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."

how could they stop it?

[udderly]

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.

Intel needs a show pony

[mabhatter654]

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:Wrong

[udderly]

Apple dropped IBM because IBM like Linux, and Apple needs Linux to fail so that Apple can be the next big thing.

You know I kind of wondered about that myself. After all, would Mac on Intel take market share from MS or Linux. Or neither. I can't decide.

This is all to complicated. I used to know who to distrust.

Are you Kidding Me?

[Enonu]

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.

The Truth about Mac OS X here

[Anonymous Coward]

I found this great article [utk.edu] here. Read this carefully before you thing about trying OS-X.

Re:Surely not...

[ArbitraryConstant]

Exclusively Intel OEMs get large discounts.

Re:That May be true...

[BasilBrush]

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.

Apples switch for commercial reaons...

[johnhennessy]

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]

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]

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?

Re:What about appleworld?

[adjensen]

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 the purposes of writing trojans (never mind that a script kiddie lacks the basic knowledge of progamming to even contemplate such a thing)

b) The operating system is designed with security from the bottom up, not some hobbled together patchwork of fixes slopped on to try and cover fundamentally flawed OS holes at the root level.

Is the platform vulnerable? I suppose that there aren't many that aren't.

Is it ever going to be even remotely as vulnerable as Windows? Fat chance.

Re:how could they stop it?

[Weaps]

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?

[nuggetman]

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

Actual order of events

[mbkennel]

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?"

Direct consequences

[some_god]

Has anyone else noticed any direct consequences of this move by apple?

The ones i have seen have been rather negative, my dad for example scraped his plans of buying an apple computer next year when his current pc has become outdated.
His reasons was fear that any current and future apples that come out before the new Intel ones and any software he will buy will become obsolete faster as software developers switch to the new Intel based platform and put more resources into that and that new versions of software might not be available to ppc apple users.

Also the net of sunshine, lollipops and grass is greener mentality i had shrouded apple with in my mind was ruthlessly torn off as my brain moved apple to the same category as dell and hp resides in.

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[Comatose51]

Apple might also be a good way for them to break away from the x86 architecture. Unlike the Itanium, with Apple, they can develop a new design or modify an existing design. Apple has the ability to push it through and still have developer support. Apple can supply the missing ingredient that killed the Itanium.

Suppose that this happens and they have some superior chip, we can expect some growth. Apple will handle the software side, attracting developers to the new architecture. Maybe they will be able to push x86 off the market and Intel can put an end to the patent sharing deal they have with AMD.

Just speculations of course but this seems like a win-win situation for both.

Intel's revenge for no Intel in Xbox 3

[Captain Kirk]

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...

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[johnpaul191]

i wonder if Intel feels that they rely too much on M$ to show their power? the general public will never understand Linux on Intel benchmarks to show the power of Intel chips.

when OS X is humming on Intel chips (it sounds like it will be sometime in 2007 before the towers and Xserves switch) they can put an Intel chip running OS X next to an Intel chip running MS windows. any pokiness on one side can be blamed on the OS.

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.

i think it's funny a little while before the announcement there was the mockup of a Mac Mini clone and Intel said they will have Intel powering something like that in the future. who know how right they were! i am guessing around June 2006?

Re:how could they stop it?

[edwdig]

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.

NY Times article

[jmichaelg]

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]

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:how could they stop it?

[bhtooefr]

It's not that the ROM has part of the OS. It's that the OS can only interface with THAT ROM. (However, this is getting thrown out of the window - Apple's hiring people with experience in ACPI, which is part of the BIOS, and a modern system wouldn't touch it (ACPI or the BIOS) with a 10ft pole)

OpenFirmware is an open standard, but Mac OS (X PPC) can only talk to it. It can't talk to the firmware that the PPC Amiga boards use (either the Linux bootrom that they're using now, or the Amiga OS 4 firmware that'll come out god knows when), which is something entirely different. It can't talk to the firmware that IBM's RS/6000s use.

The fact that they appear to be using the BIOS, however, tells me that they're using a totally different method of keeping OS X on Apple. Probably a chip on the mobo, is my guess. Also, LaGrande will be in Intel's line by then - they could be using that - it would also kill piracy of OS X.

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[Glock27]

Did they confirm that they're going to use x86 with the switch to Intel? I'm a bit behind on the news. They could use another architecture. Again, just guessing here.

The best analysis I've seen is that Apple went with Intel to get good laptop chips, since laptops are the fastest growing PC segment. Apple laptops are one of the flagships of the industry, but they're behind on performance.

I'm 100% sure that the first Apple/Intel laptops will be based on Pentium-M technology, so yes, they'll be x86. Itanic is going nowhere fast.

Re:Intel needs a show pony

[SteeldrivingJon]

But Intel *is* interested in new rules.

They won't want to break the rules on, say, an existing interface standard. But they would want to introduce a new, better interface standard. Which they can do without breaking the old rules.

For example, USB doesn't break the standards for parallel ports, but takes their place.

Re:Hype vs. actual developments

[foolish_to_be_here]

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!)

Now platform moves are easy

[SuperKendall]

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.

Now why would Apple owners care about another platform move? With all of the developers having to do work that makes programs essentially endian-neutral, Apple actually has the freedom to possibly dare to make a line of computers with different processors! They could for instance release a cheap Cell based computer in a year or two, that could possibly either run the PPC stuff as if native or perhaps make it work with tweaking from Rosetta.

I'm not saying they will do this, I'm saying that most Apple owners neither know nor care what processor is actually in the box, and furthmore that developers are going to HAVE to write platform neutral code and ship universal binaries for years to come.

Re:USB.

[John Newman]

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.

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

[IntlHarvester]

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.

Don't forget MS.

[Big Sean O]

Linux has lost momentum, but so has Windows. IE no longer has 90% of market share.

Jobs said Intel Macs could run Windows, but he says "who would want to?". I think he's being disingenuous. I for one, would love to be able to dual boot Windows and OS X on an Intel-powered Powerbook. That's one less computer I need on my desk.

Mark my words: more machines that _can_ run Mac OS X means more machines that _will_ run Mac OS X. Apple better have a good plan to make a Windows partition and an even better plan to reclaim abandoned Windows partitions.