Why is Apple going Intel?

[OPUS1]

I've looked all around and can't get a real difinitive reason for Apple going Intel
I'm thinking it is in attempt to lower manufacturing costs as well as to try and gain market share.
Any ideas or aricles?
[H]APPY NEW YEAR to all !

 

[Poncho]

If you look at the direction that Intel is going with their hardware, low power higher performance, it's farily in-line with apples design. I think the bigger question is why is Intel going apple. Apple has what, a 2% market share? That's hardly worth Intels time IMHO. I know that Apple has a server market, though to what end I'm not really sure. There has to be some bigger reason that few are aware of.... and I can't even begin to speculate on that.

 

[BlindedByScience]

I'm betting the low power / low heat / high performance of the latest Intel Centrino chipsets had a lot to do with it. I'd bet money on some slinky small desktops from Apple with Centrino-like chipsets on board.....not to mention some very sweet laptops.

IMHO - I still think what Apple does best is software. And, that they do very, very well.....

My $00.02 - B.B.S.

 

[Poncho]

Yea, Super Breakout was the shit.

 

[deathBOB]

If you look at the direction that Intel is going with their hardware, low power higher performance, it's farily in-line with apples design. I think the bigger question is why is Intel going apple. Apple has what, a 2% market share? That's hardly worth Intels time IMHO. I know that Apple has a server market, though to what end I'm not really sure. There has to be some bigger reason that few are aware of.... and I can't even begin to speculate on that.

2% of market chare is still a lot of money (I think its more like 4% but I could be wrong). I doubt Intel needs to or is putting a lot of resources into the apple hardware, its all stuff that already developed.

Intel- Gains market share, makes more money

Apple-Gets cheaper, cooler, more powerful processers, could concievably gain more market share.

 

[NulloModo]

I dunno, I am sort of sad to see it happen honestly. The PowerPC was always a cool processor, and the G5 is much niftier than anything Intel has out. The unique processors always made Apple unique, now they will just be another PC with a different OS... loses some sex appeal.

 

[Big Worm]

I dunno, I am sort of sad to see it happen honestly. The PowerPC was always a cool processor, and the G5 is much niftier than anything Intel has out. The unique processors always made Apple unique, now they will just be another PC with a different OS... loses some sex appeal.

How is the G5 "much niftier than anything Intel has out"???

The G5 is actually a terrible processor in its current state.. The new intel CPUs dominate them in nearly every catagory and run cooler. I see no reason for Apple to stick with the expensive G5 Processor.
As well, this move *might* in some way or another down the road bridge the gap between Apple and PC. Apple will always maintain there style.

 

[STR]

2% of market chare is still a lot of money (I think its more like 4% but I could be wrong). I doubt Intel needs to or is putting a lot of resources into the apple hardware, its all stuff that already developed.

Intel- Gains market share, makes more money

Apple-Gets cheaper, cooler, more powerful processers, could concievably gain more market share.

Agreed on all counts.

4% is still 4%, or put another way, profit is still profit, and Intel doesn't have to spend any R&D money to get it. It only has to kiss some Jobs ass.

And unless you're very "homely" kissing is very cheap.

 

[swatbat]

Apple had issues with motorola in the past and the fact that ibm could not hit the 3 ghz mark a year after Steve Jobs said that apple would have the 3 ghz chip didn't help. Apple also stated that intel was going to be able to give them a better preformance per watt(of heat) then ibm could. Another big reason is that with intel apple could use them for a lot of different things and buying that much from intel(apple is one of the biggest pc makers) would save them a bunch of cash. Apple in the future could replace a lot of chips in the ipod lines with intel chips and also not have to use 2 mfgs for there procs(like right now). IBM could have competed with intel more on this but it looks like it really wasn't worth it for them to spend that much money on a market the size that apple is in. IBM can use the powerpc chips in other markets that don't demand the fast pace of keep up as the cpu market for desktops. If I remember didn't ibm use g4 chips in cisco routers?

 

[xonik]

Apple has what, a 2% market share? That's hardly worth Intels time IMHO.

Look at it this way. Apple is known for many pioneering advances in PCs, both functionally and aesthetically. Apple has a great image, sex appeal, and brand recognition beyond the mere 2% you grant it. Almost nobody in the industry is arrogant enough to ignore the possibilities of an agreement with Apple.

 

[NulloModo]

How is the G5 "much niftier than anything Intel has out"???

The G5 is actually a terrible processor in its current state.. The new intel CPUs dominate them in nearly every catagory and run cooler. I see no reason for Apple to stick with the expensive G5 Processor.
As well, this move *might* in some way or another down the road bridge the gap between Apple and PC. Apple will always maintain there style.

Niftier because it is different. x86 chips are good, but so common they aren't cool. Plus, the PPC platform has very good performance, I'd love a quad-core G5 unit.... If the PPC didn't have some worth, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo wouldn't all be using varients in their next-gen consoles.

