Apple to sue Motorola? [Archive]

kylos

Apr 15, 2003, 01:14 PM

A sherlock translation, I'm sure someone can do better:
A quite informed source teaches us that the cloth seems to burn
between APPLE and Motorola.

The drop which will have made overflow the vase comes from the
incapacity of Motorola to provide in quantity of the chips 7457 which
were to equip the top-of-the-range one with G4. The processors 1.42
GHz were to be of the 7457. However in fact 7455B heat much more.
Motorola will be unable to provide of the 7457 in quantity before 2
months.

The response prepares in the offices of the legal service of APPLE.
This week, the direction of APPLE their gave the green light to study
a possible action at law. It would relate to several points:

1) Motorola had a contractual engagement at APPLE not to cease a
strategic production (G4 and... G5) without a one year notice.
However, Motorola had started for a long time to provide to APPLE
prototypes of processors "G5". They ceased in silence it there A 14
month the development of these chips. APPLE was informed only in
January. Motorola their notified that it was not economically
advantageous to launch the manufacture of a chip for only one customer
who would not order sufficient quantities. However, on the side of
apple, work had quite advanced. The mother boards for G5 processor
were already finalized and ready to start production. They would be 50
Million $ which would have thus evaporated for useless search.

2) APPLE also reproaches at Motorola (like us all) for having been
unable since 1999 to make climb the frequencies of the G4 processors
regularly. APPLE evaluates that the incapacity to propose faster
machines their made miss between 250 and 350 M$ by sales. They
evaluate that they will miss between 150 and $200M of sales in the
future bus of many customers passed in the Wintel world.

They are studying on the basis of these objection to continue Motorola
and to ask them between 300 and $500M compensation. They await just
the WWDC and PPC 970 announces before passing to the attack. Indeed,
they do not want to give the impression that G5 does not exist and
that they are at the edge of the pit, which of course is not the case.

dstorey

Apr 15, 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
For now, yeah but I assume that it will get a G4 before too long though. Unless those new IBM G3s are as sweet as people say..

this is pure speculation but when/if Apple moves to 970, if the entire range doesn't change (benifit being every app can be written for 64 bit and wont need to versions of the OS etc) then I expect the pro range and possibly (hopefully) the iMac to go 970 and the low end educatuion/budget machines to go or stay IBM G3 but with added alvitec. Isn't the G4 only really the G3 + Alvitec anyway? And IBM have already licenced it for the 970 anyway and I could be wrong but I think i read somewhere that IMB co developed Alvitec with Moto....but i could be wrong....

Escher

Apr 15, 2003, 01:15 PM

The article just below the one regarding the lawsuit against Motorola claims that, according to a source, Hon Hai Precision, aka FOXCONN, has won an order from Apple to manufacture PPC 970 PowerMacs. According to that same source, Hon Hai has started receiving parts to be assembled, with the chips coming from IBM. Finally, the article claims that the PPC 970 will be mounted on ZIF supports, that is not directly on the motherboard. If true, ZIF PPC 970s means that future processor upgrades should be easy.

Escher

Mudbug

Apr 15, 2003, 01:21 PM

Maybe they could sue them for about.... um.... 6 billion dollars. :D
Yep. That should just about cover that music deal... ;)

Hemingray

Apr 15, 2003, 01:22 PM

Wow, I so hope this is true. I'm not claiming to know all the ins and outs of it all, but it's pretty clear to me that Motorola has simply not given a damn about Apple since after the G4. It's definitely been holding Apple's hardware advancement back. Go Apple! :D

BigJayhawk

Apr 15, 2003, 01:33 PM

The Old System Sound?

SOSUMI

The next New System Sound?

SOSUMOTO!

AhmedFaisal

Apr 15, 2003, 01:35 PM

Considering the fact that the Moto "G5" is basically dead and Moto ****ed over Apple big time with that (besides the lameass G4s) one of the goals of the suit probably will be to get them to give the "G5" label to Apple so they can use it for the PPC970. Looking at the specs of the upcoming G3 Gobi with up to 2GHz from IBM I think it would be a wise idea from Apple to give up on the G4 totally and switch entirely to IBM. Maybe they can even get Big Blue to add Altivec to the G3 like they did to the PPC970 thus calling it G3+ or something like that.
Just my 2 cents.

