http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050523/tech_apple_intel.html?.v=3

The news services are citing a story in today's Wall Street Journal that Apple has been meeting with Intel to discuss using their chips in future Macs. This has been the subject of speculation for years, although in the past 6 months a few analysts have said they felt it was inevitable. The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple was expected to agree to use Intel chips. But it said the talks could break down or could be a tactic to gain negotiating leverage with Apple's current chip supplier, International Business Machines Corp.

The Borg are unstoppable...

Personally I would consider this the lastest in a series of smart business moves from Apple. At the very least it puts some pressure on IBM to speed up delivery.

Apple has been held back from introducing the models it's wanted for years due to delays from Motorola and IBM. The rumor has always been that they've kept an Intel version of OSX up to date with each new release. This could very well be exactly what they need to capture more market share. And that should translate into more Mac for the buck. Personally I could care less what chips are inside as long as everything works!

I just don't buy it. A large part of Apple's business strategy has always been to control the Hardware as well as the OS/core apps. That way, Apple has a very limited universe of support / troubleshooting / development. They can also tout a key appeal of Apple product: it just works. It's really plug and play. You crash less often, if at all.

Of course, there's a gap between these myths that Apple has built and reality. I have happlily crashed many an OS9 AND OSX app. I have locked up every mac I've owned, requiring the dreaded "unplug from the wall" restart. That being said, my personal experience is that macs are easier to use and configure, and are generally less buggy and more reliable than the same vintage PC.

Can you imagine the nightmare for Apple if they finally admit to Intel compatibility? The public pressure will be for a Mac OS for every vanilla beige box out there. Apple looses it's lock on hardware, and suddenly has to play Microsoft's game. They need to provide drivers for every imaginable piece of hardware out there, and build in robustness for a staggering amount of different configurations.

Also, the Sony/IBM Cell processor seems to be the natural successor to the G5 in the next generation macs. I don't see either Intel or AMD providing more than dual-core chips into the next 2-3 years, let alone the Cell's 8-core, which will be shipping in PS3's in early 2006!

Apple doesn't need to capture a 30% market share for computers - or even 10%. What they do need to continue to do is maintain the myth: Apple hardware is better. Apple is the sportscar of computers. Apple is the innovator in the industry. Apple will take risks that Microsoft and Dell can't afford to take. If they lose that mystique, Apple is in danger of becoming just another commodity player, valuing market share over innovation.

Analysts don't know what they're talking about. If they did, Apple would have switched to Intel about 10 times in the last 10 years. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now.

As an "independent" they're unique, and making great profits. As an intel clone, they're nothing but a small player in the big field, and they'll die a death of many deaths.

Sure OS X can run on Intel and Apple have just such a version in their labs, but that's been the case right from the start. Remember NT used to run on PPC.

If OS X could run on Intel, who'd want to re-write all their Mac software for it, and who'd run OS X when they could run Windows and have access to all that wonderful cheap PC software? It's just not going to happen.

Graeme

Well, who said anything about x86 chips? Why can't intel make powerpc chips. They can and will. The gaming market is getting huge.

"Well, who said anything about x86 chips?" Nobody, but that's the article's implication, as it is every year this tired article is dragged out.

As for Intel licencing PPC design from IBM.... Maybes AMD, but not Intel.

Graeme

Who knows what they may have in store. Like the article suggested, it may just be a lever to use against IBM. Regardless of what's up, I don't think Apple has any intention of licensing MacOS X to cheap box builders. I'm sure they would still market and control the hardware themselves.

An article at Macrumors suggests that Apple may be looking at a product from Transitive Technologes which dynamically translates instructions at about 80% of chip speed, and it further speculates that hooks are already built into Tiger for this. But there's speculation that Apple might be looking to put intel chips into their servers instead of desktops or laptops.

Unfortunately, we drift into Area 41 territory on all this, so I'm going to move this thread over there were we can have fun kicking around. But the reality is that a reputable publication - The Wall Street Journal - broke the story, even though they provided several big caveats.

