Cringley Thinks Apple & Intel Are Merging

SamSeaborn writes "In Bob Cringely's latest column he talks about the Apple switch to Intel and concludes: 'what's behind the announcement is so baffling and staggering that it isn't surprising that nobody has yet figured it out until now. Apple and Intel are merging.' "

I don't know about "merging"

[Dark Paladin]

But I'll bet on "getting in bed together", "sleeping together", so on and so forth.

As for the rest about Microsoft, I'll buy that. In fact, I think that the whole "Mac on Intel" thing will sell well because of Microsoft.

At first.

See, there's several people who, upon considering a Mac, say this:

"I'd get one, but I'd have to rebuy all of my old applications."
"I'd get one, but I like to play games."

Those are the 2 biggest reasons - not performance, not quality, it's always "apps and games".

Now, with an Intel based Mac, they can say:

"Well, I'll buy the Apple because they make good machines, and if OS X is crap then I'll just install Windows."

If Apple really works on shining up Wine (or buys out some other Wine based company - Crossover I believe?), then they can offer Windows compatibility with a certain number of apps, perhaps a solid list such as Photoshop, Office, etc (and grow the list as necessary).

So now if a Windows user buys a Mac, they can have the best of both worlds: they can keep their apps, and they can run either Windows via dual boot for what they *must*, or (emulated? translated?) the Wine type service instead of rebooting (even better, since they can keep all the Apple goodness with them.)

Windows sells the same as before, everybody's happy.

Except that if this works, and *if* Apple's market share climbs, more app writers make Mac versions of their products for their customers. Sure, there's the "Oh, no, they won't because they'll just wrote for Windows for compatiblity" - there will be those, but the ones that see a competitive market edge giving "*FULL* OS X compatibility" over their competition (sorry for using compet* so often) will make OS X based apps.

And lets face it, what are the big applications?

Browser
Email
Music
Office Suite (assuming that Microsoft keeps its promise and makes the next Mac Office more "exchange compatible", this will be more true)
Photoshop-like products
Movies

Apple will have all of those, and everything else is just gravy.

Then it becomes a feedback loop: more OS X apps, more market share. More market share, more good hardware drivers written. More good hardware drivers written, more hardware OS X can work with so more people buy since it supports their stuff. Apps have to keep up, so more OS X apps, etc.

Now, fast forward 5 years from now, when Apple announces OS X for all beige machines, sold on Dell computers with a specific hardware list. If your hardware isn't on the list, it won't work - and how long will that take hardware developers to go "Shit! We'd better work on this thing before our competitors do!"

Then Apple can go to the Enterprise and say "Hi! We're more secure than Microsoft, easier than Linux, and we run all of the apps you care about natively - and what we don't, we emulate so well you won't know the difference! Buy us!"

Then the very Windows compatibility that helped Intel based Macs in the first place starts to hurt Windows.

Of course, Microsoft will be doing their bit on the side, but now it will be *true* competition, which means we the consumers win. Linux is still around innovating and updating and dong well in the server end, Jobs makes even more money, and everything's good.

Too optimistic? By far, I'm sure - the "OS X on a Dell" will probably never happen. But I don't see Intel and Apple merging - just Intel using Apple to sell more products and hold AMD, Microsoft, and Dell in control, and Apple selling more products and using AMD to threaten Intel when they need a better deal.

Of course, this is all my opinion, things may change and I could be wrong - but let's just wait and see what will happen. I'm just excited about running Final Cut Pro Express and Half-Life on the same box within a year or so.

Only one way this would happen...

[Reality Master 101]

Is if Jobs was given CEO title of Intel/Apple and a buttload of control. Anything less than that, there is no way Jobs gives up power. Jobs is a control freak -- yeah, like he's going to hand over the keys to Apple and say to Intel, "Have fun with my personality-based cult!"

Umm. Whatever.

[soupdevil]

This silly hypothesis is entirely based on the fact that Cringely can find no logical reason for Apple to choose Intel over AMD. But the real reason is much less interesting than the one he made up. The real reason is that AMD is already maxxed out on production capacity, and could not guarantee enough chips to Apple to make the switch. Imagine what would happen if Apple announced the switch to AMD, and then had to delay the launch of their new x86 products due to CPU shortages. That is the nightmare that Steve Jobs will avoid at all costs, and Intel is the only Tier-1 CPU manufacturer with excess capacity.

He made a mistake regarding the Cell

[homb]

While many of Cringely's comments may well be correct, I am very suspicious of the one regarding the Cell processor:

If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision.

The Cell processor is not at all geared towards desktop/laptop use for a couple of reasons:

• It's currently very hard to program the Cell efficiently
• The Cell is not a general purpose CPU, it works very badly with out-of-order execution. Comments around the web abound as to how badly the Cell performs in general purpose programming.