Ahmed

Sonofhaig

Apr 15, 2003, 01:38 PM

Motorola has been stagnant in this area of technology.
Consider the loss is sales (to Apple) because of it.
I think the Motorola relationship is through....

Good for Apple. We need to look at new technology
and the companies that can supply it!

wsteineker

Apr 15, 2003, 01:39 PM

Rock! Now this has been a long time coming. If the article is correct about Moto being required to give one year's lead time before stopping development on the G5, then this is a definite breach of contract with liability ramifications into the billions. Lost R&D, lost sales (tougher to prove), and potential fraud (with misleading information about the G5 and its production) could equal more than big money for Apple. It could finally be one last screw you to the incompetent and lethargic asshats over at Motorola. :)

That said, is it really a good idea to piss them off so thoroughly? I mean, what if Apple needs a second supplier of chips again? Motorola didn't always suck, as I'm sure IBM won't to begin with. It is possible that IBM may not be able to meet demand for the rest of Apple's corporate life, and Motorola might be a valuable ally in that case. Just a thought... :(

Le Big Mac

Apr 15, 2003, 01:39 PM

If that translation is even vaguely right, Apple is at most sabre-rattling right now. Apple's lawyers are looking at the facts and the relevant contracts to see how strong a lawsuit would be. Then they'll write a letter (or make a call) to Moto to say, "you know, your failures really deserve a lawsuit." Then moto will start to try to work out some deal, and apple will too. And then a year from now, Apple will get fed up and file a suit, maybe.

As others pointed out, it's a pretty bad idea to sue your only supplier. The threat of a suit will "encourage" moto to step up development. And, if they don't, realize that apple will own them after winning a breach of contract suit.

***T-MC®***

Apr 15, 2003, 01:39 PM

Yeah its about time Apple severe its ties with a company that REALLY holding them back processor-wise!:D

pgwalsh

Apr 15, 2003, 01:40 PM

I don't like to see anyone get sued unless it's Micro$oft. However, I think the lack of a fast processor has seriously hurt Apple.

I've delayed my purchase of a PowerMac for over a year and a half and I don't know when I'll purchase one. The processor is a major reason. $perfromance

GPTurismo

Apr 15, 2003, 01:42 PM

Maybe they will try to weasel all the patents for the G3s, G4s and G5s out of them so they choose vendors of their own O:-)

wsteineker

Apr 15, 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Maybe they will try to weasel all the patents for the G3s, G4s and G5s out of them so they choose vendors of their own O:-)

Ooooh, now there's a good idea. :)

P.S.-Hey GPTurismo, where in Montgomery do you live? I just moved back to town while I'm taking some time off from school.

Foxer

Apr 15, 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
It would be interesting to see what they do. Being still dependant on the G4 for the iMacs and PowerBooks after the 970 is released, I don' t know it would be such a good idea to piss Moto off.

Unless Apple has plans to move everything over to the 970 by next year - that would be nuts!

D

As one of the discussion group's lawyers, I'll just make this one observation. While logical, the fear that Apple would risk its supply of G4 (or G3) Motorola chips by filing suit against Moto is not a factor. I assume there is a contract btw the two for delivery of so-many chips on such and such a schedule. Even if there is a legal action over another issue (G5 chips), both sides are obliged to fulfill the terms of thier other contracts. So Apple can't just stop buying G4's because Moto can't deliver a G5, and Moto can't stop shipping even if they're sued. There is probably some sort of notice requirement, which Apple most likely plans on invoking anyway when the 970 pipeline is established.

Anyway, demand for G4 chips will dwindle to almost nothing (except in notebooks?) about 1 minute after the 970 announcement is made, and Apple knows that as well as everyone.

cryptochrome

Apr 15, 2003, 01:48 PM

They could switch everything over to 970s. The problem is the Powerbooks, which use G4s. Last I heard there were no 970s suitable for use in portables. Maybe they could stockpile G4s. iBooks are of course fine, the g3 is quite mature and I hear they've been sitting on much faster versions.

mcrain

Apr 15, 2003, 01:49 PM

I can't tell you how many clients I've had to advise regarding cost analysis of lawsuits.

When a large company sues another large company, the costs are enormous. Even if they win, they lose. Lawsuits are extrememly expensive, time consuming, bad publicity, etc...

If apple goes forward with this, I would anticipate few, if any good results.

