Posted on 05/23/2005 2:35:00 AM PDT by HAL9000
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.
Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."
It was unclear whether such a move would signal a large-scale shift away from chips made by IBM, Apple's longtime supplier, the report said.
Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said.
Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc. .
Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said.
Apple sells only about three million computers a year -- a small portion of the estimated 200 million sold globally.
But for Intel, winning over Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters and could associate the chipmaker with Apple's hugely popular iPod music player.
Apple's shares have nearly quadrupled since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.
There would be a lot of technical issues. The Cocoa development framework could sort out the big-endian/little-endian problem, but it would be better if Intel just fixed their brain-damaged memory scheme. The lack of an AltiVec unit on Intel is another problem. The x86 vector processors aren't as good at SIMD as AltiVec.
At least games might run well ;)
Ping.
Another issue - open war against Microsoft.
If Apple goes this route, they'd be better off to license Mac OS X to established x86 systems manufacturers like Dell and HP, instead of starting a new hardware product line.
. . . thereby, as you say, switching over into a direct, one-for-one competitor of Microsoft Windows. The history of Next Inc, Steve Jobs' workstation manufacturer, is instructive. It wasted its money developing bleeding-edge hardware (such as read-write optical memory, back in the day) and as a consequence was too expensive - the basic knock on Apple, historically and (with caveats) currently.When Next was on the ropes it ported its OS to Intel boxes, just as you suggest be done with OSX. But what did it do then? It marketed the OS at a ridiculous price point, and failed to get any market share with its highly touted product - for which there were, naturally, approximately zero applications. So Apple is, and always was, just a marginally successful version of NexT. And if it ported OS X to Intel boxes, you could set your watch by the fact that it would overprice it so badly that it would never catch on. Jobs would rather get 80% of nothing than to get 10% of a billion dollars.
It's just the same mentality as the Democrats wanting to raise tax rates, and the result is the same - reduction of whatever you are taxing which more than offsets the increased rate, yielding less revenue.
And then there is the fact that Rush Limbaugh uses Macs, and would love to promote them and can't get the account because Apple's execs are pinkos who would rather be left wing than make money and serve their customers with a product which attracts third-party software.
>>So Apple is, and always was, just a marginally successful version of NexT.
apple is making a tidy profit for their shareowners. they must be doing something right.
I'm glad there's folks like you that know these things so I don't have to. Sometimes it's just good being a consumer - a well informed freeper consumer.
I would switch to Apple in a heartbeat, if that LSD soaked elitist hippie would pay more then lip service to gamers.
Any PC can be used for word processing and internet surfing, but PC's are still the best for gamers, at least, until Valve ruins the game industry forever.
That should read:
Any computer can be used for word processing and internet surfing, but PC's are still the best for gamers, at least, until Valve ruins the game industry forever.
OTOH, computer technology is so backward on this planet, it's a wonder we haven't manged to completely muck up our DNA with UNIX and Windows types "OSes."
Could you imagine if our bodies ran out of swap space, or had as much trouble recovering from an unexpected power outages as LUNIX has?
Wow. The new XBOX 360 using PowerPC technology, and Macs using Intel technology. We're through the looking glass now, people.
Long overdue. But with the foreign clone Linux now taking over the *nix market, they really don't have any choice now.
Absolutely, if they wait until Dell and HP are selling Linux clones in droves, it'll be too late. Time is critical now, to jump on board with these big OEM's and push Linux back down the pipe some. They also need a shrink rap version that can install on existing Intel hardware, I'll buy 2 copies the day they go on sell.
Who writes this stuff?
Apple's pricing has always been higher than PC pricing, substantially so.
That's why Apple has seized their lion's share of a whopping 5% of the PC market...
When are they going to make Apple compatible with Windows based computers? I know that Linux and Unix are compatible, when is Mac going to realize that, after switching over to Intel, that should they create an Operating System able to be installed on windows computers, that MAC would continue to grow into a major rival of Windows?
"Windows" (ie Microsoft) doesn't make computers. Windows is software. And that is what this article is about: is Apple planning on making its software capable of running on Intel hardware, as Windows does.
You can run Windows apps on Macs.
I would call up Reuters and I would say, "Yep, we're looking at Intel. You heard it here first." I can hardly wait to see the deer-in-the-headlights look on that IBM chip salesman's face when he runs in here to save his big account. I'll bet I get another 15% off. They got the volume now; they can do it. |
***Bingo***
They are pushing hard to get mainstream...
Another possibility is Apple is working on another DOS compatibility card like the one that was mounted in some 6100/66 models years ago. It came with a PPC 601 on the main board and a 486 DX2 on a rider board. I think this was around '94 or so.
From the actual Wall Street Journal article:
"Jobs hasn't been able to meet a public commitment he made in June 2003 to offer a Macintosh with a PowerPC chip operating at a speed of three gigahertz within 12 months. IBM hasn't delivered a chip that fast yet for the Macintosh; the fastest system in Apple's lineup now operates at 2.75 gigahertz. IBM's fastest chip, the G5, also consumes too much power to be added to Apple's portable computers."
Does this mean you'll try to ban my account again? Or have you finally given up on that foolishness?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
If I were in charge of purchasing for Apple, and I just read that IBM had closed two big deals with Sony and Microsoft for PowerPC chips, I would do the same thing.