So I think that the switch to Intel is at least partly technological, especially if you consider how critical the laptop market is for Apple, and how badly IBM screwed the pooch on that. Pentium M to the rescue!

WTF?

[diamondsw]

Maybe I'm just a little too accepting of conventional wisdom, but...

Apple loved to pull Phil Schiller onstage to do side-by-side speed tests showing how much faster in real life the G4s and G5s were than their Pentium equivalents. Was that so much BS?

Yes. This is Phil Schiller, Vice President of Marketing. Of course it's BS.

So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed? Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using

See Ars [arstechnica.com].

just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links)

My God, a development prototype doesn't fare well in benchmarks run through a prototype emulator. Amazing, never would have guessed. Personally, I'll trust firsthand usage [accelerateyourmac.com].

If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board? Apple and AMD makes far more sense than Apple and Intel any day.

Apple is looking at long-term, and has spent the last dozen years chasing great technology from (relatively) smaller players. They want a reliable source of great desktop and notebook chips. Meanwhile, although AMD has done an excellent job of the Athlon, the Pentium M has done extremely well in the laptop arena, and that's what the upcoming Intel desktop chips will be based on. See the Ars story above.

So why would Steve Jobs --snip-- pre-announce this chip change that undercuts not only his present product line but most of the machines he'll be introducing in the next 12 to 18 months?

Because he needs developers to be working on it - Rosetta is great but we need native apps. However, a lot of other people dismissed the rumor [daringfireball.net] on the same grounds.

The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision.

Apple is in this for the long haul, not a handful of years. IBM is certainly capable, but they clearly didn't have any focus there. This is Intel's ONLY focus.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Re:Wow

[TheKidWho]

seriously me too

ertainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).

Ok for one they specifically said its a Pentium 4. Secondly, the xcode benchmarks were EMULATED you fucking fool. Native performance is much much better. Third, he's an idiot Intel will have x86-64pentiums out well before apple completes there switch to Intel.

Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
They have the same exact supply issues as apple numbnutz.

Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?

So that the developers don't bitch about suddenly having to transfer all their programs in one month to x86 you fucking idiot.

Not to mention Intel has a much better mobile roadmap then IBM or AMD.

Overall this guy is a fucking idiot.

Umm, this guy doesn't follow technology.

[MrDigital]

First off, Intel has had 64-bit Pentium 4s for a couple of months now, their 6xx series. These are far from the Xeon and Itanium prices. Secondly, Apple's timeline seems to suggest that they are going to be using Intel's new roadmap which consists of processors based on the Pentium M core, which is both higher IPC and lower power than any AMD chip. Lastly, he's just an all-around moron. Good effort though.

Close but not quite

[Coward Anonymous]

Cringley is missing an important part of the puzzle.
Apple cannot survive as a generic PC manufacturer unless it can beat everyone else on price, including Dell. Apple has only one lever to do this with.
The relative cost of HW to SW is shrinking to the point where the MS tax is beginning to equal the price of HW. As HW becomes even cheaper, the cost of Windows will surpass that of the HW - probably within a year or two.
Apple can bundle the OS at cost while Dell and friends are hobbled by the MS tax.
This leads Apple into direct competition with Dell and friends and indirectly with MS.
The question is if they can pull it off and if they do, for how long.

Answering Cringely's Stupid Questions:

[HyperBlazer]

from TFA:

Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel? [snip] Was that so much BS? Did Apple not really mean it? And why was the question totally ignored in this week's presentation?

No, the problem was not with the current PowerPCs, which are still competitive. The problem is with the next generation of chips. Apple isn't happy with the effort IBM is putting into them, and needs to keep competitive with the x86 world. By joining the x86 world, they are guaranteed to be competitive.

Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system? [snip] Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).

Did Cringely bother to watch the Keynote? I could go back and look, but when Jobs chose the "About this Mac" menu item, it said 3.6GHz Intel Pentium 4, as I remember. But that's irrelevant: that's what they're using FOR THE DEVELOPMENT systems. Odds are, when Apple ships Intel-based Macs next year, it'll be on a chip that Intel is finishing up development of now. Why on earth would they ship it on old tech if they didn't have to? Again, this switch is not about NOW, it's about the FUTURE.

Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?

There's a fair question. My guess is that either Jobs doesn't trust AMD's market position or doesn't trust AMD's future. Again, we're talking about where Apple is going in the future, not where things are at present. Is Steve's crystal ball a bit cloudy? We'll see in a couple years.

Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?

Let's see... where did he announce this? At the WWDC, Apple's huge developer's convention. You want to make sure that you have native programs available when you ship. Same reason Apple announced the switch to PPC before shipping, same reason they announced the switch to OS X before shipping. The Osborne is a much less relevant example than the switch to PPC, which didn't kill Apple.

Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

I think Cringely gets this one right: NO.

Now my question for Cringely: how do I get a job where I'd actually get paid to write crap like that?