G4scott

Apr 15, 2003, 01:50 PM

This means I'm gonna have to change my screen name for sure. It will only bring up feelings of hate and sorrow in the future...

How about IBM4Scott, or IBM4Mac4Scott...

At least I never had the name G5scott...

This sounds like fun. Lets all sue moto...

Chisholm

Apr 15, 2003, 01:50 PM

Who needs Universal Music for a cash cow when you can just sue your way out of this "slump in the technology market?" There's a little town here in Alabama that's very popular for huge lawsuits. Apple could rake in TRILLIONS!

cheers!

wsteineker

Apr 15, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Chisholm
Who needs Universal Music for a cash cow when you can just sue your way out of this "slump in the technology market?" There's a little town here in Alabama that's very popular for huge lawsuits. Apple could rake in TRILLIONS!

cheers!

You must be talking about that hole down in Barbour county where Jerry Beasley wins all of his multi million dollar lawsuits. Damn, I have GOT to get me a cash cow like that.

acj

Apr 15, 2003, 01:59 PM

Such Motorola disloyalty. Nearly everyone on this site bashes Moto, the company that was god when the G4 first came out.

Ambrose Chapel

Apr 15, 2003, 02:00 PM

Does anyone know if the AIM PowerPC alliance is still together in any official/formal sense? Or is it like the relationship between microsoft and Apple now?

cossmo

Apr 15, 2003, 02:08 PM

I'm wondering if this is Motos revenge for Jobs killing the clones and costing them millions. Now it's their turn.

Glad to see them leave I say. IBM is much more capable and if we should move to Intel, then so be it. It doesn't make a difference what the processor is inside, as long as Apple's R&D keeps putting out these great products and stays ahead of the game.

Brandon Sharitt

Apr 15, 2003, 02:09 PM

New sound sosuthem

If IBM could get their Altivec compatible technology in their G3s and release the 970, Apple could afford to dump Motorola. According to some the 1Ghz IBM G3 outperfomsa 1GHz Motorala G4 in non-Altivec situations.

redAPPLE

Apr 15, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by dstorey
can only be a good thing, provided they don't get their fingers burned my moto in the mean time...maybe the money will pay for the purchase of universal music ;)

i have always seen SJ as a cunning business man :p

zigi

Apr 15, 2003, 02:17 PM

Found IBM's 1Q -2003 results posted somwhere ? seem promising at lease more than Moto's.

http://www.ibm.com/investor/1q03/1q03earnings.phtml

found it on BBC technology pages

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2948145.stm

mahakali

Apr 15, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by acj
Such Motorola disloyalty. Nearly everyone on this site bashes Moto, the company that was god when the G4 first came out.

I'm loyal only to those respect my loyalty. Moto has abandoned us for years. That's why many of us are angry at them. Hope you understand.

davy the bunny

Apr 15, 2003, 02:45 PM

I hope there aren't too many flames from this, but I sure do hope that we actually do get the 970 and this whole thing doesn't just blow up in all of our faces. . .

JesseJames

Apr 15, 2003, 02:45 PM

I think Steve should just put the CEO of Motorola in a headlock and punch him in the face. That should do it.

Jaykay

Apr 15, 2003, 02:48 PM

Yeh, apple can sue them for bucket fulls of money and give it to Jonathon Ives and the R&D team (where most of their money goes anyways), yeh.:D

bousozoku

Apr 15, 2003, 02:53 PM

Unfortunately, the whole situation with the G5 is similar to what happened with Motorola and the 68060. It took too long and no one was interested by the time it was ready. They tried to sway Apple toward the 88000 as well, a chip family powering Data General workstations. It was only IBM's influence the last time that helped Apple out of the Motorola jam.

Hopefully, Motorola will get what's coming to them.

alset

Apr 15, 2003, 02:55 PM

Gus

Apr 15, 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by acj
Such Motorola disloyalty. Nearly everyone on this site bashes Moto, the company that was god when the G4 first came out.

Perhaps then, you have forgotten that the G4 was only ever REALLY great when Moto and Apple first announced it. Remember? "PowerMacs with speeds of 400, 450, and 500 Mhz G4's", then "whoops, we meant 350, 400, and 450, yeah, that's the ticket". And then, much later, well, we are still at 500, but we're putting TWO of them in there now.

Moto has been a lead weight since the arrival of the G4.

