Apple May be Intel Show Pony

Robert writes "Computer Business Review reports that the implications of Apple dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape. Apple stands to gain a competitive edge by partnering with Intel because it will have access to slightly cheaper stuff."

Skewed headlines

[dcclark (846336)]

Is it just me, or are the headlines and summaries becoming more and more sarcastic and twisted, especially with regards to anything Apple-related?

Apple May Be Intel Show Pony
Indeed, twisted by the Dark Side of the Source, young Zawinski has become.

And that's just on the front page this morning! It's not that I have anything against a little editorializing, but these don't even seem like relevant comments any more...

In keeping with that theme...

[ravenspear (756059)]

Apple has just released the first official benchmarks [www.amyd.ro] of the new x86 Mac. Steve was even kind enough to show how the P4 Mac related to the speed of the G5.

Re:Revolutionary? Try the Cell processor.

[FortranDragon (98478)]

Arrggh! :-D I wish this fascination with the Cell processor would die. Yah, the Cell is derived from the Power architecture, but it is not a drop in replacement for a desktop CPU. It might not even be that great of a game console CPU. The Cell is designed to make graphics processing easier (well, to feed vector units, IIRC).

Also, as a game console oriented chip, the Cell isn't about ramping up processor power/speed. It is about cutting manufacturing costs while holding the processing power steady. Do you really want Apple to make major transition to an unproven CPU architecture that is going to remain at the same speed over its lifetime? At least with x86 Apple has five years experience with making the code run. Going to the Cell would mean starting with no experience.

how could they stop it?

[udderly (890305)]

FTA Apple has said it would not allow Apple OS X to run on any machine other than an Apple Macintosh.

Seriously, I'm asking...how would they be able to stop it? I must be missing something.

Re:how could they stop it?

[wtmcgee (113309)]

There are a number of ways, and it's silly to think any will work 100%. I think they'll use custom motherboards along with a custom BIOS that OS X will have to recognize to run.

Of course the slashdot type crowd will find a way around it, but Apple will never sell copies for the general public, and they will never support it for non-macs. As long as they make it *difficult* for the general user to instal OS X on their Dells, etc.

I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't "allow" it.

Re:how could they stop it?

[Weaps (642924)]

As many people have stated, they'll do something to the hardware that will make it difficult. Nothing is impossible, but it will be difficult and not in any way supported by Apple.

The real question, is why would you? I'm sure all you /. script kiddies will love the 'challenge' of getting OS X to run on that Asus cobbleware you put together with parts from CompUSA, and I would have too in the past. However over the 20+ year history of Apple, it has become clear that one truism of the world is that if you want to run Apple's stuff, you just gotta buy Apple's stuff.

And that's really not such a bad thing. Since getting in with Apple with my Mac Mini, I now see that it kind of is worth the price of admission. It sucks that it has to be, but it also sucks that I have to give a % of my salary to the government. The user experience is such that I don't feel compelled to hack a toaster to run OS X. I'd rather just buy a Mac and be done with it.

Hell, maybe the Intel Macs will be cheaper. I don't think they will, but then again the vast majority of the world (sans the Dvoraks) didn't think apple would ever switch to Intel.

Re:how could they stop it?

[edwdig (47888)]

Remember, a PC today is still based on the design of an XT. You've got bizarre things such as the 20th bit of the CPU addressing being disabled at boot time. Multiple interrupt controllers and DMA controllers cascaded off each other. You reboot a PC by sending a signal to the keyboard controller.

PC motherboards are really weirdly designed, and have accumulated quite the collection of weird hacks to work around the early flaws. Since Apple doesn't care about backwards compatibility with older PCs, they can quite simply design a motherboard without all that crap in it. Enable the A20 line at boot. Replace the DMA and Interrupt controllers with better ones. Get rid of the memory gap between 640KB and 1MB.

Get rid of the legacy PC crap and it'll require some rather serious hacking to get the code to run on a standard PC.

Re:how could they stop it?

