinion.

Donnie27

 

[SirKenin]

Opening the market up to clones was the best thing that ever happened to the x86 market. Look what we have now. They own the lion's share of the market and prices are competitive.

Apple's marketting strategy sucks. They offer something that isn't compatible with 95% of the software out there at a 30% higher price. Really the product isn't worth the premium they are charging for it. If they had any brains, they would look for something that was a little more compatible, open up the market for clones and bring their prices down out of the stratosphere.

 

[robberbaron]

Apple's marketting strategy sucks. They offer something that isn't compatible with 95% of the software out there at a 30% higher price. Really the product isn't worth the premium they are charging for it. If they had any brains, they would look for something that was a little more compatible, open up the market for clones and bring their prices down out of the stratosphere.

I couldnt agree more. I think an Apple system would be fun to experiment with, but one of comparable performance to my PC is around $1600. My PC could be built from scratch for

$100-mobo
$300-cpu
$120-ram
$100-psu
$150-optical and HDD
$300-VGA
$60-case
--------
$1130.
Plus I have more uses for my PC than I would an Apple.

 

[xonik]

First of all, I am highly skeptical of this rumor. Yes, it still is a rumor. More likely, it's Apple's way of pushing IBM to lower its prices.

A move to x86 would undoubtedly lead to reverse engineering of the OS to a readily usable form. There's no two ways around it. Apple can't afford to let this happen, nor should they feel compelled to do so.

Apple's computers are very solid and reliable because Apple has firm control over the hardware. Because Apple does not aim to offer compatibility with millions of unique hardware devices, their OS remains clean and stable.

Part of Apple's consumer appeal is that it brings out the elitist in the consumer. A move to x86 would alienate their current customer base. After all is said and done, I don't think an x86 transition would do Apple any good.

 

[robberbaron]

Apple's computers are very solid and reliable because Apple has firm control over the hardware. Because Apple does not aim to offer compatibility with millions of unique hardware devices, their OS remains clean and stable.

And this is why they will always be a tiny niche. I like choices when it comes to my computer, and most consumers do as well. Windows XP Pro SP2 is stable enough for me. I've only had BSOD's when I run my system way out of spec.

 

[bigr5026]

i would buy a apple operating system if it was a 32 or 64 bit based platform.

 

[robberbaron]

i would buy a apple operating system if it was a 32 or 64 bit based platform.

Apple does sell 32 and 64 bit OS's

The G5 is a 64 bit processor and OS X is 64 bit.

 

[pxc]

First of all, I am highly skeptical of this rumor. Yes, it still is a rumor.

LOL

2 weeks ago, it was definitely not about CPUs. Now it's clearly about Intel CPUs.

Now it's to pressure IBM on pricing? There's not enough time before Monday for that tactic. After Steve Jobs announces it on Monday, what will the next statement of disbelief be?

You should read the arstechnica article from yesterday. Apple seems to be jumping in with both feet, hiring BIOS and ACPI programmers. Apple going x86 seems to be a certainty.

 

[Crosshairs]

HMMMMM...........

 

[knothead34]

Opening the market up to clones was the best thing that ever happened to the x86 market. Look what we have now. They own the lion's share of the market and prices are competitive.

Apple's marketting strategy sucks. They offer something that isn't compatible with 95% of the software out there at a 30% higher price. Really the product isn't worth the premium they are charging for it. If they had any brains, they would look for something that was a little more compatible, open up the market for clones and bring their prices down out of the stratosphere.

yeah what he said. took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Sunborder]

Opening the market up to clones was the best thing that ever happened to the x86 market. Look what we have now. They own the lion's share of the market and prices are competitive.

Yes, but was it the best thing that ever happened to IBM? I think not.

Apple's marketting strategy sucks. They offer something that isn't compatible with 95% of the software out there at a 30% higher price. Really the product isn't worth the premium they are charging for it. If they had any brains, they would look for something that was a little more compatible, open up the market for clones and bring their prices down out of the stratosphere.

It doesn't need to be compatible with all of the software out there. The software that does exist for the mac is outstanding. It's stable, powerful, and the interoperability of file formats is much improved. As for the higher price, if you actually factored in the software that comes bundled with the mac, software you don't need to get with a mac (virus scanners, etc...), and, at least for educational and enterprise situations, the smaller tech support costs and downtime costs, the total cost of ownership of a mac is probably LESS than an equivalent PC. For industry-specific software, it is not the best choice, but for grandma, junior and sister-in-law, it's a better choice. Opening up the market to reverse engineering and shooting for hyper-compatibility will kill the good points of the mac without really adding anything that I can see but lowering the price....basically turning it into a PC......so what's the point?

