PDA

View Full Version : Without Microsoft the G5 wouldn't have been possible...




groovebuster
Mar 5, 2004, 06:40 AM
I found an interesting article about Microsoft indirectly helping Apple to survive... Check it out! :)

Link to Original (http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/DevilsDeal.shtml)

Part 1:

(On Screen): Brian Tiemann is overjoyed (and oversmug) to learn that Microsoft's XBox 2 SDK (Software Development Kit) runs on G5 Macs. But there are implications to this announcement that I don't think he noticed.

It was no great surprise to learn that Apple's new generation of machines were based on a cut-down version of IBM's Power4. It had become blatantly obvious that Motorola had shut down its efforts to develop a new version of the PPC to replace the G4, leaving Apple in the position of having to implement a gawdawful hardware kludge as its only way to eke out any more performance from the existing G4, while waiting for something else.

There was never any possibility of Apple porting to X86; the only solution which made sense was the Power4. So there was little surprise when it was announced that was where Apple was going. But when they finally appeared, they caught me by surprise in two ways.

They appeared earlier than I expected; apparently IBM was able to bring production online sooner than they said they would. And I expected G5-based Macs to cost a lot more than they did. For a long time I was really puzzled by this: why was IBM giving Apple a sweet-heart deal on CPU prices, when that same business decision had cost Motorola so dearly?

This announcement answers that question.

The only way that could happen is if IBM expected huge volume, far greater than they could reasonably expect from Apple alone and from IBM's own use of those same CPUs. That meant they expected another market, a big one, a reliable one, one which would involve a lot more volume than Apple.

That was what Moto thought too when they invested in development of the G4. What they bet their money on was a standardized open hardware architecture for PPC computers which would run Apple's software but also WinNT and some version of Unix. Motorola expected computers based on that architecture to be produced and sold by several competing companies, the way that PCs were and are. Apple ended up stomping all over that and in the end Moto lost a huge amount of money and ultimately decided that having Apple as a customer was not an asset. (In fact, Moto recently decided that its entire semiconductor business is not an asset.)

So how did IBM think it would be any different? Now we know: Microsoft decided to use the G5 in XBox 2. It's a very strange choice for Microsoft; why would they do so?

Some Mac freaks will plump themselves up smugly and declare that it's because the G5 is obviously a superior processor, but that answer doesn't wash. In nearly every regard, technically and commercially, an X-86 compatible processor would have made more sense. But in strategic terms, this is a win for Microsoft.

Microsoft is yet again intervening to save Apple and keep it viable. This is not the first time. But each time it happens, Apple pays a price.

Microsoft was responsible for making the transition from MacOS Classic to OSX successful. It was only when Microsoft publicly came out in support of OSX (in Gates' notorious "Big Brother video image" speech at a MacWorld) and announced that Office would be ported, that the other software developers began to take it seriously and became willing to invest in porting their apps to OSX. But to get that Jobs had to give Microsoft licenses to Apple's entire patent portfolio.

And now Microsoft has, against all expectations, decided to use the G5 in XBox 2, which will give IBM the volume on the part needed to permit it to sell G5's to Apple at a price which permits Apple in turn to sell G5-based Macs at a price which is competitive with comparably-powerful PCs. Gates is not known for altruism in his business dealings, so what is Apple giving up this time?

That's the second thing which this announcement makes clear: This time, the architecture definitely will run operating systems other than Apple's own. The SDK for XBox 2 has been released, and it targets the G5. It's quite natural that development will also be based on the G5, and right now that means Macs -- but the SDK doesn't use OSX. It runs on Apple hardware, but the OS is WinNT.

NT also ran on the moribund "standard" G3/G4 architecture, but I don't believe it was ever released in a version which would work on a Mac. This time, it DOES run on the Mac.



groovebuster
Mar 5, 2004, 06:41 AM
Part 2:

The thing to watch for in the next few years is reappearance of commodity G5 units, simultaneous with announcement of a version of Windows which runs on Apple's own hardware and on commodity G5's. Whether OSX will also be made available to run on commodity hardware is more difficult to predict, but I think the price Jobs paid this time is that Apple's architecture will become open – at least to Microsoft, if not to anyone else.