Crazy - Like a Fox

[hirschma]

If you throw out your conceptions of what a processor is, and what a personal computer is, this kind of makes sense.

The old balance used to be: Intel made the processors, Microsoft made the OS, and neither the twain shall meet.

Microsoft blurred the lines with Xbox. Xbox did or will do a lot of what people bought PCs for - games, media playback, etc. And this was fine when it contained Intel CPUs, but now it doesn't. Every Xbox 360 sold will mean that an HTPC or gaming PC may not be, and Intel is not amused.

Microsoft is now promising backwards compatibility, too, with the new Xbox. So, in other words... they're shipping a processor. A software-based emulation type processor, but it is clear that they've developed x86 emulation as a part of their technology portfolio, and like most things MS, it'll get better with time.

Intel also remembers the great ARC/ACE debacle, when Microsoft attempted to loosen Intel's vise on the industry by promoting a multi architecture vision. MS did this again with Windows CE - but Intel again prevailed (and their StrongArm has, well, strongarmed itself to dominance in the small device space).

So: why can't MS push another multi-architecture vision? Why not non-x86 Windows boxes? Why not break the x86 oligarchy? Don't they want the hardware to be close to free of cost, with the user only paying for the software? Kind of like the Xbox? This is clearly only possible with freeing Windows from x86. And like the Xbox 360, they probably have a vision of new classes of devices that would greatly benefit from other architectures.

So: would it be so unthinkable that Intel pushes back? After all, under the traditional Intel/MS detente, they could simply say: we're not making PCs, we didn't buy a PC company - these are Macs. Moreover, Intel has been trying like crazy to get into the consumer electronics space for many years. What better way than with the Apple brand? Where all the PCs use x86 (or even Itanium), and all the iPod/Consumer electronic stuff has Intel ARM cpus. Hmm.

This could make a lot of sense.

jh

Cringely thinks a lot of things... let's see what.

[javaxman]

Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

Still there. Notice Steve didn't say much about current performance. Sure, a lot of it had to do with marketing hype, and some of it had to do with Altivec. The PowerPC PowerMac marketing will not go away until there is a replacement Intel machine. Check Apple's website if you doubt that.

Folks who've bothered to pay attention know that the move to Intel is all about low-power ( i.e. laptop ) chips; that's why Steve talked about processing power per watt.

Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

Well, it's only 64-bit on the PowerMac G5, and I'm willing to believe that when the PowerMac line is updated to Intel processors, there will be some 64-bit machine in that lineup. That, or there will remain G5s or who knows? Maybe an AMD chip? The fact is, though, few people really care about 64-bit on the desktop. Sadly.

Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?

Sssh! ( see answer to previous question ). Ixnay on the DAM-ay !

Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?

That's the dumbest question yet. Who was the announcement made to? DEVELOPERS. Who needs to be doing stuff and using their development boxes so programs are available to run on the new machines when they're available? Why would Cringely ask such a stupid question ? Steve doesn't want a product launch without apps to match. Sure, Apple will lose some sales in the mean time- but mostly on the low end, and not many. If you want OS X, getting a Macintosh is still the only way to do it. Kids going back to school this fall will still buy Powerbooks and iBooks, because the only other choice is Windows. Science geeks and other power users hot for 64-bit and Altivec are may snap up dual-core PowerMacs that are likely to be introduced before the Intel switch in that lineup. Legacy users addicted to Classic are going to snap up PowerPC machines even while Intel machines are available. They'll take a hit, but they've got the cash, and they'll still make some sales. It's not Osborne Computer by any stretch.

Besides, Intel machines are available. Just to developers. And they have to return them. But the fact remains, if you're totally hot to get yourself a developer kit, plunk down $500 bucks for a Premier ADC membership, order the $999 "kit", and you're good to go- MacIntel yours to use for the next year and a half or so.

Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

Cringely actually gets this one right. It's obvious, when you think about it, though. Apple plans on supporting current G5 machines for a good, long time. Let's say another 4 years at a _bare_ minimum. I'm certain it'll be much longer, but let's say 4 years. Will those G5s get no DRM while the Macintels get DRM? Next question.

Oh, wait, it's all about "Why is Apple _really_ switching to Intel?" isn't it? Why not believe Steve Jobs? It's about processing power per watt, it's about the current state of Apple's laptop lineup. Let's not play stupid. Apple's moving to Intel because people are buying more laptops than desktops and IBM is not making powerful laptop PowerPC-based chips. Nothing more, nothing less.

Apple, looking to compete with Microsoft?!? Please. They'll go to great lengths to avoid doing so where they can. Microsoft for the most part chooses to compete with Apple ( say, on music downloads and portable players ), not the other way around. From where I sit, it looks like Apple is doing their best to provide Microsoft with even more chances to sell copies of their OS and application stack on Apple hardware, without having their OS compete with Microsoft in the same way.

What's the incentive for Intel and Apple to join together? They both have more, better options as partners, and they're going to stay that way.