--edited to add: If they open it up to clones, then how is Apple going to make any money off of it? It might be good for consumers, but where does Apple get anthing out of it? If they can't turn a profit, then it won't work out for anyone, and it will be bad for everyone. In the short term, at least, they will get annihilated. Only if they survive the transition and turn themselves into a microsoft-style OS vendor, would they have a chance in hell of making money if they intentionally opened it up for clones. I think they are not the ones lacking brains here.....

And this is why they will always be a tiny niche. I like choices when it comes to my computer, and most consumers do as well. Windows XP Pro SP2 is stable enough for me. I've only had BSOD's when I run my system way out of spec.

Yes, because you probably update frequently, run an updated virus scanner and check for spyware, and have a hardware router/firewall, at the very least. How many people don't do that? Think about it. People like choices, yes. People also like computers that function like appliances. The reason for the niche-market has a lot more to do with enterprise use of wintel, than it does with consumer choice of peripherals. People tend to buy whatever the standard is. Wintel is the standard, so they buy it. Has VERY LITTLE to do with "consumer choice" in the way you guys are using the term.

--Note, I am not a mac weenie....I hate the feel of the OS, like messing with my hardware, etc...but I can see why this might be a bad move for Apple.

 

[cell_491]

in this day and age there are two things that reign supreme in the computer world number one is security which apple has and equally important is compatibility which it doesnt. Apple has along way to go before ill ever buy one...not only that but ill never buy another computer so until i can build my on mac i wont have one.

 

[Sunborder]

Cell, I hear you I build all my own systems (laptops and Japanese OS excluded). Having said that, though, for the non-enthusiast market (that is, 95-99%), this is a non-issue. Compatability can be an issue, but Apple is getting much better about that. The state of the Mac is incredible compared to say, 3-4 years ago, or even 1-2 years ago. If I had to buy a no-nonsense email/browser/wordpro/digital camera hub machine for grandma, I'd buy a mac mini and be done with it. PowerPC or not. Still, going to x86 architecture might also compromise security in some ways, could it not? Particularly in terms of DRM schemes and issues like that HT security flaw recently found. Will the Mac still be a grandma-safe machine once it goes x86?

I want to hear reasons why x86 might be BAD for Apple. I can see a lot of good things about it, but that would be a different thread. Please try to stay on topic people.

 

[xonik]

LOL

2 weeks ago, it was definitely not about CPUs. Now it's clearly about Intel CPUs.

Now it's to pressure IBM on pricing? There's not enough time before Monday for that tactic. After Steve Jobs announces it on Monday, what will the next statement of disbelief be?

You should read the arstechnica article from yesterday. Apple seems to be jumping in with both feet, hiring BIOS and ACPI programmers. Apple going x86 seems to be a certainty.

The ArsTechnica article was merely a copy-paste of Cnet's release, the only source I have seen on this topic. The blog regarding the ACPI BIOS programmer was sketchy and certainly not indicative of a huge transition to x86. For all we know, Apple may be transitioning to Sony/IBM/Toshiba's Cell technology.

The only info we got is from one source. Everything else I've seen has originated from this one source.

Just curious, were you convinced when Dell announced that it may adopt AMD processors?

 

[pxc]

The ArsTechnica article was merely a copy-paste of Cnet's release, the only source I have seen on this topic. The blog regarding the ACPI BIOS programmer was sketchy and certainly not indicative of a huge transition to x86. For all we know, Apple may be transitioning to Sony/IBM/Toshiba's Cell technology.

The only info we got is from one source. Everything else I've seen has originated from this one source.

It's actually 2 sources: the WSJ reported it last month, and updated today with confirmation from "an industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule" that in mid-2006 the mini would migrate to Intel processors with other systems following in 2007. news.com reported separately yesterday that Apple was moving to Intel, but didn't get any comment like the WSJ was able to today.

Apple is transitioning to Cell? Did you get that from no source?

 

[Dan_D]

Yes, but was it the best thing that ever happened to IBM? I think not.




