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.' "
Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
Apple merging with Intel is a brilliant first move by Cringely. What say you, Slashdotters? Begin!
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:3, Funny)
Let's have some respect people (Score:3, Funny)
As a gesture of respect, let's abstain from jokes about hot grits being poured down pants, Natalie Portman, and the pathetic pasttimes of old people in Korea and take a quite moment to imagine a beowolf cluster of Apple computers running on Intel architecture!
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, you eat cannibals, uh i mean in Soviet Russia, cannibals eat you...ugh, forget about it
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is actually switching to Intel to smooth the way for a merger with Sun. Sun is going to abandon SPARC technology in favor of Intel technology. Sun is going to stop building low end workstations and ship Intel based Apple computers.
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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."
Sun's fate is to be purchased by NVidia. They plan to base their "next gen" graphics processors on duel core SPARC technology, obviously.
Meanwhile, RedHat is looking at SGI; the MIPS architecture will play host to yet another port of OS-X licensed from Apple by RedHat.
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Hey Cringely, WTF - RTFA! (Score:5, Informative)
Those stupid benchmarks are comparing a G5 running native PPC code to the 3.6 Ghz Pentium running PPC code under emulation. Follow Cringely's link to an article that in turn links to ThinkSecret which then explains that the benchmarks are for Rosetta.
Sad thing about that is... (Score:5, Funny)
I have never felt so inadequate in my life. I know my machine is nearly 4 years old, but to get owned by a machine doing binary translation? Ouch.
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.
Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
We all knew that Transative believed they had something big. Evidently they do. The Mach-O binaries with their lazy symbol lookup provide a very nice, natural framework for Rosetta to run.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sad thing about that is... (Score:4, Funny)
GOOD NEWS! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Informative)
And the reason? Because Dvorak held the position before him.
--
Evan
The True Cringely? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The True Cringely? (Score:4, Informative)
One of those people (I think his name was Mark Williams, or something like that, but I'm not sure) who was fairly popular in that job in the early nineties left the job. When he did, he took the name with him and used it in other publishing. He had a big spat with Infoworld but eventually earned the right to continue using the name.
So now he is with PBS, has made several TV specials on the history of computing, and writes this column for them.
Meanwhile Infoworld continues the way they allways have with their gossip column. I have not read it regularly since Mark left, prefering to read his PBS column instead.
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:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:3, Informative)
I won't go into all of his points but the 64bit bit is torn to shreds by the article over at Ars. Apple are moving to Intel from the bottom up, not the top down. At the moment only the G5 offerings are 64 bit so there is no regression by moving all the G4s to 32bit Intel chips first while Apple wait for Intel's 64bit chips to come along by the end of 2007 which is
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.
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.
Re:Idea for new Slashdot section (Score:3, Funny)
I've got it....It's the reverse vampires (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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 NataelRe:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
For GOD'S SAKE, get a GRIP! Their preliminary, not-for-sale, we'll-rent-you-a-system-for-a-year-and-then-you-g
Their final shipping products are as likely to have a bios as the final PPC X-Box is to have APPLE ROMS. (Yes, the x-box dudes at MS are currently using PowerMacs to develop on. Get the parallel?)
God, I'm so tired of people leaping to conclusions like this. The first prerelease of what eventually became Mac OS X was Intel-only, and yet somehow when the actual first release of Mac OS X for consumers came out, it was for PPC.
Preliminary hardware is preliminary hardware. Stupid assumptions are stupid assumptions. Neither one is, frankly, worth terribly much.
-fred
Aptel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aptel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aptel (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Aptel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aptel (Score:5, Funny)
Some sort of sex toy that you stick in your bellybutton?
I think Ikea sells them.
I'm new here (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Pfft. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait...
Re:Pfft. (Score:4, Funny)
Remember, you read it there second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Remember, you read it there second... (Score:3, Funny)
this one has no legs at all!
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: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.
Cringely's Thought Process (Score:5, Funny)
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for making me spit coffee out of my nose.
Well... (Score:3, Funny)
<ducks>
Gives whole new meaning to (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Gives whole new meaning to (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention iCringely...
HE'S BEEN IN ON IT ALL ALONG!!!!!!11oneone!