[ericdano (113424)]

Thank you! Finally an intelligent post here!

I can't see Apple using some generic PC board in a production Macintosh. They WILL use a board that they design, and it won't be like a PC board. As the above poster stated, Apple doesn't need to support Legacy crap.

Just because the development machine is a standard PC, doesn't mean that the shipping product is going to be one. The development machine is to just get developers started in getting their code working on Intel powered machines. And Steve Jobs did say they would want them back (the machines). So, I'd think that in 6 months, a lot of Developers are going to be asked to send back the machines and receive real Intel Macs before they become available to the public.

Re:how could they stop it?

[lostchicken (226656)]

The architecture will be x86, or x86-64. This is not in debate anymore. The developer transition boxes are Pentium 4, and that's what the compiler targets. x86. It might not be the same exact chip, but it will be the same instruction set, otherwise you'd have a worthless lot of recently-ported software when all is said and done.

Re:how could they stop it?

[nuggetman (242645)]

If portions of the OS reside in ROM then explain to me:

How I can upgrade my OS

and

How PearPC, which contains no Apple code, can run OS X.

Boot ROMs havent existed for quite some time in Apple machines

Re:how could they stop it?

[PygmySurfer (442860)]

Apple has always used custom ROMs aboard which the most basic portion of Mac OS has always resided. To my knowledge, which I admit is a bit dated, even G5-based Macs use a proprietary ROM tailored for Mac OS.

Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).

As for a BIOS, modern Macs have all used Open Firmware [openfirmware.org]. Sun also uses this, and appare

Re:how could they stop it?

[hey! (33014)]

It would be a weak protection though.

So? What would some enthusiasts getting MacOSX running on their Athlon 64s mena to Apple? Nothing.

But it will stop a significant clone industry from developing. Even if it's relatively trivial to get MacOSX to boot on generic hardware, doing this as a business means you'd be a nice fat target for Apple's lawyers under the DMCA.

Re:Maybe better to let OS-X run on a generic PC?

[IntlHarvester (11985)]

Licensing died the first time because the cloners were undercutting Apple's ridiclously high hardware margins. But, Apple is now a "cloner" themselves, which means the hardware margins are going to inevitably drop -- and that means Licensing will be back on the table for Apple.

Plus a HP or a Sony would be a much stronger partner than that crappy PowerComputing outfit.

Folks need to understand that Apple has just turned itself inside-out. You can no longer make any assumptions based on how they handled things in the past, their business model is going to have to change.

Re:how could they stop it?

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

It would be a weak protection though. It could only work in conjunction with the kernel, and that's easily hackable (isn't it just a BSD kernel?). I think they'll rely mainly on the EULA.

they could also build custom chips on their mb - no chips, no run. Just because machines use the same processor doesn't mean their OS will run on either machines without significant work.

Everyone assume Apple will use industry standard designs as the basis for Intel based Macs; I doubt that will be the case. They've been there before with CHRP and that never really went anywhere.

That May be true...

[AAeyers (857625)]

But not as much as how slashdot is becoming Apple's show pony

Re:That May be true...

[BasilBrush (643681)]

Don't blame Slashdot. They are just reflecting the way things are going.

Linux has lost momentum and OS X has gained it. More and more people have decided that there's no point in waiting for Linux to provide a good user friendly nix desktop where things just work, when OS X already offers it. People have waited long enough for Linux already.

Re:That May be true...

[ggvaidya (747058)]

Huh? I thought Slashdot was Google's show pony!

This flipflopping must stop! I don't know who to worship anymore!

Intel needs a show pony

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

Dell has proven that they only want to make cheap stuff... they used to brag they made "PCs" now they just make "clones" but make them cheaply. Intel needs somebody to really show off their cutting edge stuff...which no normal PC maker will do. Enter apple looking for a new partner. Intel just lost the Xbox account anyway.. and the writing on the wall is that MS will stab them in the back just as fast as every other partner.. It's foolish of Intel NOT to take the opportunity to develop hardware that breaks all the PC rules and start over from scratch.. frankly they'll be Intel's "demo" group and just let everybody else copy them.