Re:I don't know about "merging"

[Dark Paladin]

I believe it could go both ways.

Wordperfect tried a version that ran on Linux that was really a Windows version with a modified version of WINE. DIdn't do to well.

Any developer who wants to take that route with OS X in Intel will have to say "Hm - my competitor Photoshop runs natively, and my Windows via OS X Wine looks like ass. Will I really get more sales this way?"

Remember, Mac is also a look and feel, and the apps that truly run the best will tend to run best. So a Windows program *could* run on OS X (the way OS/2 ran Windows programs), but I think there's a large enough market (something OS/2 never had) and Apple could limit it to specific apps (like the aforementioned in the grandparent post) to prevent most developers from being lazy.

Re:I don't know about "merging"

[Dark Paladin]

They couldn't buy a Mac before regardless of the quality because they had $200 in Windows, $500 in Office, $300 in games, and so on tied into their computer.

So a new Mac wouldn't cost $2000, but around $4000 including software.

Now, a new Mac will cost $2000 - and over time as they buy new applications they'll buy OS X based rather than dual-booting.

It may appear convoluted, but you'll be surprised how many people I've talked to in the last 5 days who all go "Hm - yeah, I'm going to buy a Mac and if I don't like it I'll just run Windows." Most of these are gamer or hard core geek types.

Hold on a minute

[phongleland]

With all these columnist bashing, no one stopped to consider that Cringely is the first to look at the Apple/Intel deal from Intel's perspective. Everyone is speculating about what motivates Apple into this deal, but what motivated Intel? Cringely at least stood back and questioned it, which is more than I can say for most of you ./er.

Re:Answers to his questions...

[dreamer-of-rules]

I like your answers.. except for Question 4.

Cringly has a point. If the Mathmatica CEO can get called on Wednesday night the week before, asked to bring the source code to Apple, and turn around a native Intel program in two hours of changes, then your developers don't need a year advanced warning. Right?

The downside is that several people I've been talking into making the switch are now holding off another year until the Intel macs come out. (I'm persuading them for selfish reasons -- I get less support calls from my friends)

From a developers POV, isn't Panther->Tiger a bigger change? Except for getting the binaries available for customer systems when the system begin shipping?

My guess, Steve Jobs will announce an Intel laptop this year. I'm holding off on replacing my laptop until the Intels come out, and so is my partner. Even if they come out next year.

Re:Idea for new Slashdot section

[gullevek]

yeah and you forgot the hell will then definitly be a cold place.

Urban legend

[A nonymous Coward]

VHS beat Beta because of proliferation, NOT because of quality

VHS had two hour capability, Betamax had one hour.

Sony kept Betamax to themselves. VHS was a consortium and many companies built VHS machines.

The vaunted quality of Betamax was only on the video, and not enough to really notice, given how crappy TV is anyway; the audio was worse. A small loss in quality, probably not even noticeable most of the time, in exchange for double the time was a pretty good deal to most people, and then throw in competition from multiple manufacturers and lower prices and different features and lots of choices, and Betamax was doomed.

Here are some links:

Guardian [guardian.co.uk]
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Cringely can stuff himself

[TwistedSpring]

Alright, I just posted a comment where I said that I wasn't going to bash Cringely this time. Well, I just read the article and he's demonstrated his ignorance and lack of cognitive ability again. Here are the answers to his questions.

1. What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
   Absolutely nothing. The article [anandtech.com] he refers to in Question 2 answers his question here. The introduction of the PPC 970MP with a 90/65nm fab process would allow the G5 CPU to hit 3.5 GHz and use less power too. This wasn't bullshit. The G5 was clearly faster for raw calculating power (agreed, the linked article shows some dire results for MySQL and so on, but this is more likely down to how the OS handles threading, or how MySQL was compiled).
2. What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
   Nothing. I assume that the new Apples will not use Xeons or Itaniums, but Intel's next desktop chip (Pentium D?) with AMD64/EM64T 64-bit extensions.
3. Where the heck is AMD?
   AMD's fab plants are running to maximum capacity, as are IBM's (all next gen consoles are using IBM's chips). They are not the sensible choice. Intel has the capacity and the know-how. Apple are also free to switch to AMD if Intel turns out to suck, although this will cause another uproar.
4. Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
   To prepare corporate customers and their user base for the switch. To give developers time to port software to the new architecture so that it will be ready on release of the new system. Cringely's answer to this question is stolen from The Register [theregister.co.uk], and it is unlikely that Apple will suffer greatly from this. They have other products such as their iPod and iTunes services to support themselves. Sure, sales will fall, but it's my prediction that AAPL will fall and then pick up as market analysts predict a rise in Apple sales in the next few months due to a new product release (Intel Macs). The Osborne Effect doesn't really hold water, Apple already have a development system available, and have already ported their OS. They have been planning this for five years. They do have a product to deliver, and they are very, very good at hype.
5. Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
   He's right on this one. No.