It's Official (Score:4, Funny)
"Apple and Intel are merging."
It's official - The Macintel Speculation Circus has now officially "jumped the shark".
I can only expect that soon Fonzie's long lost nephew will arrive on the scene dressed as Charlie Chaplin, advertising the new "Macintel PC Jr EXTREME".
Re:It's Official (Score:4, Funny)
Cringley and Dvorak are merging! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cringley and Dvorak are merging! (Score:3, Informative)
If you're referring to 'hot air', well then I'm even more confused since blimps are full of helium, and are not heated!
Blue Man Group (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know about "merging" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't know about "merging" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't know about "merging" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know about "merging" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Urban legend (Score:3, Insightful)
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 co
Next merger (Score:5, Funny)
Now go bitch about that organisation!
Only one way this would happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm. Whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Intel, and not AMD: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Answers to his questions... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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 mi
Re:Answers to his questions... Even More (Score:5, Informative)
Dissapearing as we speak and that is part of the reason for the move.
>Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
intel Pentium 4 630 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
$289 NOTE the EMT64T.
The Chip in the dev platform is reportedly:
Nntel Pentium 4 660 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
Again note the EM64T
>Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
To me this is the lamest question people ask. There are so many reason that it would be a much bigger surprise if it were AMD. Want some:
0: Better deal, simpler engineering if you stick with one.
1: Intel provides the whole platform from a single vendor. Massively simplifying engineering the new platform
2: The myriad of reasons that Dell does the same. Most of them Dollars.
3: Pentium-M Laptop platform.
4: Truly massive Fab capacity, vs AMD history of production problems.
>Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
As said before Developers. Because there is no other way you can give ALL the developers a heads up and keep it a secret.
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
I used to think this guy had a clue (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. But, how many things REALLY take such advantage of Altivec that its worth keeping it around?
yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs.
Someone wanna tell this guy about EM64T?
Where the heck is AMD?
Maybe Apple talked to AMD, and Intel offered a better deal. Maybe Apple wanted to ensure there'd be no supply problems (I'm sure Intel fabs a lot more CPUs than AMD does).
Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
I wondered about this one too. Especially after Jobs showed how easy it is to port apps.
Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
Gah! I sure as hell hope not!
The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched.
Could have, but would they? I sincerely doubt it. IBM is more interested in all the CPUs they're going to put into the next generation gaming consoles. They'll sell far more CPUs, AND they won't even have to worry about making them faster.
Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.
That'd be sweet.
Remember, you read it here first.
C'mon, Dvorak predicted this years ago.
He made a mistake regarding the Cell (Score:5, Insightful)
The Cell processor is not at all geared towards desktop/laptop use for a couple of reasons:
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!
Re:Cell has some real advantages (Score:3, Informative)
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. This is Phil Schiller, Vice President of Marketing. Of course it's BS.
See Ars [arstechnica.com].
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].
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.
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.
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.
To the Cringely Haters... (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: Personally, I have no idea on how much faith to put in this particular prediction, either. I just keep my money in the S&P 500 and don't loose any sleep over the specifics.
Apple/Intel..... Microsoft/AMD? (Score:4, Funny)
It's official. There is no longer any difference between 'good' and 'evil'. Just like how successful Democrats and Republicans are mostly just moderates with different names, good and evil have met in the middle in the tech industry.
It's too painful. Apple (good) with Intel (bad) and so Microsoft (bad) with AMD (good). I can't take it anymore!
I Disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we need more proof than speculation.
Close but not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Close but not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ce
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Crazy - Like a Fox (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
if this is true (Score:3)
Cringely can stuff himself (Score:5, Insightful)
- What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
- What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
- Where the heck is AMD?
- Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
- Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
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.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).
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.
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.
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.
He's right on this one. No.
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: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.
Re:Cringely can stuff himself (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Intel, AMD, Via, and antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
My nose is merging too (Score:3, Funny)
And my nose is merging with my dick!
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.
Microsoft to merge with AMD (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, anyone can do this!
The whole thing sounds fishy to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The Real Question (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'm no real Mac fan, but MacOS X is far nicer than XP/Longhorn.
smash.