It doesn't need to be compatible with all of the software out there. The software that does exist for the mac is outstanding. It's stable, powerful, and the interoperability of file formats is much improved. As for the higher price, if you actually factored in the software that comes bundled with the mac, software you don't need to get with a mac (virus scanners, etc...), and, at least for educational and enterprise situations, the smaller tech support costs and downtime costs, the total cost of ownership of a mac is probably LESS than an equivalent PC. For industry-specific software, it is not the best choice, but for grandma, junior and sister-in-law, it's a better choice. Opening up the market to reverse engineering and shooting for hyper-compatibility will kill the good points of the mac without really adding anything that I can see but lowering the price....basically turning it into a PC......so what's the point?

--edited to add: If they open it up to clones, then how is Apple going to make any money off of it? It might be good for consumers, but where does Apple get anthing out of it? If they can't turn a profit, then it won't work out for anyone, and it will be bad for everyone. In the short term, at least, they will get annihilated. Only if they survive the transition and turn themselves into a microsoft-style OS vendor, would they have a chance in hell of making money if they intentionally opened it up for clones. I think they are not the ones lacking brains here.....



Yes, because you probably update frequently, run an updated virus scanner and check for spyware, and have a hardware router/firewall, at the very least. How many people don't do that? Think about it. People like choices, yes. People also like computers that function like appliances. The reason for the niche-market has a lot more to do with enterprise use of wintel, than it does with consumer choice of peripherals. People tend to buy whatever the standard is. Wintel is the standard, so they buy it. Has VERY LITTLE to do with "consumer choice" in the way you guys are using the term.

--Note, I am not a mac weenie....I hate the feel of the OS, like messing with my hardware, etc...but I can see why this might be a bad move for Apple.

I agree with your points. Apple is what it is through having its own unique software and architecture.

Here's my thoughts. The Apple OS could easily be reversed engineered and made X86 compatible. The thing is a BSD variant to begin with. Transition of the OS isn't the issue. Its the software.

Apple has frequently left their customers hardware and software with no transition and just said tough. ADB, OS 9. They've done it before. Their business practices from a marketting and even a product standpoint aren't the best.

Apple should stop selling hardware in my opinion. They don't sell in a large enough bulk to really make serious cash on the machines, warranty claims suck with Apple. Believe me I work in an authorized Apple service center and they blow to deal with, and finally they can't afford to worry about being cloned all the time. Anytime a company clones the damn thing they try to muscle them like Microsoft would and squash them or buy them up. They can't afford that.

The only really profitable hardware venture they've ever really had is the Ipod. They should stick to things like that if they want to make anything physical.

Here's what I think they should do. Go strictly software. Be the best damn software company on the planet. Start buy bringing the Mac OS to the PC platform. Heres the kicker, they need to do what Corel failed to do and actually make it work with Windows programs. If they did that, and they could do it right, they could challenge Microsoft in a few years. They would have to keep their product what it is, but find a way to genericize the hardware drivers a bit more. Since most PC hardware is built to standards set fourth in the industry, I believe its somewhat possible to eliminate some of the driver issues that can be found on PC's.

For example, when Microsoft replaces Direct X with the WGI or whatever the hell it is called in Longhorn, there will be no seperate ATi and Nvidia drivers paths. That way both companies have to develop their hardware to the same standard. This is good. Apples to apples comparisons will be easier at that point, and we'll get more stable drivers too. Theoretically of course. I am sure it will take a generation or two of video cards to actually make this a reality. However back to the topic at hand.

If Apple could do this, they could stand to make more money and dominate the market place. Of course the road to getting their is a rocky one and a tough one. Apple is a good software company. They really are. Final Cut Pro HD is said to be superior to Premiere for alot of reasons and its quickly become a hit in that industry. They can bring this kind of software engineering to other programs. They really could.

The problem with another OS taking over and challenging Windows is that there is a lack of software support. If they could offer good compatibility with current Windows Programs on X86 hardware, and keep most of whats so great about the Apple operating system they really could kickass in the market place.

They wouldn't have to worry about Mac clones anymore. Just worry about making good software. Apple hardware is prohibitively expensive to buy. The upgradability in everything but the G5 is laughable. That makes those platforms unflexible. Even the cheapest crappiest PC's are flexible to a large degree. The G5, costs to damn much. And all but the $2000+ models actually have very poor graphics hardware.

Unless they get Intel to essentially copy the G5 and or make a similar compatible processor to the G5, I don't see them going Intel as a very good solution. I see why they would possibly want to. However, it would leave them in a vulnerable state as pointed out in a previous post.

 

[Donnie27]

Here!

Donnie27

 

[SockMan!]