He then bangs on about Microsoft for a bit, as if Apple would ever be a threat to Microsoft, who have a whole new OS on the cards and have been running on these fabled Intel processor things for decades. I'll tell you the real reason: IBM have given Apple the cold shoulder. Look at it this way: Apple represents so little business for IBM that it doesn't make sense to keep developing new chips for them. IBM have their work cut out with the next gen consoles, and Apple is a teeny tiny spec compared to the massive quantity of chips IBM will have to produce to meet demand for these consoles.

AMD aren't that interesting to Apple, they're already at maximum capacity as I mentioned, and they're quite happy producing chips for PCs. They also don't have the marketing clout of Intel and they're less well known. Apple chose Intel because they've been dumped by IBM, and Intel are more than happy to help Apple out because it secures them some more market penetration, which they need because they've made a considerable amount of blunders recently. Both are helping eachother out. It's simple symbiosis. If they didn't, their futures are unpredictable.

Intel could still have bought Apple as Cringely states, but I deem this to be highly unlikely. Intel is not in a good position to make acquisitions like this, and value their PC market a lot too.

Re:Crazy - Like a Fox

[GebsBeard]

Its interesting if you look at the responses in this topic 90% seem to be modded +5 funny. Except the argument Cringely makes isn't outlandish in the least. This move is too huge and too bizaare to be just randomly pulled out of someones ass. Today's Apple is a white-hot consumer brand; this after languishing in the backwaters for the better part of two decades. Intel with Apple as a wholly owned subsidiary would leave Bill Gate's eyes the size of dinner plates and Apple's shareholders laughing all the way to the bank. The entire industry would shift on its axis. I'm tempted to buy AMD stock because that's the first place MS would go to try to prop up their empire. I think we dismiss the tinfoil hat crowd here at our own risk.

Re:Close but not quite

[PCM2]

Apple cannot survive as a generic PC manufacturer unless it can beat everyone else on price, including Dell.

Lucky for Apple, then, that it's not a generic PC manufacturer. It has always been a supplier of high-end, premium hardware and there's no reason to suspect that's going to change. I'm actually shocked that there doesn't seem to be anyone with Apple's business model in the Wintel space. The premium hardware vendors are companies like AlienWare, targeting gamers. Powerful hardware, perhaps, but certainly not classy like a Mac. I'm sure Apple will find a welcome niche among a certain class of computer users, just as it always has. In fact, I'm not expecting very much to change about Apple's market, or its products, at all.

Intel, AMD, Via, and antitrust

[Animats]

Apple hasn't had to worry about antitrust issues in the computer area because their market share is so tiny. (Apple is having antitrust problems over the iPod/iTunes link, but that's a different market.) Intel has enough market power that if they try a technical lockout of competitors, they're likely to have antitrust problems.

If someone builds a machine with an AMD processor and some custom support chips to run Apple software, neither Intel nor Apple will be in a strong position to stop them legally. Especially since the Lexmark vs. SCC decision that "lock out codes" are not copyrightable.

This issue has already been decided in the game console area, in the Connectix case. Connectix sold a VM that ran Playstation I games on a PC, and won against Sony on that issue. Nobody builds game console clones because they're sold at a loss, not because it can't be done.

We'll probably see low-end machines from China that boot Windows, Linux, or MacOS as requested. In the end, this will boost Apple's market share.

Re:I don't know about "merging"

[Toby_Tyke]

I think you're wrong, because most users never, ever, install an OS.

Most users do not know what an OS is.

The number of people dual booting between Windows and OS x on their x86 macs will be a tiny proportion of the market. Not saying no one will do it mind you. Just that it will have absolutly no effect on the software industry.

In fact, I don't expect the switch to X86 to change much of anything. As I've said before, what the hell is the point of buying a mac if your not going to run OS X? I really don't think that there are many windows users being held back from switching to OS X. There are really very few obstacles.

There is even a Mac port of office, Photoshop is a native Mac app, all the "killer apps" are there already. Most home users could switch if they wanted to.

Gamers will never switch to the Mac in great numbers, for one simple reason. For the same price as a Mac, I can buy a biege box with a better graphics card. For a serious gamer, the graphics card always wins.

Disclaimer: I own a mac. I just don't think this is as big a deal as everyone is making out. Maybe to us geeks on /., but to users in the real world? I think it will have very little impact.

Re:Crazy - Like a Fox

[rooBoy]

it is clear that they've developed x86 emulation as a part of their technology portfolio

Microsoft develop something? They just went out and bought Connectix and VirtualPC.

Had the convenient side effect of being able to nobble window emulation on the G5 as well.
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/13/195422 8 [macslash.org]

Why Intel, and not AMD:

[mbkennel]

Cringely can find no logical reason for Apple to choose Intel over AMD

but other SMRT people can. Other than your obvious point, which is clearly the #1 driving motivation, as Jobs could see IBM devoting more and more effort to game boxes and embedded and its own POWER servers.