 

[1c3d0g]

Because x86 ▶ PowerPC.

Apple knew from the beginning that they chose the wrong Arch, now it's coming to bite them in the ass. It's better to be late and move to something better, than to be removed altogether from the market...

 

[seanmcd]

Because x86 ▶ PowerPC.

Apple knew from the beginning that they chose the wrong Arch, now it's coming to bite them in the ass. It's better to be late and move to something better, than to be removed altogether from the market...

Uhhh no - aparently you've never used a decked out G5 long enough to know it's not a poor performer by any means.

Apple had issues with motorola in the past and the fact that ibm could not hit the 3 ghz mark a year after Steve Jobs said that apple would have the 3 ghz chip didn't help. Apple also stated that intel was going to be able to give them a better preformance per watt(of heat) then ibm could. Another big reason is that with intel apple could use them for a lot of different things and buying that much from intel(apple is one of the biggest pc makers) would save them a bunch of cash. Apple in the future could replace a lot of chips in the ipod lines with intel chips and also not have to use 2 mfgs for there procs(like right now). IBM could have competed with intel more on this but it looks like it really wasn't worth it for them to spend that much money on a market the size that apple is in. IBM can use the powerpc chips in other markets that don't demand the fast pace of keep up as the cpu market for desktops. If I remember didn't ibm use g4 chips in cisco routers?

bingo - swatbat wins

If you want to see how HOT these G5 chips were getting (and you thought the Prescott was hot)- take a look at the engineering Apple had to do to keep them cool: http://homepage.mac.com/thunderaudio/PhotoAlbum11.html

 

[1c3d0g]

Don't tell me how a G5 performs because I'm well aware of it, n00b. Also, it's obvious that you are not too informed as to its performance relative to recent x86 CPU's...

 

[DougLite]

IBM was unable to get a working mobile G5 for high end laptops, they missed on 3GHz G5s, and Intel has gobs of fab capacity.

 

[Poncho]

Look at it this way. Apple is known for many pioneering advances in PCs, both functionally and aesthetically. Apple has a great image, sex appeal, and brand recognition beyond the mere 2% you grant it. Almost nobody in the industry is arrogant enough to ignore the possibilities of an agreement with Apple.

I don't think you have any idea how much manpower is involved in new platform development, not to mention revenue support (tech support). I haven't seen any of the "apple/intel" platform development so I can't say for sure how much is/will be involved, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not worth 2% market share, which is why I said there has to be some other reasons for doing it (server market, Ipod, etc). It's not arrogant, it's reality.

 

[Duke3d87]

1. The dual G5s run really hot. my friend has a dual 2.5 GHz G5 and it runs at like 160F.
2. Apple wants to take part in the profitible laptop market. Being that the G5 is too hot and the G4 is really old, they want something that can be extremely competitive. Enter the Pentium-M
3. Intel processors are mass made and cost less then G5s.
4. Comroe/WoodCrest/Merom have a lot of potential and the switch to X86 makes some software developers happy.

 

[seanmcd]

Don't tell me how a G5 performs because I'm well aware of it, n00b. Also, it's obvious that you are not too informed as to its performance relative to recent x86 CPU's...

lmao - ok. lol

 

[Emission]

Uhhh no - aparently you've never used a decked out G5 long enough to know it's not a poor performer by any means.

bingo - swatbat wins

If you want to see how HOT these G5 chips were getting (and you thought the Prescott was hot)- take a look at the engineering Apple had to do to keep them cool: http://homepage.mac.com/thunderaudio/PhotoAlbum11.html

Holy! Thats some heavy engineering. It seems though that, the PPW ratio of these processors was waaay screwed up. Most decent x86 processors performing at that level at the time didnt make NEAR the amount of heat as one of those!

 

[Menelmarar]

Apple had issues with motorola in the past and the fact that ibm could not hit the 3 ghz mark a year after Steve Jobs said that apple would have the 3 ghz chip didn't help. Apple also stated that intel was going to be able to give them a better preformance per watt(of heat) then ibm could. Another big reason is that with intel apple could use them for a lot of different things and buying that much from intel(apple is one of the biggest pc makers) would save them a bunch of cash. Apple in the future could replace a lot of chips in the ipod lines with intel chips and also not have to use 2 mfgs for there procs(like right now). IBM could have competed with intel more on this but it looks like it really wasn't worth it for them to spend that much money on a market the size that apple is in. IBM can use the powerpc chips in other markets that don't demand the fast pace of keep up as the cpu market for desktops. If I remember didn't ibm use g4 chips in cisco routers?

I would believe it. While I don't know about Cisco specifically, the company I work uses the IBM Power PC processor in just about everything we make, fibre optic swichs and equipment for CO's