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[HardCase (14757)]

Intel sits on every PC standards group and is the 800 pound gorilla that sees to it that those rules are not only followed to the letter, but that companies who deviate from them suddenly find themselves without Intel's support - truely a death sentence in the PC industry.

I'm on several of the JEDEC committees. Intel has no interest in developing hardware that breaks any rules.

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[SteeldrivingJon (842919)]

i am sure they also like powering what is considered the cutting edge personal computer company. for their market share, Apple gets a LOT of headlines and that can only help Intel's public profile.

And it makes sense to support Apple on Intel.

Up until now, Intel has had to rely on their periodic festival of dreck, where they feature some cloners' ideas of cool computer designs, which usually suck (PC ottomans?), and generally include something that looks an awful lot like something Apple recently shipped.

It doesn't help that nobody is really betting their company on those designs succeeding.

Now with Apple, Intel doesn't need to rely on second rate designers or whimsical-but-useless designs produced without any concern for marketability.

And on top of physical attributes, these showpiece machines will be running OS X, which makes the Apple machines more distinctive. Otherwise, Intel has to say "It's an ottoman! That runs Windows! Isn't that... great?! Huh? Huh? Pretty cool, huh? Comfy, too! Haven't you wished your laptop was an ottoman sometimes? No? Oh. But, wait, you can get it with a Green Bay Packers logo on it!" (yawn)

Surely not...

[intmainvoid (109559)]

Anyone who thinks the switch to Intel is all about cheaper components has surely lost their mind...

Re:Surely not...

[ArbitraryConstant (763964)]

Exclusively Intel OEMs get large discounts.

Re:Surely not...

[guet (525509)]

Then what's the point? I'd only try OSX if I could get it to run on generic, non-proprietary hardware. I don't currently buy *anything* from Apple and never have due to their draconian hardware lock-in that allows them to rape the consumer.

Instead, you buy from Microsoft, who would never dare do such a thing.

I think that was sarcasm, so responding with 'Exactly' is not really appropriate ; )

Exactly. I can install Windows on just about any old computer I can scrounge up from thrift shops....

You can't buy a PC with anything but Windows installed on it, and competing OSs have a habit of dying inglorious deaths (Be, OS/2, Next). I wonder why?

You think Microsoft has your best interests at heart?

If it weren't for Microsoft's ruthless and illegal suppression of any competition, we might have a vibrant OS scene with several alternatives on x86. It might not have taken us till a few years ago to have decent web browsers. Consumers might actually have a choice of hardware and software. You haven't even noticed because you're so focused on the cheap hardware side of the equation. If you can't see how you're locked in there to MS products, you must be blind.

I doubt Apple will ever fully support any old PC that you find in a junk shop, however at some point they might start making deals with PC OEMs to sell OS X - that would seem the most likely long term reason for jumping to x86, along with the removal of the roadblocks on the PPC roadmap. It fits with the previous Next strategy, and Next has slowly taken over Apple from the inside. This time, if they manage the transition well, they have the big software providers with them, already producing the major apps for their platform. That's a lot of momentum all previous contenders didn't have.

PS, Apple don't 'rape' their customers, they are more expensive than cheaper, often cut-down PC alternatives like Dells. You might compare their laptops to things like IBM Thinkpads, in the same price range, and with the same range of features. I have no idea why you feel this is comparable to rape.

Are you Kidding Me?

[Enonu (129798)]

When I walk into a store selling Apple components, all of the prices have seem to have been standardized. I walk into Fry's electronics, and the thirty inch flat-panel is $2999. I walk into an Apple store and the thirty inch flat-panel is $2999. I bet if I walked up to an Apple Factory, they would sell me the thirty inch flat-panel for ... $2999.

Apple has never been in the game of "cheap" hardware, letting the market decide how much things will cost, etc. They like their components viewed as top-shelf, and I doubt things will change in the future. All Intel means to Apple is more profit, not lower prices for the consumer.