BTW, as far as I can remember, the AIM alliance is still together, which is why Apple is still buying chips from IBM AND Moto and neither is raising a fuss...yet. :-)

Regards,
Gus

Hawthorne

Apr 15, 2003, 03:29 PM

LET'S PILE ON WITH A CLASS ACTION SUIT! :)

"Your honor, the cliens I represent have for years needlessly suffer the cruel taunts and justs of their PC using friends as a result of the heinous actions of Motorola. I demand a recourse! I demand they be compensated for their agony, for their shame! For their humiliation!"

requies

Apr 15, 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by acj
Such Motorola disloyalty. Nearly everyone on this site bashes Moto, the company that was god when the G4 first came out.

god? not quite. i was waiting for a G4 back in the day and it was slower than expected, did less per cycle than expected, and was already difficult for moto to manufacture. remember the speed dump? i do.

sphereboy

Apr 15, 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I don't like to see anyone get sued unless it's Micro$oft.

Kids... :rolleyes:

Grokgod

Apr 15, 2003, 03:33 PM

SUE SUE SUE!!!

Kick their asses!

Tell their Moms!

Take away the keys to the Porshe!

No desert for MOTO!

Moto is Grounded!

All priveleges are revoked!

Sun Baked

Apr 15, 2003, 03:33 PM

So Motorola may have killed the 7457-RM...

Tim Flynn

Apr 15, 2003, 03:43 PM

Foxer has it right. If Apple sues Motorola this will not stop the supply of G4s to Apple. But because there is an agreement in place (I assume). this could work against Apple. they may need to continue purchasing G4, even when they don't need them. But ... If Apple start a suit against Motorola after 970 systems ship. Apple may be able to get themselves out of the G4 (or any other) agreements. This looks like a good move for Apple:D
The move to 970 will be good for us:D

Lets not get too pi$$ed at Motorola, without them we'd all be running Pentiums perhaps :p

eric_n_dfw

Apr 15, 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
So Motorola may have killed the 7457-RM... Was that the fabled DDR FSB capable G4?

MrMacMan

Apr 15, 2003, 03:44 PM

I say sue if they had a contract and Moto failed to make the chip then sue for breah of contract, if they didn't have anything written it is a totally utter waste of time.

Look at Apple Vs. Microsoft.

Apple was kind and gave them the source and M$ ripped it off.

deepkid

Apr 15, 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by JesseJames
I think Steve should just put the CEO of Motorola in a headlock and punch him in the face. That should do it.

I'm still laughing at this one.

deepkid

Apr 15, 2003, 04:02 PM

Speaking of Motorola, they are busy acquiring Winphoria.

"Motorola Inc. on Tuesday announced plans to buy Winphoria Networks Inc., a company that makes packet-based switching centers for wireless networks.

Motorola plans to integrate Winphoria into its Global Telecom Solutions Sector (GTSS) business unit, according to Motorola officials in Schaumburg, Ill. They did not disclose financial terms of the deal except to say that it will be in cash, and will close in the second quarter as long as there are no regulatory problems. "

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1025337,00.asp (http://)

The last time I looked, Motorola was bleeding red ink, profusely. An acquisition? With what?

Vlade

Apr 15, 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by dstorey
Isn't the G4 only really the G3 + Alvitec anyway?

NO No No NO nO!!!

Sun Baked

Apr 15, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Was that the fabled DDR FSB capable G4? The one with a Rapid I/O bus and an Integrated DDR memory controller.

Don't know what fallback FSB it would have been able to use, for those not using RIO.

The 7457 a year ago was looked at as the G5, but the new bus and integrated memory controller of the 7457-RM would definitely been worthy of the G5 name.

Vlade

Apr 15, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Lets not get too pi$$ed at Motorola, without them we'd all be running Pentiums perhaps :p

I think that would be better, than we would be always equal to PCs (probably)

But IBM is probably the best choice out of the 4 CPU makers, I cant wait to own the fastest type of comp again (just like the first G4s)

Sun Baked

Apr 15, 2003, 04:08 PM

And the Motorola Proposed chip that was on the page...

Swordsman

Apr 15, 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Gus
Perhaps then, you have forgotten that the G4 was only ever REALLY great when Moto and Apple first announced it. Remember? "PowerMacs with speeds of 400, 450, and 500 Mhz G4's", then "whoops, we meant 350, 400, and 450, yeah, that's the ticket". And then, much later, well, we are still at 500, but we're putting TWO of them in there now.