Here's what I think they should do. Go strictly software. Be the best damn software company on the planet. Start buy bringing the Mac OS to the PC platform. Heres the kicker, they need to do what Corel failed to do and actually make it work with Windows programs. If they did that, and they could do it right, they could challenge Microsoft in a few years. They would have to keep their product what it is, but find a way to genericize the hardware drivers a bit more. Since most PC hardware is built to standards set fourth in the industry, I believe its somewhat possible to eliminate some of the driver issues that can be found on PC's.

Considering that they essentially own the online and portable music market with their iPod, I'd say going strictly consumer electronics would be the best business decision. They could just keep selling iPods and get by just fine and with far less effort and risk than trying to create and market a killer software platform for the PC.


Anyway, there's just too much half-baked speculation at this point for me to try to figure out the Intel/Apple thing. 'tis interesting though, so hopefully things will start making more sense soon.

 

[SirKenin]

Is anyone else reminded of Commodore, or is that just me?

 

[BossNoodleKaboodle]

Opening the market up to clones was the best thing that ever happened to the x86 market. Look what we have now. They own the lion's share of the market and prices are competitive.

Apple's marketting strategy sucks. They offer something that isn't compatible with 95% of the software out there at a 30% higher price. Really the product isn't worth the premium they are charging for it. If they had any brains, they would look for something that was a little more compatible, open up the market for clones and bring their prices down out of the stratosphere.

Very well said. IBM may make the best chips out there but Apple's use of them caters to too small of a market to make them worth considering, simply because their OS isn't widely used... If Windows XP 64bit ran on Mac's I'm sure a lot of people would consider them, myself included.

 

[Dan_D]

Considering that they essentially own the online and portable music market with their iPod, I'd say going strictly consumer electronics would be the best business decision. They could just keep selling iPods and get by just fine and with far less effort and risk than trying to create and market a killer software platform for the PC.


Anyway, there's just too much half-baked speculation at this point for me to try to figure out the Intel/Apple thing. 'tis interesting though, so hopefully things will start making more sense soon.

If they went only with consumer electronics, it would be a safer endeavor. Going strictly software would be risky. Hardware wise, there just isn't a real compelling reason to by a Mac. The only saving grace is that with the Apple OS, you don't have to screw with drivers. (Except for some miscellaneous junk) Generally its easy to work with the hardware.

 

[Ultra Wide]

It's the right move as computers become more and more like closed stand-alone appliances like the Tivo or VCRs. In the end to the user it does not matter what it's running inside as long as the product works and it's reliable. Most people don't care if the DVD player is made by Toshiba or Panasonic, they just want it to play DVDs, it is the same with computers. People just want to check e-mail, surf and run whatever application that it's special to them. Apple just delivers this in a prettier presentation than the "PC". It's like having a VVEGA XBR vs. a regular Sony flat TV. Technophiles argue they are completely different, which technically they are, but to the consumer it's all the same except for the price.

Anyway, now Apple will be able to push out the Mac appliances at a lower price point, they already use "PC" components inside liek RAM, HDD, PCI/PCI-X cards, etc. This will give consumers their VVEGA XBR for the price of a regular Sony flat screen.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

What? People would be able to build Mac machines with other CPU's? *gasp* how awful!

 

[ryanrule]

It's the right move as computers become more and more like closed stand-alone appliances like the Tivo or VCRs. In the end to the user it does not matter what it's running inside as long as the product works and it's reliable. Most people don't care if the DVD player is made by Toshiba or Panasonic, they just want it to play DVDs, it is the same with computers. People just want to check e-mail, surf and run whatever application that it's special to them. Apple just delivers this in a prettier presentation than the "PC". It's like having a VVEGA XBR vs. a regular Sony flat TV. Technophiles argue they are completely different, which technically they are, but to the consumer it's all the same except for the price.

Anyway, now Apple will be able to push out the Mac appliances at a lower price point, they already use "PC" components inside liek RAM, HDD, PCI/PCI-X cards, etc. This will give consumers their VVEGA XBR for the price of a regular Sony flat screen.

except i wanna upgrade my wega xbr to super hd. good thing i got a pc so i can change stuff inside it.

 

[Methodical]

IMHO, Apple will never open the platform it uses. The biggest advantage of the platform is the fact that apple knows the specs, and qualifies, every piece of hardware that apple will use.

THAT is the reason there are no driver issues, unstable devices, or other weird stuff. When you take that away, you've got a problem.