Re:Are you Kidding Me?

[kawaichan (527006)]

If you want to shop the edu store online, you need to enter your student ID, might be a little bit hard to come by if you don't know anyone going to school atm and when i tried to buy the hardware with edu discount in my university bookstore, they always ask for my student ID.

here is a little comparsion (all prices in CDN):

20 inch LCD: EDU: 899 REG: 999
23 inch LCD: EDU: 1649 REG: 1899
30 inch LCD: EDU: 3549 REG: 3799

Power Mac G5

Dual 2.7 (std config): EDU: 3399 REG: 3799

Quite true

[doormat (63648)]

Apple will be able display the tons of technology Intel has developed. Look at the cool shit they have every year at the Intel Developer Forum. Look how little of it has been adopted into the mainstream (BTX for example). Intel can put Apple on the cutting edge.

USB.

[solios (53048)]

IIRC, USB was an Intel spec. And intel shipped it, and it worked, and nobody - I do mean NOBODY - gave a shit. Good luck finding hardware, etceteras.

Then in late '98, Apple dropped the iMac bomb.

Not only were they using Intel's USB, they'd dropped everything else. You either got on the boat or you stayed behind. Now EVERYTHING ships with USB - a spec everybody refused to touch until Apple made it trendy and sexy to do so.

Apple + Intel == a very, very good thing. Both companies will get to bust ass doing what they're best at.

Feel the love.

Re:USB.

[Lars T. (470328)]

Exactly, all those translucent blue USB peripherals were made to match the BSOD.

Re:USB.

[John Newman (444192)]

Actually, nobody gave a shit until USB support was added to Windows. Microsoft added USB support in Windows 98 (and to a lesser extent, in Windows 95 OSR2). Both of which were released much earlier than the iMac.

Wow. That universe you live in has some funky space-time relationships if June 25, 1998 [wikipedia.org] is "much earlier" than May 7, 1998 [wikipedia.org].

No one gave a shit about USB until the iMac created a market for USB peripherals. It was still several years before it started appearing on most new PCs, thanks to Intel's chipsets - yet most consumer PC's to this day ship with non-USB mice and keyboards. This is exactly why Intel wanted to partner with Apple.

Hey...

[mojowantshappy (605815)]

Not fair! I want to be Intel's show pony!

Jobs's Plan

[by Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I think is Jobs's plan. Apple sales will crumble anyway over the next year--he knows that--so I think we can expect massive discounts to employees of major corporations, of the order of 70 percent off with no restrictions on the numbers sold to individuals within those corporations for personal use--they buy them for relatives, friends, and so on. Apple will take the hit for a while because that way lots of powerbooks with OSX get into the hands of non-IT people in big companies--the people with the money. OSX is so spectacularly good they won't be able to help themselves being impressed. Then in 2006, just when MS begins its "upgrade to Longhorn" push, these managers who have had cheap Macs for a few months will think, "Er, no, we won't, thanks, lets look at these new Intel Macs." Then: Profit!

Apples switch for commercial reaons...

[johnhennessy (94737)]

It was a tough choice, but I doubt Apple moved to Intel for cheaper chips, or better processors. Intel has always developed chips that aren't x86 or IA64 for "research" purposes.

I'd imagine that Apple are probably after Intels vast fabrication resources. They probably see that IBMs fabs will probably be under pressure to crank out chips for the XBox and Playstation.

For the volumes of chips that those two platforms will need, its hard for IBM to justify Apple taking up their valuable fab space.

Itanium 2 roadmap

[shawkin (165588)]

A low voltage Itanium 2 is coming at the end of the year in production quantities.
The support chipset for the Itanium is also quite impressive.
The Itanium roadmap shows support for up to 8 Itanium dual cores.

I understand that the proposed Apple / Motorola/Freescale settlement involves an unlimited Altavec X86/Itanium license.
I also understand that IBM is to make a significantly improved proposal to Apple about PPC supply and development within two weeks.