Moto has been a lead weight since the arrival of the G4.

Perhaps in a few years, we'll all be saying the same thing about IBM and its slower-than-molasses 970 chips... We should all keep this in mind: It is always great and wonderful in the beginning, but it will never lasts and almost always ends horribly.

KingJobs

Apr 15, 2003, 04:25 PM

If Apple does sue Motorola then Apple and wins the case another thing Apple could try to do is afterward buy Motorola Semiconductors(just PowerPC Chips) and develop the G3, G4, G5, etc. on their own (and with IBM).

avkills

Apr 15, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Vlade
NO No No NO nO!!!

Actually, the G4 was just a G3 with Altivec when they initially shipped them. Altivec is about all that makes them different except the IBM G3s overall seem to be better.

A Sahara G3 with altivec would most likely wipe the current Moto G4.

-mark

Ge4-ce

Apr 15, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Vlade
I think that would be better, than we would be always equal to PCs (probably)

But IBM is probably the best choice out of the 4 CPU makers, I cant wait to own the fastest type of comp again (just like the first G4s)

I would not expect too much about the new speeds.. I hope that they will be a lot faster, but the perfermance leap will only be very noticable when applications are 64 bit modified. That's one point, second: The first 970's will probably max out at 2.1, maybe 2.3 Ghz, so I hope they are fast enough. If Apple announces Dual 970's right away, then there could be a speedadvantage. If they would announce Quad-processors! that would be awsome!!! (rumors are going that 10.3 would support core-quadprocessing!)

But as many others, I wait until Apple really kicks in the speedrecords!.. As a 3D animater, I could easilly buy 3 PC's at the price of One High-end Mac. Then I would have 3 to 4 times the speed I get today from Apple. But not the conveniance and the other advantages like stability etc.. so I won't do that. But still.. It makes me angry.. It's a lot of money.. I must be A diehard Apple Fan

Steamboatwillie

Apr 15, 2003, 04:44 PM

Motorola makes great beepers. Most likely the best. Uh, does anyone use beepers anymore? Hmm... Oh yeah, they make phones (hello moto... <annoying>) but one thing they don't do is... hang on a sec, my cell phone is ringing (non-Motorola)

"Hello, oh hi there Genie. What's that? Ahh I see. Ok, I'll let 'em know"

The Genie has just informed me that he has it on great authority that Apple will not use Motorola phones or beepers as a substitute for the G4 even if they are sued.

Rest easy and make sure you pick up a european business adapter if your flying over seas.

;)

AidenShaw

Apr 15, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Ge4-ce
...but the perfermance leap will only be very noticable when applications are 64 bit modified.

This will only be true for applications that are doing funny things with workfiles because their data is too large for memory - imagine Photoshop without workfiles - just GB and GB upon GB of virtual memory.

Of course, you'll probably need GB and GB upon GB of real RAM to see the speedup!

64-bits lets you deal with huge amounts of virtual memory, but by-and-large it seldom is any faster at it. Data is still the same size (except for pointers). To process faster, you need a faster ALU or FP unit, not larger pointers. (The PPC970 is rumoured to have fast arithmetic - but this is separate from the fact that it has 64-bit virtual addresses.)

In some applications, 64-bits is slower because the pointers are larger. Processing the pointers uses more memory bandwidth, and they take up twice as much cache memory

Don't spread the "64-bit myth"...

Chisholm

Apr 15, 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Grokgod
SUE SUE SUE!!!

Kick their asses!

Tell their Moms!

Take away the keys to the Porshe!

No desert for MOTO!

Moto is Grounded!

All priveleges are revoked!

Can I have their desert since they aren't going to eat it?

eric_n_dfw

Apr 15, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by avkills
Actually, the G4 was just a G3 with Altivec when they initially shipped them. Altivec is about all that makes them different except the IBM G3s overall seem to be better.

A Sahara G3 with altivec would most likely wipe the current Moto G4.

-mark Actually, wasn't the 750 (G3) based on the 603 core while the 7400 (G4) was based on the 604 core?

I agree, however, if IBM could bolt an AltiVec compatiple SIMD unit onto their G3's - it would probably make the current G4's look silly.

Raiwong

Apr 15, 2003, 04:54 PM

I remember how much we loved motorola when they made the G4 now we step down on them noting that the technology is quite old now its like a pretty girl getting old slowly you forget how good she was when she was young.