I agree that the mystique is a big part of the "Apple experience," but more recently they've made some good business moves which have caused their shares to skyrocket. Since I have a few of these I'm perfectly happy to let them keep doing whatever they've been doing, which has tripled my investment.

And Wall Street certainly drank the Koolaid today, AAPL stock is up 6% on these rumors...

Yeah I don't see that switching to Intel would harm them from a hardware/platform POV, except that vendors would have to rerelease their software (Not a minor thing, true). But that doesn't mean they might as well go Windows - the OS is the thing that makes a Mac a Mac and the fact that that Apple make sure it's all built to spec and works out of the box.

What I want to see is Apple stay with PPC and move to Cell processors. I mean a Mac is a multimedia manipulation machine - ideal for Cell architecture. They could take a massive leap forward in graphics power with Cells.

Aaron

What I want to see is Apple stay with PPC and move to Cell processors. I mean a Mac is a multimedia manipulation machine - ideal for Cell architecture. They could take a massive leap forward in graphics power with Cells.

Definitly! Not only that, you can do RT multicam capture from a max of 8 next-gen HDV sources, allowing flexible capture between many HDV cameras!

speaking of HDV... if Sony is ever gonna make a 1080p60 HDV camcorder (which I think they will call HDVPRO), they will need a 6 cell encoder and 2 cell decoder for handling MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264) at 25Mbps. (Of course, provided by IBM)

Steve Jobs, "Live long and prosper!"

If you need ultra low voltage processors for a type of mobile computing device, then Intel is one of the main suppliers in the world.

Maybe the talks is for a Apple Über-iPod, with build in intelligence. Or a mediacenter.

Interesting that you say this Jos. Here's a new article on the topic from Fortune Magazine (this link may expire after a few days). They cite speculation that Jobs is shopping for a chip to be used in an Apple Tablet PC...

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,1066257,00.html?promoid=yahoo

Well this story is still alive and kicking.... Cnet is now reporting that Apple will announce a phased transition to Intel at the WWDC on Monday June 6:

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news

What I want to see is Apple stay with PPC and move to Cell processors. I mean a Mac is a multimedia manipulation machine - ideal for Cell architecture. They could take a massive leap forward in graphics power with Cells.
I'm not so sure about the Cell as a CPU. Conceptually it's a major leap forward, but it has some practical problems. First, because it's a pretty revolutionary design, exploiting all that computing power is, by all accounts, quite difficult. That may delay or prevent the porting of apps that might benefit from its architecture. Second, much of its vaunted floating-point performance is single-precision, not double-precision, and supports only a subset of IEEE FP arithmetic (still, its double-precision FP ability is several times that of a comparably clocked Intel chip). Lastly, its design is geared for the processing of media and 3-D graphics objects. How it handles more general-purpose tasks (such as business apps) is a question mark.

As a side note, I find it ironic that even as Apple is rumored to be planning a transition of the Mac line to Intel processors, Microsoft has decided to forego Intel chips in its Xbox 360 in favor of a specially designed triple-core IBM PowerPC processor running at 3.2 GHz!

this is very interesting

The AP is now also reporting this story, with the usual disclaimers:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050605/apple_chips.html?.v=4

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce Monday morning at the company's software developers conference in San Francisco that Apple will discontinue using microprocessor chips made by IBM in favor of Intel chips

And Reuters too....

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050605/tech_apple_intel.html?.v=1

Apple Computer Inc. is expected to announce Monday that it will begin shifting its Macintosh computer line next year to Intel Corp. chips, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Sunday, citing people familiar with the situation.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day...

Looks like they're all reporting the same "root" story though. But 2007 for inel based powermacs? If they are changing, I don't think anyone can wait that long for new macs. If they are changing, it's got to be tomorrow with new hardware available by the end of this year.

I mean, really, it doesn't matter what processor or hardware Apple use as long as compatibility is ensured, no matter whether you're using old generation or new generation hardware, and that Apple do everything to make the move as absolutely seamless as possible.