If much of this is true, Apple would have interesting options.

the intel mini

[justforaday (560408)]

After the announcement was made last week, I began to wonder about something. Was the Intel mini that was unveiled a few weeks ago made with Apple's blessing? Proof that Apple could very easily rerelease their iMac mini with an Intel chip/guts?

Prelude to... The Leopard Post

[rice_burners_suck (243660)]

Eh? What the devil is going on here? For weeks at a time, nearly every other article here was about Microsauft Windoze Longtooth [slashdot.org]. I got good ROI on my investment in the notorious [slashdot.org] "Longtooth Post". Then Apple announces they are switching to Intel and suddenly every other post is about them!

That's it, I'm starting work on "The Leopard Post" [wikipedia.org]. Where OS X requires the root password each time MOV EAX EBX occurs. Where the Finder realizes it's lost. Where Job Steves outsources the BSOD code to Gill Bates. And where Clippy finally comes to OS X.

Apple Inside. Where do you want to think different today?

Apple is about one and only one thing

[SengirV (203400)]

That is a 25+% profit margin on computer sales. To think this is going to chance is pure fantasy. It could if Apple did something totally radical to go head to head with Microsoft. But just switching a CPU will mean more of hte same thing.

Intel's revenge for no Intel in Xbox 3

[Captain Kirk (148843)]

The home media center market is going to be huge. Sony have PS3. Microsoft have Xbox3.

Now Intel and Apple are teaming to take them on. and IMO have the engineering skill, market credebility and design genius to do very well.

I can't wait...

[OT] Terrible editing

[bpbond (246836)]

Though likely subtle at first, the implications of Apple Computer dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape.

So, uh, the implications start subtle but end by straddling, somehow putting their metaphorical legs on either side of a landscape? And who knew Intel was only announced earlier this week?

Jeez.

NY Times article

[jmichaelg (148257)]

Yesterday's NY Times [nytimes.com] had an article reporting that IBM said Apple left because of pricing issues and Apple saying they left because of technology issues. Deeper in the article, there's a reference to IBM saying that Apple would have to kick in some cash if they wanted IBM to pour more resources into developing the PPC the way Apple needed it to go. It looks like both Apple and IBM are telling the truth - it was about both price and performance.

With IBM looking at the hundreds of millions of units going to the console market vs the few million Apple would sell, it's easy to see IBM's point of view on this.

Hype vs. actual developments

[DF5JT (589002)]

I believe that some people are way too bothered with Intel/Apple and are actually forgetting to look a little further into the future.

IBM has just sold its PC-department and is yet actualy massively supporting the Linux development. While that started out on Intel/x86 boxes, it is now an operating system that supports an incredible variety of processor platforms, including the recently premiered Cell Processor.

I believe there is a dying horse out there and it is calle Intel/x86. While it might have been a smart move on Apple's side to switch to Intel based processors in the short to mid term range, stragically speaking Apple has just abandoned its platform for the future and I doubt they will switch back to IBM in the foreseeable future. Apple customers would not accept another platform move.

IBM is not interested in short to mid term profits, IBM wants a firm piece of the entire pie in the very long run.

I suspect that IBM's unwillingness (or inability) to met Apple's demands for the G5, I tink this has something to do with its production facilities that are currently undergoing a massive reconstruction to meet the future demand for the cell processor.

Give IBM another two years and it will have produces cell processors for workstations, notebooks and embedded platforms. Not only will they have the fastest platform available, they will also have an operating system available that is already tailored to the specifications of the computing platform of the future.

Apple has had the opportunity to use that very platform, but decided against it.

I am not so sure whether that was a really smart move.

Re:Hype vs. actual developments

[foolish_to_be_here (802344)]

I worked for IBM's fab in Vermont for 15 years.

They "cheated" on Apple in the early nineties, putting PPC production on hold, at a critical time for Apple to maxamize profits on other chips.

How many times do you need your "domestic partner" cheating on you before you bail on the relationship.