Remember that motorala makes phones primarily and that the slumping apple sales would mean that if they did develope the G5 nobody great would purchase enough for good revenue. In a situation like this its only logical for motorola to abbandon the G5. do you really think that a G5 would effectively motivate buyers no not in a warmonger country where average consumers cannot afford the expensive hardware. Many people are happy with the comp they bought a few years back.

I suggest apple forget about G4 and jump back to the G3 which now IMB claims can reach 2ghz if anybody is interested in notebooks and they already have 1ghz ibook chips ready and push the consumer portable as cheap as they can as this market looks for cheap stuff.

just think of a slow porsche then maybe you think of apple

KevinHoctor

Apr 15, 2003, 04:55 PM

Remember in all this discussion that not only does IBM produce the 970 for Apple, but it will use it in its own blade servers!

It has much more incentive than Motorola to make these chips faster and faster. Apple is not IBM's only client.

Also, the 64-bit stuff is not the coolest part of this new chip, but its enhanced speed to talk to other parts of the computer with a faster front-side bus and other enhancements.

This will be a very fast chip even at 2.1 GHz.!!! I can't wait for June!

Cheers!

eric_n_dfw

Apr 15, 2003, 04:59 PM

The site has serious cobwebs on it, but MacKiDo still has some good spec's on the G3 and G4's from when they were fairly new:

Check out:
http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/

(Scroll to bottom for PPC stuff)

jimjiminyjim

Apr 15, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Grokgod
SUE SUE SUE!!!

Kick their asses!

Tell their Moms!

Take away the keys to the Porshe!

No desert for MOTO!

Moto is Grounded!

All priveleges are revoked!

While I agree that Motorola has not performed as they should. It is very unfortunate that they should have to sue.

In my mind working out some other sort of compensation would be much better.

As someone here mentioned: Even if they win, they lose.

Apple should not sue for the sole reason that sueing promotes sueing. And if Apple sues Motorola, that encourages us to sue our aunts.

I don't like it.

Apple: I know it's business, but you're innovative. Figure a better way out.

G4scott

Apr 15, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman
Perhaps in a few years, we'll all be saying the same thing about IBM and its slower-than-molasses 970 chips... We should all keep this in mind: It is always great and wonderful in the beginning, but it will never lasts and almost always ends horribly.

Hey, we're not compliaining about the G3, are we?

We never really complained about the 603 and 604's. (or at least there was no complaining I was aware of.)

The problem was that while the pentium world was increasing clock speeds by the hundreds of megahertz, motorola was still going 50-66mhz at a time... Only recently did we have over a 100mhz clock speed upgrade.

The 970's will scream now, and for quite some time. With rumors circulating about a 2.5ghz version, I think we should all be happy. a 700mhz jump in clock speed is nothing to mess with, especially on the first update to a processor...

I'll admit it. I am ashamed of my user name... I just need something new and snappy to replace it...

amps211

Apr 15, 2003, 05:52 PM

Two things...rants, for you too ponder:

1. Apple had to know a long time ago that the G5 wasn't going to see the light of day. Man? I've been reading G5 rumours for 3 or 4 years now. If they can say with a straight face that they only found out 4 months ago that no G5 would ever surface Steve and the Mac boys must have some serious communication problems within the ompany. The 970 alternative has been thrown around for at least a year. Moto must be really good at stringing people along or Steve jobs and Co. are incredibly naive.

2. If the 970 does indeed shows it's face this June There better have the damn option of getting a multi buttoned pro mouse. I've been waiting for a long time to upgrade and when I flop my $5500 CDN down for a new mac the last thing I want to do is dish out another $45 for a multibuttoned mouse. Get over it steve! The one button mouse is dead. If you want to create a professional workstation then give us a damn 3 buttoned mouse.

zigi

Apr 15, 2003, 06:01 PM

Motorola have not been any use to Apple for many years now. The last major architecture advance was with the G3, and then later only with AltiVec. The G4 is only a modification of the G3 with added vec units and a couple of other changes.

The prospect of a new partnership with a manufacturer who is really pushing the envelope in the direction of the PPC architecture is very exciting. The best thing about this partnership is the fact that IBM is increasingly using the PPC arch. in it's server solutions. This will give Apple, and us an exponential increase in the development and improvement of the processors which we have not seen from Moto for years.