(2) AMD is associated with "#2", "loser", etc. There's a big advantage for Apple to be seen with the Winner---finally!

Shit, big companies won't buy AMD based computers even though they are 99% Intel compatible. On the other hand, many of them are tired of getting raped by Microsoft. Maybe there's something to the OSX thing---they'll think "not Windows, but without Linux geek crap".

(3) Intel has MONEY that it gives to hardware manufacturers when they use that dorky "intel inside" ding dong ding dong in their advertisements

(4) Intel has other chips, like networking, that AMD may nto.

(5) Intel has mediocre desktop chips, but great low-power laptop chip*sets*.

Guess who really sells lots of nifty notebooks with fancy well-integrated hardware?

(At my latest scientific conference, I'd say that >40% of presenters had a Powerbook/iBook).

(5) Apple gets almost half its revenue from iPods now. What stuff does AMD make, besides flash, that's really good for iPod?

Wild ass crackhead prediction:

Apple will never allow Dell or Compaq or beige boxes to run OSX.

But there may eventually be a OSX-box, and especially "blade servers" which do make it into Windows-centric company rooms: they will say Intel on it, as Intel becomes a high end *systems* maker. Yup, the other companies will scream when their supplier starts competing against them.

Intel's response: OK, you go ahead and bitch. If y'all want, you can open up a few dozen of your own multi-billion chip fab plants. But I think we'll be seeing ya back around here.

It all works because of chip making economics.
The capital required is now so immense that not only is there a huge barrier to entry, there's a huge barrier to even just increasing capacity.

AMD doesn't have the capacity. Even if Sun and HP and Dell get all huffy and got to AMD they can't get enough supply there, and since the margins on the boxes are so low, the clients can't supply AMD with enough capital to greatly increase capacity either.

And Intel has a habit of busting down the price just when AMD looks like it's starting to get ahead (financially). So AMD and its bankers won't take the risk of massive new expansion.

The new realignment:

Team 1
---------------------
Intel, Apple

Intel produces chips, Apple produces OSX and Macs for the consumer, and Intel Systems produces boring server boxes and desktops. Because it "owns" or has a "special deal" for OSX, it can undersell the Windows-based monopoly servers.

And finally Intel can have good looking "sexy innovative demo hardware" which WORKS---i.e. a Mac---instead of that embarassing crap they've pushed before.

Team 2: Sun, Dell, Microsoft, AMD

Microsoft can't put too much favoritism towards AMD (like cutting out Intel support) because AMD can't supply anywhere near enough capacity. Sun and Microsoft are congential competitors too and despite the detente, they don't know how to work together, as Microsoft's impulse is 'crush'. Dell gets pissy as Intel starts competing against them, but again, AMD can't supply big enough volumes, so they're stuck too. And don't forget those low margins, so how much strategic power do they have?

Centrifugal forces will push away all but Dell+Microsoft, slave and master.

Team "L is for loser": HP/Compaq

More expensive than Dell, no distinguishing features, innovation controlled by Microsoft

Itanic's dead and Carly obliterated their geek cred--Agilent is gone and printers are boring. Linux is strangling HPUX and IBM has services locked up.

Sun will probably end up here too but they may hang on a little longer.

Mr. Half-A-Brain Responds to Cringley

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoy Cringley's columns, but the guy rarely even asks the right questions, much less answers them. And like Dvorak, he loves making predictions - even if his track record is worse than the broken clock that's right twice a day.

Cringley starts off his essay by asking some questions. His odd answers to these questions lead directly to his bizarre thesis. But let's see what happens when I put my Mr. Half-A-Brain Hat on and try to answer them according to the known facts.

Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

The real question is, what happened to the 3ghz G5? Where are the mobile G5s? Answer: none of these items exist. An Intel chip that actually exists in this universe is always superior to a PowerPC chip that is only vapor, even if the PowerPC is a much better design in theory.

Sure, some cool stuff is happening in PowerPC-land, like the Cell (co-developed by Apple's new archenemy, Sony). But if you think the Cell would be a good choice for Apple then you simply don't know much about it. Bottom-line here is, neither IBM or Freescale were capable of providing the chips Apple needs - 64-bit, ever faster, ever improving, with ever more variety of flavors, on a reliable roadmap...

Obviously Apple expected that IBM was going to be able to really pull this off, or they wouldn't have introduced the G5 or bragged about the coming 64-bit era and 3ghz right around the corner. I think we all expected that IBM could pull it off. But anybody who follows the silicon press knows they've hit snag after snag... Hey, it's a tough business.

Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

Again, what happened to the G5? Why didn't they scale better; why aren't there low power parts powering every iBook and PowerBook and Mac mini by now? Apple stopped worrying so much about 64-bit when their 64-bit chip couldn't live up to its promise. Hardly any 64-bit machines means hardly any 64-bit software means why bother. Though I'm sure we'll eventually see this focus return for EMT64 Pentiums.

Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?

All of these problems were caused by even mighty IBM having technical setbacks. So Apple is going to run into the arms of... tiny AMD?!? That's insane.

Licking their wounds from processor problems and determined never to go through this again, they did the only sane thing - make a deal with the biggest, most reliable chip company on the planet. (I run AMD myself, but c'mon...) And, like Dell, they don't need to actually buy AMD chips to benefit from the competitive pressures AMD places on Intel.

Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?

Apple has made two big transitions in the past, and the last one was really rather painful. If another transition had to happen, huge focus had to be put on minimizing that pain for users and developers. So get the developers started early, so there's actually something (native) to run on the Intel Macs when they hit the stores. This wouldn't have been the case without a good deal of lead time. A year is about right.

Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

You really think IBM couldn't adopt whatever DRM Hollywood demanded in their future roadmap? Nothing fundamental to any DRM scheme requires a Pentium or even an Intel chipset. This goes beyond the usual mere Cringley ignorance and ventures into conspiracy theory territory.

Oh, Cringley... will he ever learn? Hey, Dvorak, wipe that smile off your face. And no, you can't borrow the hat.

Re:Idea for new Slashdot section

[gbpuckett]

Besides, when a company with 30B USD market cap becomes a part of a company with 170B USD market cap it's called an acquisition, not a "merger."

Yah, like when Apple "acquired" NeXT.

Intel DOES have reason to hate Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a Slashdot cliche, but the truth is this is all about Microsoft.

Microsoft killed Itanium the day they decided 64-bit Windows would only run on AMD64, and never on Itanium. That was also the day Intel had to swallow their pride, go back on all earlier statements, and adopt AMD's 64-bit technology as their own. For the first time, a competitor truly led x86 chip development, and that - combined with the billions lost on Itanium - had to STING.

Now, you might say that Itanium was still-born and Microsoft only put the final nail in the coffin. But I'm telling ya it doesn't look that way when you're Intel and you've got billions of dollars and your entire reputation invested in that thing.

People joke about the "Wintel" platform, but the day Microsoft supported AMD64 was the day it became clear that the "Win" matters a hell of a lot more than the "tel" ever did.

It's in Intel's interest to have a variety of operating systems out there in the market, running on their chips. It's against their interest to have all of that power instead invested in a single, huge monopoly. The Apple deal is a BIG win for Intel.

Re:Idea for new Slashdot section

[drivard]

You're out of your mind. Intel isn't interested in merging with Apple. Intel is buying HP to resurrect Alpha, which is "the Intel chip" to which Apple is actually porting OS-X.

Actually, Intel already owns the Alpha chip. They bought it from Compaq. Most of those engineers are trying to rescue itanium.

Re:I don't know about "merging"

[WatertonMan]

What native OS/2 programs? The parallels really don't work. Apple has a pretty thriving developer community. OSX runs natively most Linux software. Apple has commitments from Adobe/Macromedia and Microsoft. Apple right now produces most of the best software on the Mac, many of which is as good if not better than PC equivalents. (Well Google's Picaso is better than iPhoto at the moment - although I prefer iPhoto) There are also a lot of excellent Mac only developers. This is a big opportunity for them, even if the altivec programmers are griping up a storm at the moment. The only losers may be game companies. And even there I say maybe. Further the OSX game situation never was that great. And I think the consoles are where the real game action is anyway.

Re:Cringely can stuff himself

[pavera]

Building new chip fab takes at least 2 years, if AMD started today, they'd barely be ready by 2007 and these boxes are going to start shipping in 2006.

Apple has already been burned by the "supply BS" twice in the last 5 years (once by Moto, once by IBM), they aren't going to get burned again.

Intel has the chips, they have 64 bit extensions, and further, I don't see why Apple wouldn't put Xeons in their PowerMacs, Xeons make great workstation procs, and that is exactly what the powermac is. They are only marginally more expensive than P4s (I build systems for a living, I can get a 3.2Ghz Xeon for $165, a 3.2 P4 is like $140). Anyway, I wouldn't be suprised at all to see the first Intel based Mac be a dual 3.6+Ghz Dual Core Dual Xeon with 64bit extensions. That would make all the sense in the world to me. Then get some Pentium M powerbooks, and off we go...

In short, the supply BS is exactly why they chose Intel over AMD, even at the expense of better technology. We'll see how the Intel powermacs perform, I'm afraid they'll suck compared to the G5 just because the G5's have such amazing bus bandwidth (not unlike the AMD Bus advantage over Intel)

Re:Remember, you read it there second...

[JediJorgie]

"that computer the really smart people use." ???