Personally, I think that if a move to intel hardware could be made seamless, then they could move to ANY hardware seamlessly. Then, Apple could practically pick a new processor every week and all software would still work fine, and they'd be hardware agnostic (as long as it's made by Apple - I don't think they'll give that one up again.).

As is said, interesting times.....

It's not about what new thingt that gets introduced that matters, but HOW the introduction is made.

Graeme

Since they're saying the mini will be the first Intel machine, I wonder if Steve is planning a dual boot system? Get a copy of Windows, install, choose your OS. No more virtual PC. A cheap machine like that might be very popular.

Guess we'll find out tomorrow...

Doesn't matter to me at all. I was hoping Apple would go to the new cell based architecture and blow everyone away. If they go to the intel/amd core they become just another linux/bsd clone. No reason at all to pay those premiums.

And sorry Boyd, I rarely read area 51, didn't mean to cause problems.

Joe, I'm hoping that noone would have to pay the premiums. With the move to Intel, maybe the cost of a machine could come down?

I was hoping that they'd add cell to their lineup too - make the graphics stuff so much more insanely fast.

Aaron



Doesn't matter to me at all. I was hoping Apple would go to the new cell based architecture and blow everyone away. If they go to the intel/amd core they become just another linux/bsd clone. No reason at all to pay those premiums.

And sorry Boyd, I rarely read area 51, didn't mean to cause problems.

It's just not going to happen.

Heh, anybody got a good recipe for crow to share with Graeme? ;-)

Yes, it's official: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

From some of the analysis I heard it sounds like laptops were a big factor in this decision. A 1.67ghz G4 just really doesn't cut it anymore. Should be interesting times ahead, this could certainly hurt sales while people are waiting for the new machines. But I'm sure the decision wasn't made lightly. I heard an interview with Rob Enderle, and he feels this could signal the beginning of Apple's shift from a hardware to a software company. Part of his logic was quotes from Steve Jobs, who has evidently stated the goal of becoming richer than Bill Gates, and a high margin business like software is more likely to help him accomplish that.

Over at the MacWorld forums someone summarized a conversation with an Apple VP at the WWDC. He said that Apple had no intention of supporting MS Windows on the Mac, but there wouldn't be anything about the hardware which would preclude it, and he was sure someone would in fact do it. OTOH, he said they were going to insure that MacOS could only run on Apple hardware.

But Boyd, it sounds like Apple are doing whatever it takes to make the move seamless, which is what I said they'd have to do. Again, I'll re-iterate that it doesn't matter what chips Apple run on, as long as when they buy a program for a "mac" it works on their mac, and us developers don't have to do much work to allow them to do so.

Sounds like interesting times are ahead though. I guess this is as a good time as any, but Apple are going to have to be really careful about viruses and spyware from now on, as if they're going to go after the big boys, they're going to face big boys problems....

Graeme

So is this going to ge tmoved out of area 51 and into the news section?


I'm still confused about how al of this will work out though. It seems like in theory (according to other sites) you will be able to run OSX and Windows on a Mac with the intel switch but, apple still has no plans of letting you run osx on your home pc. I.E. it's sort of a one way street. Which of course seems odd and to me that it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to run osx on a sony laptop (though i'm sure die hard fans on both sides would say "Why would you do that?") Should be interesting times ahead either way.

Another thread is already going in the news section:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45738

Seems like we should leave this one alone, so we can all speculate on what happens next... :-)

The "one way street" is consistent with Steve Jobs' philosophy. Remember, before he came back to rescue Apple they had licensed several other companies to make Mac clones (E-machines comes to mind). Steve pulled the plug on that whole program. Keeping tight control over the hardware has always been a big thing for him.

I'm sure people will find work-arounds to run OSX on the PC, but Apple has been merciless with their lawyers to protect their interests (ask the poor guy who leaked the story about the Mac mini ;-)

Of course in the long term one does have to wonder if they'll abandon hardware completely (see my previous post) and concentrate on software which has the potential to be much more profitable.