Cringley Thinks Apple & Intel Are Merging 834
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.' "
Remember, you read it there second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consolidation of the PC industry. (Score:2, Interesting)
Answers to his questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
Gap is breaking, and there are many other advantages of Intel/x86.
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
Just because Intel's 64 bit is expensive now, doesn't mean it will be in a year.
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
Who knows if it will be supported, but AMD doesn't have the supply of chips to deal with Apple. Plus, Intel has better brand recognition and probably more muscle in negotiating a contract.
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
For developers... ?
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
Probably not.
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:2, Interesting)
What about the Intel CEO on stage? I've never seen him speak before...does he always come across as if he's barely repressing some great joyous secret? If not, what exactly is it about Apple deciding to buy Intel chips that would make Intel's CEO act so much like a puppy dog being fed?
I think Cringely may be right.
::rolls eyes:: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see Intel merging with Apple, I see Apple using Dell/HP/Lenovo to build their hardware (at worst). I'm not even sure about that as MS has a lot of control over these companies.
I Disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we need more proof than speculation.
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:2, Interesting)
Motley Fool: Apple will deal with AMD eventually. (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason why Sun bought Storagetek is that Sun needed to convert its cash reserves into company stock, because that can be depressed below actual value, and cash can't. Microsoft might also have wanted to acquire Storagetek tech, because while it sells hardware, the magic of the company is in the software, and that's up MS's alley (imagine real one-button disaster recovery built into Office).
Sun has already abandoned SPARC. They don't have the cash to hire the engineers they need to make it a go. MS will promise to do that, but won't.
Apple and Sun? Yes. Where does that leave AMD? with Nvidia, catering to the very high end gamers, and the e-machines of the world, and linux boxes (lots of them really).
Apple + Intel means software and hardware in proprietary tandem. This will make AMD much less competitive, edged out like alpha and sparc to a fringe, then to nothing, IF apple and intel successfully market their new Apple OSX Intel Inside laptops. If not, then AMD takes the cake and Intel gets edged out long term (which is my prediction).
Sun customers are either moving to linux / z/OS on IBM mainframes or Linux on Dell servers. If Sun does not get acquired, it will end up like SCO.
There are enough forward-looking statements in my post that you should bring your salt shaker.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
There are interesting nuances to this, though, for one that Apple is using PC BIOS -- alone, this represents a phenomenal technological setback for their company. APPLE may be selling a version of OS X that will only run on Apple hardware, but who said ANYTHING about other vendors co-branding and selling their own, different versions of OS X?
Sure, Apple-released OS X will run only on Apple hardware, but what is to say you won't be able to buy an HP Computer with HP OS X on it? Apple knows what it has is valuable -- their brand. They will continue to keep it exclusive to the extent that it helps them make money. If they choose to co-opt or rebrand their products for additional profit, they'll do it. Right now, their market share is so low overall that even if letting HP sell a version of OS X as an option cannibalized 50% of Apple hardware sales, and they got a 1% kickback on the HP machine sales, they'd be coming out ahead.
Honestly, aren't there any PC mega-vendors that are getting sick and tired of supporting MS Windows in the face of all its insecurities and problems? Spyware-ridden machines with millions of instabilities and quirky problems are as much a pain to them as to their customers. Dell, Sony, HP, et al. are probably thinking one thing: "How can we shaft MS and at the same time, have something worthwhile to give our customers?" The ensuing discussion: "Linux still isn't quite ready for the desktop, and good luck getting commercial apps we can resell -- I know!! We'll get Steve Jobs to sub-brand OS X to us!"
I agree with Cringely on one thing: I think this whole 'phase' may just be to get developers to ready their applications for the x86 platform before they understand the ideology-breaking bombshell Apple will be dropping later.
Jasin NataelShowstopper.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Aero
Here's my take (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple will only sell OSX with official Mac hardware at their traditional prices to their traditional customers, but I suspect a cracked version will emerge and will displace Windows for a significant number of under-the-table users.
Over time, pirated software often earns back more than its cost. Users who pirate because they cannot afford to purchase eventually become professionals who do purchase, and users who pirate but never purchase help exclude competing products from getting a foothold. Pirated copies of OSX may also increase the market for Mac software in general, not only because there will be a larger installed base, but because more programmers will become familiar with OSX.
Maybe I'm wrong, and Apple and Intel will work so closely together that no cracked version of OSX-for-Dells will be out there, but if there is, Apple will have set themselves up for a real contest with Microsoft. They won't have to officially support the wide variety of hardware that Microsoft does, but they'll be able to benefit from having their software on it.
Still wrapping my mind around the switch, but in the long term, this could be a big deal.