There are two pieces needed for that to happen: the BIOS and the chipset. Everything else in Apple's G5 units is available openly, but those two components are Apple proprietary. But if Microsoft has ported NT, then they know everything they need to about both in order to permit someone else to replicate them.

In fact, both must have been replicated in at least limited form already, for the XBox 2 itself. It's exceedingly unlikely that Microsoft is using Apple's chipset in XBox 2; undoubtedly they have their own, created for them by someone else. And there's got to be firmware in the unit which works with that chipset. Though those are at least somewhat specialized for Microsoft's application, it means that the knowledge and ability to implement a full solution is out there in hands other than Apple's.

If both of those happen, and are announced simultaneously with commercial availability of a compatible WinNT version, then commodity G5's become possible -- and this time, Apple won't be able to prevent it. If Microsoft appears to be fully behind such an effort, it has instant credibility; only fools bet against Bill Gates in this industry.

Why did Jobs agree to this deal? For the same reason he agreed to the previous one: he had no choice. Only Bill Gates could save Apple, and Jobs could either pay or die. Last time, only Bill Gates could bless OSX and make it "legitimate"; this time, only Bill Gates could guarantee to IBM that there would be enough G5 volume to make chip pricing low enough for Apple.

The timing of this announcement is also interesting: if WinNT runs now on G5 Macs, then it means Microsoft has been working on the port for at least a year, possibly even longer. Negotiations must have begun far earlier than that. Which means that they knew all about the G5 Macs before they were publicly announced -- and means that they had made their deal to use the G5 in XBox 2 before Apple's G5's were publicly announced. The Microsoft/IBM deal was already inked before Apple began shipping G5's, because if it had not been, IBM would not have lowered the G5 price to the point where Apple's G5-based Macs could be competitive.

So: IBM was happy with this deal, for the obvious reason of increasing the sales volume of the G5. Products as complicated to design as the G5 must have a big market or they cannot be commercially viable, and Apple simply isn't big enough on its own these days. (As Moto clearly concluded.)

Apple probably isn't happy, but had no choice. But why is Microsoft doing this? Part of the reason is that continued existence of the Mac is a defense for Microsoft against antitrust proceedings, but there's more to it than that.

Bill Gates has been worried for more than fifteen years about hitching his wagon too tightly to the X86 architecture, and to Intel. One of the most important design goals for NT from the very beginning was for it to be portable to multiple architectures, and the first releases of NT included installation directories not only for the X86, but also for the PPC and for two other major processors sold at the time, both of which have long since vanished from the scene. NT (in its current incarnation as XP) is still portable, but there's nothing viable for it to be ported to. Gates wants to make sure there's another ship to move to if Intel eventually becomes cranky or if the X86 ship begins to sink.

Intel and Microsoft have always had a love/hate relationship. Intel has been supporting Linux in part because it doesn't want to be so dependent on Windows. Even as they have cooperated and become wealthy together, each has also been trying to make the other unnecessary.

Microsoft's encouragement of AMD is part of that, and that's why Microsoft signed on to support AMD's X-86/64 instruction set, which Intel is now going to support as well (as recently announced). But that's not enough, and Microsoft wants to be ready if the G5 does somehow end up being the X86-killer everyone has been expecting for the last 15 years. (The death of the X86 architecture has been predicted even more regularly than the death of Apple.) IBM is one of the very few companies to actually have the resources to mount a serious challenge to Intel.

Thus, the effect of the three-way IBM/Apple/Microsoft deal: Apple gets to survive and to sell competitively-priced boxes now, but only if they have an open architecture which can run NT.

Which means that in the long run, boxes based on the G5 will either become a commodity and will sell at commodity prices, or will fade away entirely. If they don't become a commodity, Microsoft won't use the G5 (or whatever follows it) in XBox 3. What Gates giveth, Gates can take away. Without Microsoft volume sales of G5's or volume sales to commodity computer manufacturers, IBM will eventually give up just as Moto did.

Apple's business model has always been based on selling its software at a loss, which was subsidized by Apple's premium price on hardware. That game will end now, but not immediately; this gives Apple several years of breathing room to bootstrap other businesses and to diversify. Without this deal, Apple would be dying now, stuck with the G4 and no escape. But even with this deal, it means that eventually Apple won't be able to charge a premium price for its hardware, and Apple's software business has never been viable on its own.