I think you mean "that computer that art f*cks use". (I used to call them "art fags" but that was too instulting to gay people. :p )

If you want to be nice, call them "people with style". I don't have any, so I stick with windows where I can run all my games. (You know that small segment of the software world that does not support the Mac very well, and yet made more than the movie industry last year...)

Jorgie

The whole thing sounds fishy to me...

[JensR]

Wasn't the whole point with PowerPC that it is better bang per [buck|watt]? And isn't AMD more efficient at lower clock speeds?
I mean, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo choose PowerPC as the core for their next console. They are in a market where every extra penny hurts. So why didn't they, especially Microsoft, not go with x86 for their next console?
I'm not sure if they're going to merge, but some kind of big deal is going between Intel and Apple.

Re:Why Intel; Key is IBM protecting its servers

[Been on TV]

Well, the key to understanding the switch lies internally in IBM rather than with Apple and you said it "IBM devoting more and more effort to game boxes and embedded and its own POWER servers"

Having worked both in Apple product managment and in IBM with marketing of POWER and PowerPC based servers, I believe this is all about IBM protecting its server business and that Apple and IBM simply disagreed on which markets to run the G5 and more powerful systems in (dual core and multiprocessor configurations). Remember it made quite a stir inside IBM when the Xserve suddenly started popping up in supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of the same performance from IBM?

IBM's Enterprise Division simply cannot afford Apple establishing a much lower pricepoint for low and midrange POWER performance thereby shaking the foundation of an ecosystem inside IBM that probably accounts for 40% or more of their total turnover. High performance systems from Apple with IBM's processors are much more threathening from IBM's point of view because customers can make a direct comparison of price and performance.

They can always talk customers out of premium pricing compared to Intel based server systems with all kinds of RISC superiority rara, but not when the competition comes from THEIR processors.

There is no way IBM could not fix the performance issue just as good as Intel can. If that was the case IBM is in deep, deep trouble.

I made a comment on this on May 23 (after the first story in Washington Post) in my blog that I think helps shed light on what is really going on here. Please ignore the first paragraph in Norwegian; the rest is in plain English: http://www.andwest.com/blojsom/blog/tatle/2005/05/ 23/Apple_og_Intel_Chips.html [andwest.com]

Now, for the timing of the announcement it seems like the decision on Apple's part is quite hasted. It does not make sense from a business, product managment nor development standpoint that they make this announcement such a long time before having new hardware available. It kinda seems like someone got really upset with someone.

Here is what happened, whatever computer you use

[Ilgaz]

The desktop CPU competition except the duopoly of Intel and AMD is over.

I say "desktop", e.g. guy buys a game from Blizzard, it runs without any emulation etc.

There is no CISC and RISC competition at home anymore. There is no Altivec for home anymore.

It became OS war now and as a ex Linux user, I know who is still number 1 desktop OS maker on planet and what SDK 99% of games run on.

Re:Remember, you read it there second...

[matthaak]

That said, I think Apple has grander plans than you give them credit for... Don't be shocked to see an Apple prosumer-grade digital camera for around $500, and Apple solid-state camcorder, and Apple PVR...

Okay, I hate to tell you there's nothing really grand about that. Maybe to you, the consumer, it seems grand, but these cheap consumer devices are a means to an end for Apple and everyone else: get people hooked on your cheap stuff today so they'll buy your expensive stuff tomorrow.

That was the entire purpose of the iPod. First, Apple tried to use the iPod as a Mac-only value-add. That didn't increase Mac sales. Then they tried to use the iPod as a try-it-on-Windows "gateway" to the Mac. That didn't work either. Hate to say it, but Mac sales haven't even come CLOSE to matching the success of the original iMac in 1998.

The iPod came out 4 years ago. Thats an eternity in the tech industry. Apple hasn't been able to leverage iPod sales like a lot of other companies would have been able to. And new consumer devices? They'd have done it by now.

So if the iPod is so successful, but Apple can't use it to get you to buy a Mac, the problem is obviously with the Mac. And if the product itself isn't the problem, the problem is obviously with the business of selling Macintoshes.

The only grand plans Apple has are new business plans that sell tons of Macintoshes in creative, new ways. Perhaps the move from IBM to Intel has major technical implications. Big deal... what it really was was ditching one Macintosh partner for a new one - a new business plan. The first of many to come.

Maybe in the early days, no one at Apple would admit there were problems with the business of selling Macintoshes. But Jobs is older now, and Apple doesn't interview the same college drop-out idealists they used to. Now, they're willing to recognize that the business plan is at least as important as the technology plan.

If Intel were to acquire Apple and begin licensing OS X to new Macintosh partners like Dell, it would just be a bold, new business plan. I happen to think it makes a lot of sense, given Cringley's perspective.

The innocent days of the drop-out CEOs making brash decisions and reading poetry at shareholder meetings are over. Its time to get down to business. The tech industry holds the future of the US Economy in its hands and $170B companies don't intend to be left out of the game.