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:4, Interesting)
If not for their OS Apple is a developer of yet another incompatible computer system that was once insanely popular, but fell behind due to overbearing, unresponsive, greedy, elitist corporate governance. Those types of companies tend to get what is coming to them.
This is bigger then Apple... (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad thing here is the fact that the more Intel succedes with this move, the more we'll see Microsoft being pushed towards AMD and we all hate Microsoft and love AMD and we want it to remain like that. The good thing could be that if Intel makes 25% - 30% room in the desktop OS garden for a second choice from Apple this will mean that between Apple and Microsoft there will be an 20% gap, easy fillable by a third choice: Linux. This could be very very good, but I spy a big surprise from Microsoft with it's
The good times are coming.
Re:Sad thing about that is... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, it was an PA-8000 emulator, running on PA-8000. And it very often ran faster!!!! (Between 5 and 40%, occasionally slower, but then it switched itself off and ran natively.)
Obviously there was a trick; and it was that it was able to do stuff like straighten out code, which improved cache usage, and measure how the code actually ran, rather than how the compiler thought it might run, and generally do great run-time decisions.
Why Intel hates MS and Why a 1 year wait? (Score:5, Interesting)
2: A year from now Intel will have boatloads of VT (Virtualization Technology nee Vanderpool) enabled chips available. So unless there's an SSE4 instruction set hiding somewhere, expect Apple to make use of this feature which, coincidentally will prevent OSX from running on all the old Pentium 4's out there, as well as AMD chips since Pacifica does the same things, but with different instructions.
Re:Answers to his questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong.
Developers who have built NEW applications on Mac OS X (possibly ported from Windows, but not ported from Mac OS 9) within the last five years are using Cocoa in XCode. They should be able to get something working in a few hours.
Developers who have recently migrated their existing Carbon code base (ported from Mac OS 9) to XCode should be able to get something working in a few weeks. Of course, then they have to test all their new changes on both platforms, and if something's broken, figure out if it's a bug in their code or a bug in Apple's pre-release development tools and hardware.
Developers of legacy applications are in for a world of hurt. There are a LOT of these, and they'll have a lot of work to do. Jobs said step one is to migrate to XCode. Not being an application developer myself, I have no idea how hard this will be; I expect that if you start with a clean well-maintained code base, it shouldn't be THAT bad, but there are a lot of 15-year-old apps out there that have been patched and patched and patched....
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 would advise them to ABSOLUTELY NOT wait for an Intel-based Mac, and if they choose to wait that much time, to ABSOLUTELY NOT buy one as soon as they become available. Unless you're absolutely sure you know what you're doing, I would stick with PowerPC as long as Apple continues to sell them (end of 2007); they'll be more reliable and have better application support. Remember that application developers are not dropping the PowerPC, they're only ADDING support for x86 as well, and releasing universal binaries that will run natively on both platforms.
My guess, Steve Jobs will announce an Intel laptop this year.
Nope, I don't expect Apple to announce ANY Intel-based Macs available to consumers until Spring or so, or MWSF at the very earliest. Of course, I didn't expect them to switch to x86 at all, so we'll see.
Re:Clarifying the Cringely story (Score:5, Interesting)
Dvorak held the position before Mark Stephens. When Stephens came to Infoworld, the mag decided to use a pseudonym rather than have to change the by-line, I assume, every time another Dvorak/Stephens came & left.
So Dvorak's departure is probably the reason for creating the pseudonym R.X. Cringley.
But Stephens wanted to keep the pseudonym after later leaving Infoworld. Hence the lawsuit with Infoworld publisher IDG, likely because both Infoworld and Stephens had built the reputations of the column / columnist on the Cringely name.
The resulting settlement out of court is why Stephens can't use the Cringely name for publishing in a computer publication.
So hopefully I clarified the parent.
Cringely Story [wikipedia.org]
Re:Remember, you read it there second... (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, Apple has made the choice you describe several times. Every time, they chose to keep running the show. Their proprietary hardware and software (which now runs on an open source middle-layer, which is kind of funny) are very much a part of the corporate mindset at Apple for good or ill.
That said, I think Apple has grander plans than you give them credit for.
The iPod is exactly what Apple needed (and has tried to do several times before) to kick-start the Mac's market-share. Eventually, the entertainment desktop of choice will be a Mac with various Apple peripherals. Don't be shocked to see an Apple prosumer-grade digital camera for around $500, and Apple solid-state camcorder, and Apple PVR and any number of other entertainment peripherals for which the best software will reside on the Mac (with merely adequate versions for Windows, and perhaps even for Linux).