(Hi to all of my friends that laid off but came back as contractors!)

Re:Hype vs. actual developments

[Halo1 (136547)]

Cell processors are in-order and therefore quite unsuited for general workstations and notebooks (unless all you do all day is performing matrix operations).

Re:Wrong

[kfg (145172)]

Linux will be hurt by Apple moving to Intel like fish will be hurt by someone adding a bucket of water to the ocean.

KFG

Actual order of events

[mbkennel (97636)]

1) Intel is sick of having most of its cool technology dropped through the narrow mindset of Taiwan^H^H^H^H^H^H^HChinese motherboard makers and the control-freak Microsoft. Microsoft's strategic interest is to blast hardware margins, differentiation and technology differences to zero, creating massive low price competition and a single software target. Then all innovation and profit margin goes onto the Microsoft side.

Intel hates this. Now, they have a cool computer maker who agrees with them and isnt' Microsoft's beeyatch.

2) Microsoft said "fuck you" to Intel on xbox.

4) IBM said "ok pay us....one TRILLION dollars" when Apple wanted them to actually make lots of performance and heat compatible chips at a fair price.

5) Intel to Apple: "Hey Sailor, new in town?"

Re:Actual order of events

[birge (866103)]

3) (Reserved for future use.)

Re:Wrong

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Why would Apple care about where else IBM is selling processors? The reason Apple is moving to x86 is because IBM has not been able to deliver cool-running PowerPCs. As we've seen from another /. article, laptops are now overtaking desktops in sales, and very clearly if Apple wants to retain the market position it has, or even grow it, it can't afford to wait for IBM to get its ducks in a row.

Re:If they wanted cheaper stuff

[rpozz (249652)]

Because AMD doesn't produce the motherboard chipsets as well as various other devices. I'd imagine Apple could buy the motherboard chipset and CPU from Intel at an enormous discount.

Re:What about appleworld?

[adjensen (58676)]

What are you talking about? What "bubble" are you talking about? This is a hardware shift, pure and simple, not a change to the operating system.

The argument has long been that there are no (well, few) MacOS virii because with a reduced market share, the hackers have no interest in the platform. If true, that could change, yes.

But I think it's more a matter of:

a) Programming a Mac has a higher learning curve than Windows, and no script kiddie is going to spend the required time to learn it solely for

Re:Simple

[93 Escort Wagon (326346)]

"While I agree with you that many will still buy Apple machines because it's 'easy', and of course they'll still get tech support, It'll be well under a year after release before the first pre-cracked OS X/x86 torrent is available download, which will mean they could lose quite a bit of business from the geek population."

They may lose some "business from the geek population", but I doubt it will be significant. I suspect the folks who run a cracked x86 version of OS X would not have been Apple customers anyway.

There are a significant number of people, like myself, who switched to OS X from Linux because it works without having to spend a weekend tweaking, testing, and swearing at the screen. It's likely we'll all line up to buy the new x86 (or whatever Intel chip) Macs. The guys who are running the cracked x86 will be the ones who don't mind having to spend hours playing, writing custom scripts, tweaking, and swearing in order to get the initial install to work, and then repearting that process every time they want to install a new application (which of course won't have been purchased either).

Re:I was about to buy a Mac, thank goodness I didn

[IntlHarvester (11985)]

Buying a Mac now would not be a bad descision at all, there's still a 4-6 years of life left on the PowerPC.

I see a lot of wishful thinking about this. Remember the OS X transition? Within 2 years Jobs is up on stage sticking OS9 into a coffin and killing hardware support for the thing. Developers got the message and OS9 software disappeared.

I personally believe that Apple is going to quickly move to x86 hardware, and both Apple and ISV software support for PPC is going to start dying off in 2008. That doesn't make your shiny new PowerMac worthless, but it does mean you better be happy with only one generation of new software.

But, yeah, there's a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about PowerPC right now, and rightfully so. Apple could alleviate things if they just released a software/hardware road map.