Jobs chose graceful decline of his computer business over sudden death of the company. That's a good choice. It's also his only choice, because Jobs works for his stockholders. But it's not what most Mac fans might have hoped for. Jobs is concerned with Apple's survival, but Apple can and must ultimately survive without the Mac.

Veldek
Mar 5, 2004, 07:16 AM
Nothing new. It's already discussed in several threads. Here, for example:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62907

groovebuster
Mar 5, 2004, 07:58 AM
Sorry then that I don't read all threads 24/7 on Macrumors.... :rolleyes:

Veldek
Mar 5, 2004, 08:12 AM
Shame on you... ;)

Sun Baked
Mar 5, 2004, 08:13 AM
Worst part is if Microsoft hadn't killed Windows NT for PPC, the PowerPC platform would probably been a major platform by now and the PowerPC970 probably would have been a processor series with the depth of product the G4 has right now (ie, been out many years by now and quite close to being phased out).

So MicroSoft saved the PowerPC. :rolleyes:

7on
Mar 5, 2004, 10:00 AM
why does MS need Apples ok to produce NT for Apple computers? I doubt the Linux distros Apple's approval. I don't think, if MS had anything to do with the G5, that they got something concrete like that. They're just keeping the PPC architecture open. Prolly the reason for VPC buy-out too. In case Windows goes PPC, MS would be able to sell Windows with support for legacy programs.

MacsRgr8
Mar 5, 2004, 03:29 PM
Quote: "Bill Gates has been worried for more than fifteen years about hitching his wagon too tightly to the X86 architecture, and to Intel"
Is for me the most interesting part.

IMHO I think Apple would (and should) make their "G5 Macs" NOT NT-bootable. They still have their own hardware designs.
Its more a discussion of M$ being scared of their dependance of the x86 architecture (declining? losing its speed advantages?).
One of M$' lucky advantages they had was that the hardware their OS run son was cheaper and faster.....
Not so (maybe not quite now..) in the near future....? And Mr. Gate$ knows it!

ethernet76
Mar 6, 2004, 06:09 AM
In reality Microsoft probably didn't "save" Apple. So they decided to use the 970 in the xBox2. xBox came out in Q4 2001. Apple started looking for a processor replacement probably in 1999. IBM said themselves it took about 18 months to develop the 970. With a debut of October 2002 this puts it in and around the Apple timeframe, and not the xBox frame at all. For Microsoft to have saved apple, they would have probably had to request the RISC processor back in January, a mear 2 months after the lauch of the xBox, and even at that point they were probably still lusting over the P4. Issues arise with the P4(speed bumps not what anyone had hoped) they start looking for a new processor, they see the IBM 970, which was debuted in October 2002, and start to lust over that.

If anything Microsoft sped up the finalization of the 970 chip. Getting it into production faster.

IBM mostly developed this chip for IBM, as they will be the largest user of the chip. With their chip selection being what it was at the time, it was a perfect opportunity for them to jump into the small server/workstation chip market.

Lastly I'll follow with some persona opinion. NT is not a viable market for the G5. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's going to take over. Let's say microsoft markets NT for the Apple G5. 1) It wouldn't catch. More people buy Apple because of the OS than for the hardware. 2) This would mean that some company would have to make an G5 machine and then bundle it with NT. Unlikely. I doubt you'll find a large company that is willing to do so, which would be needed to even get it off the ground. 3)Every program would have to be recomplied/rewritten for RISC. This is not an easy feat.

I think It'll be funny when the xbox2 emulator comes out for PowerMac G5s.

iGav
Mar 6, 2004, 11:44 AM
I hate this *****....

Jobs chose graceful decline of his computer business over sudden death of the company. That's a good choice. It's also his only choice, because Jobs works for his stockholders. But it's not what most Mac fans might have hoped for. Jobs is concerned with Apple's survival, but Apple can and must ultimately survive without the Mac.

We'll see... ;)

poopyhead
Mar 6, 2004, 12:17 PM
There is a decent chance I'm wrong
but
The vast majority of home computers run windows
based on an x86 platform
the xbox is sold at a loss so as to lure people into
buying high priced game software
software piracy and the running of emulators costs
microsoft money

given the above
wouldn't the switching of the xbox to a non
x86 platform reduce both the use of emulators and
profit loss due to piracy?