Apple is beginning to eye the space that Microsoft thinks they're going to own with the X-Box, but there's a gigantic difference between the two: one is percieved as a game box and the other as "that computer the really smart people use." That's some pretty serious branding mojo if Apple uses it right.
Re:Answers to his questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
For developers... ?"
I can think of a few other possibilities:
1. Parts issue. Either something is thought to be defective (liquid-cooling systems?), or the CPUs are in short supply. Steve solves the issue by making the announcement, and everyone holds off.
2. Letting the shock wear off. All of the fanboys are buzzing right now over an announcement and demo. Objectivity would be hard to find if production units available now.
3. Money. Apple has the iTunes and iPod revenues to keep revenue coming in, and a large cash supply as well. That's not going to change in the short term, and not change drastically in a year.
Re:Cringely can stuff himself (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I don't think Apple picked Intel based on AMD's capacity. I'm convinced its about Centrino. AMD might be rocking the desktop world, but the Turion's power consumption is too high and I suspect that Apple is rightfully suspecting that x64 will show up on the Pentium Ms before AMD can come up with a power-efficient end-to-end solution like Centrino. AMD just doesn't have the cash or partnerships to stay in the lead in desktops and laptops.
Intel on the other hand has a good roadmap that is heavily targetting mobile computers, something near and dear to Apple's heart.
I think Cringely is a moron - if Intel bought Apple, Microsoft would buy AMD and then Dell and a couple of the other vendors would announce a 5 year migration plan to AMD after a call from Redmond. AMD begins to ramp up their production, with Intel chips filling the steadily shrinking gap. Apple and HP have problems increasing their own production for the rest of the box and enterprises are slow to throw out their entire IT infrastructure in exchange for a brand new one with no real enterprise experience, so their market share doesn't raise much. If things go sour for Redmond, they sweeten the deal by lowering the cost of Enterprise upgrades to Longhorn (or heck, giving it away entirely to "Gold Customers").
Microsoft keeps the enterprise customers, especially when everyone gets spooked as Intel's revenue drops like crazy. With substantial growth and deep pockets, along with being the "safe bet", Microsoft/AMD finds itself in a position of greater revenues then they've ever had. With Microsoft's backing, Turion beats Centrino over several years, Intel collapses under its own weight, Intel/Apple dies.
Now not only does Microsoft own the software market, but they own the hardware market as well.
Only Sony could get away with the gambit of buying Apple on the business side, but wouldn't survive the culture shock. I'm confident Apple will be under the leadership of solitary Jobs for some time to come.
Re:The Real Question (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'm no real Mac fan, but MacOS X is far nicer than XP/Longhorn.
smash.
Re:Then why the shift to Intel? (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point is that Apple's needs are aligned with where Intel is going anyways. That's the beauty of going with the commodity architecture.
The biggest issue with PowerPC is that Apple was the only real customer for comsumer machines using the architecture. IBM only uses it for their servers. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are only using it for their console. And virtually everyone else is using it as an embedded processor. The market for x86 chips, on the other hand, is very much driven by the needs and trends of the consumer market.
Don't buy the "but Apple could have moved to Cell!" rubbish. All indications thus far are that it would be an exceptionally poor general purpose processor. The PPE core that the operating system would run on is far far slower than the existing G4 and G5 lines, despite the additional clock speed, due to significantly fewer execution units (2 on the PPE core v. 8 on the G5) and the lack of branch prediction on the chip. The "workstations" that have been mentioned in the past are most likely going to be heavily geared toward specific workloads.Cringly's "this isn't about technology" assertion really falls flat once you take that into account.
He also brings up the choice of Intel over AMD, which is not all that hard to understand either. Intel has massive massive fab capabilities, and is much less likely to have production issues. If they were going to use desktop chips in their initial production designs, this might not be a concern, but given that it seems pretty clear the first machines will be portables and consumer machines, they'll likely be using chips from the Pentium M line (yonah will be out then, and include the move to a 65nm process, sse3, and dual cores). Though AMD has a chip in this line (Turion) their limited penetration in the notebook market means fairly low production levels.
Of course, AMD probably did play a part in Apple's decision as well. If Intel ever fails to deliver on their roadmap, there's another major player in the market they can turn to.
No, not really (Score:4, Interesting)
You get stuff that sounds all smart and believable... as long as you don't let reality get in the way. (See his ranting about "unspecified" CPUs.) In Cringely's case, the sad thing is that he sounds all smart precisely _because_ he misses all the points, strings together some truisms and mis-representations, and appeals to an equally uninformed and slightly paranoid readership.