You won't be able to build a mac. apple will lock down the software to the hardware. Expect the motherboard and power supply to be proprietary.... Possibly some trickery going on with the CPU packaging.

The only hope is emulation, which would be fast because its on the same platform.

but apple will use a proprietary bios that will require reverse engineering to work, and sue anyone who tries.

closed platform.

apple says, however, that the system will be able to run windows if a user desires.

 

[cell_491]

IMHO, Apple will never open the platform it uses. The biggest advantage of the platform is the fact that apple knows the specs, and qualifies, every piece of hardware that apple will use.

THAT is the reason there are no driver issues, unstable devices, or other weird stuff. When you take that away, you've got a problem.

You won't be able to build a mac. apple will lock down the software to the hardware. Expect the motherboard and power supply to be proprietary.... Possibly some trickery going on with the CPU packaging.

The only hope is emulation, which would be fast because its on the same platform.

but apple will use a proprietary bios that will require reverse engineering to work, and sue anyone who tries.

closed platform.

apple says, however, that the system will be able to run windows if a user desires.

i dont see how they expect to win new customers and grow (significantly) as a company if the do continue their "closed system" approach. Most people will never pay that kinda of cash for a system thats the same as you can buy from dell but runs an OS that they not only dont know how to use but most have never even heard of. you know what FUCK IT, i dont care anymore i just want longhorn to come out

 

[ryanrule]

apple says, however, that the system will be able to run windows if a user desires.

unless ms makes it so it dont work.

 

[cell_491]

unless ms makes it so it dont work.

which they will

 

[ryanrule]

which they will

so its a question of who gets hacked first. i would imagine it to be os x, cuz there would be alot more computers that it could be on.

 

[robberbaron]

you know what FUCK IT, i dont care anymore i just want longhorn to come out

This statement makes the most sense out of this entire thread.

Longhorn should be the Windows 98SE of the new age. That is, if you have fond memories of 98SE. Heh.

 

[BossNoodleKaboodle]

if apple allows windows its not longer an apple. its just another PC, which just means they finally stopped fighting for their own niche market share. i think they should make POWER processors work with Windows and THEN i'll buy a freakin mac.

 

[Donnie27]

This statement makes the most sense out of this entire thread.

Longhorn should be the Windows 98SE of the new age. That is, if you have fond memories of 98SE. Heh.

tips #1

Then from their front page.

Unanswered Questions Answered: Jobs' keynote address didn't say if you could run Windows on the Intelmac, or whether non-Apple x86 machines could run OS X, too. That came later. From ZDNet:

"

ZDNet][/B]After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

So it is a hybrid that can run both Windows and Mac OS X.

Then all of this one.

tips #2

Last but not least.
tips #3

Instead of their own biased opinions, Ed based most of what he's saying on Apple's and Intel's own statements. Intel (as well as AMD) have *announced DRM nothing was hid! Now some over zealots person tried to make it seem seedy, that's what FUD is all about.

If you add up what has happened so far, you see that Apple will move to Intel and use AMD the way Dell does to get the best price from Intel. Apple will use Intel's version of DRM to Lock in their OS to their Intel MACs and LOCK MAC out of all other non-Intel Macs.

Intel has great SIMD's even as it's wasted on the X86 Platform, this will not be the cases on closed MAC systems. Apple has great SIMD's and the only question is can Intel adapt these to Yonah, Cedarmill & or Conroe, and etc....Intel did add x86-64 after all, hehehe. So you could have two Identical PC's and MAC OSX XI would only run on the MAC x86.

MACs will feature more advanced versions of Yonah and then Conroe, P4 is highly unlikely to used IMHO! Dothan would be nice for a Mini Mac! But keep in mind, Dothan sucks for Multi-Media and just like Intel, that's what Apple loves to push. So even the Mini-Mac would need Dual Core Pentium M.

Donnie27

 

[Gorankar]

maybe apple is just going to buy all those itaniums intel has laying around but can't sell..

That would certainly help them keep their OS and hardware proprietary

 

[Donnie27]

maybe apple is just going to buy all those itaniums intel has laying around but can't sell..

That would certainly help them keep their OS and hardware proprietary

Hehehehe! True!

Donnie27

 

[SirKenin]

Once more.. I am surprised nobody has attempted to apply the Commodore situation, which is exactly the same, just a few years further back than many of you here. But it serves as a paradox, don't you think?

Look at the lesson learned from the Commodore deal? Look at what ended up happening with that deal. What lessons does that teach us today?