Not meant as an insult to the readership. The fact is, yes, the business world doesn't make sense to most normal people. As someone else put it on slashdot a long time ago, if individuals acted the way corporations do (e.g., someone in the same day saying that you're his best friend, and that you're the incarnation of evil and must be killed), they'd be put in a loony bin.
The business world is made of power games, veiled threats, PR press releases that intentionally mis-lead or mis-represent, and alliances that are formed, broken, and hinted at just to put pressure on a third party. E.g., see Dell's yearly announcing that they consider AMD chips -- and at one point they even let you order a replacement Athlon for your Athlon-based Dell... which didn't exist "yet" -- when they have to re-negotiate their discount from Intel. E.g., see Sony's big PR fuss about a HDD and Linux on the PS2... which turned out to be just a maneuver to get it clasified as a computer instead of a console in the EU, and thus not pay import taxes.
For most normal people the real power games and motivations behind them are just ranging between "nuts" and "petty", or at the very least would if an individual did them instead of a corporation.
So a whole class of pundits, Cringely included, exist just to rant some utterly false, but understandable by normal people, explanation about such events. They tell you not what is, but what you want to hear. Again, it sounds good and believable precisely _because_ it misses the real points. They're what _you_ would do if you were looking for market share and had no clue how that works (and fail miserably), not what a corporation would do.
And of course, all complete with a shotgun approach to making predictions that are vague enough to look sorta fulfilled by such power games.
It has nothing to do with "a religious vast-chasm viewpoint". I'm not even an Apple fan. By most Mac fans' standards, I'm a "wintel fanboy" and have been known to be modded as a troll for questioning Mac issues before.
Re:No, not really (Score:3, Interesting)
"You know, the same sort of speculation like that Apple would move to Intel chips -- how absolutely absurd and impossible that was presented by the status quo contrarians."
Noone presented it as "impossible", and it's been an idea that was floating around for a decade. We all knew already that it _could_ happen, with or without Cringely. What a lot of people argued -- and some still argue (e.g., have a read on The Register [theregister.co.uk]) -- is that it might be a _stupid_ move.
Such a move could -- and provably did -- negate a decade of "RISC is inherently better" advertising, alienate customers, create the Osbourne effect, etc. They're things that are very very real, not just out of the imagination of "status quo contrarians." E.g., Apple sees the "Osbourne effect" dip in sales right now.
_That_ is what was argued. Whether it's likely that Apple would take the very real business risks associated with such a move. "Probability" rather than "possibility", if you will. Which is what a _real_ business analysis is all about, as opposed to just talking out of the ass, Cringely-style.
"Cringely has the ability to actually think outside of the box of "more of the same""
The ability to do... what? Ignore the real issues (see above), pull wild predictions out of the ass, and be hailed as some prophet if 1 out of 10 come true? Yeah, that's got to be an easy job. You don't lose anything if you're wrong 90% of the time, or if you publically base predictions on utter ignorance ("unspecified CPU" my ass"), but you get to be a visionary if something does come true.
No, really, I want a job like that.
Briefly, there is a difference between "thinking outside the box" and "talking out the ass".
"and often he'll be wrong, but sometimes he'll be right."
In any other profession, this would be called "talking out of the ass". If a stock analyst was wrong far more often than he's sorta almost right, everyone would call him a joke. If an accountant gave you more often wrong numbers than right, or a lawyer was more likely to give you the wrong interpretation of the law, he _and_ you might face a lawsuit.
There is a limit in any profession, business analyst included, to how many facts and factors one can blatantly disregard or pull out of the hat before one loses all credibility.
Any profession except "tech pundit", apparently. Here the more one talks out of the ass, the greater a visionary he is and the more it counts as "thinking outside the box". See Dvorak for an even worse troll than Cringely, apparently still counting as a big expert, in spite of being blatantly wrong 99% of the time.
Re:No, not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, let's look where that actually went. Dig this: Intel currently supplies more than 40% of the graphics chipsets in PCs. By comparison, ATI is 27.6% and Nvidia supplies some 18%. Oops, maybe Intel did win that market after all. E.g., see here: X-Bit Labs [xbitlabs.com].
That's the difference between market reality and fanboy/Cringely talking out of the ass. While the fanboy sees some irrelevant detail, like who's got TEH L33T 3DMARK SCOREZ, the business world is more about other numbers.
Intel is all about making a profit and keeping the profit margins. It's making _great_ money dominating the integrated graphics market. It doesn't need to have TEH L33T 3DMARK SCOREZ, it needs to make money. And it does anyway.
"Intel has poured billions of dollars down the tube"? I don't think so. Those dollars brought it to the position of market leader, starting from zero. Seems to me like anything _but_ poured down the tube.