IBM will be pushing R&D very hard to give them the edge with the PPC arch, and move some of their Intel powered boxes over to the Power4/5 or 970's. I know they will not remove Intel completely it's obvious, but they will try to give their PPC systems the edge. They are out there to prove themselves, after all it is business.:)

NavyIntel007

Apr 15, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by KingJobs
If Apple does sue Motorola then Apple and wins the case another thing Apple could try to do is afterward buy Motorola Semiconductors(just PowerPC Chips) and develop the G3, G4, G5, etc. on their own (and with IBM).

Motorola Semiconductors is a big part of their company. Without it what would they have? Cell phones? I hear they don't even make those, they outsource and print their name on it. Although that would be money better spent than on UMG.

yumpin yiminy

Apr 15, 2003, 06:13 PM

haven't read any of the posts. so, sorry if this has already been mentioned:
how many times over the course of 7 years can two companies gets P.O.'d at one another when it comes to products?
I'm guessing it all started when motorola lost a billion on their mac clones...

NavyIntel007

Apr 15, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Raiwong
I remember how much we loved motorola when they made the G4 now we step down on them noting that the technology is quite old now its like a pretty girl getting old slowly you forget how good she was when she was young.

No man, it's like girls at the University of Miami. You saw her freshman year and she was thin. But two or three years later after many drunken stupors at the tavern and she's gained 25 lbs and yet is still wearing the same size clothes she was Freshmen Year. Now THAT is the story of the G4. :D

shadowfax

Apr 15, 2003, 06:24 PM

man, i saw this news article a few hours ago and thought, "score!"

i hope apple can recoup some of the losses motorola has caused them. that'll be a really interesting suit to follow if it ever turns into anything.

BTW navy intel, love the new 'tar.

NavyIntel007

Apr 15, 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
BTW navy intel, love the new 'tar.

Thanks, you're the first to notice. :D :cool:

rundevilrun

Apr 15, 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Motorola Semiconductors is a big part of their company. Without it what would they have? Cell phones? I hear they don't even make those, they outsource and print their name on it. Although that would be money better spent than on UMG.

Actually they did get rid of a big chunk of their semiconductors, mostly the analog/op amps stuff and the logic chips. That was spun off to OnSemi. Most of motorola's current semiconductors seem to be for cell phone stuff.

neutrino23

Apr 15, 2003, 07:20 PM

I don't know about the merits of the case but certainly this has to be one of the best "feel good" actions I've heard of in a while.

Raiwong

Apr 15, 2003, 07:20 PM

in addition to that all the proccesors that they focus at r gadget proccesors like palm dragonball and motorola chips which is much different to computer proccesors.

deepkid

Apr 15, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman
It is always great and wonderful in the beginning, but it will never lasts and almost always ends horribly.

Are we discussing chips or marraiges?

synergy

Apr 15, 2003, 09:16 PM

In the Apple vs Microsoft lawsuit Apple came away with a decent settlement. Microsoft went along because in the long run it would have hurt them.

For Apple vs Motorola there are some interesting things Apple could get out of a settlement. Motorola does make cell phones. Maybe Apple will give Motorola the design and tell them to make an Apple branded phone?

Maybe Apple just wants cash for acquisitions.
Maybe Motorola has something else Apple wants.

I think they should sue and sue them good. Market share loss arguments and more will be brought up.

Motorola can't stop giving Apple CPUs under existing contract in retaliation for the law suit. Nvidia sued Microsoft over the supply of video boards for the Xbox but did not stop delivering. That is because in those contracts usually is written treble damage clause for failure to deliver what you can deliver. Not only that but probably penalty clauses requiring payment for production line downtime and more.

ktlx

Apr 15, 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by synergy
I think they should sue and sue them good. Market share loss arguments and more will be brought up.

Motorola can't stop giving Apple CPUs under existing contract in retaliation for the law suit.

You know, I don't think the reason Apple would wait until after the 970s arrive is being afraid of Motorola's retaliation.

The reason why I think Apple has to wait is that if they do it now, basically they have to say in public and on the record that their machines are not competitive and it is Motorola's fault. Steve Jobs cannot go into court and say "PowerMac G4s suck and it is because Motorola killed the G5" if he doesn't have anything better to sell.

Basically he would be telling potential customers his stuff is overpriced and underpowered. That is why Apple has to wait until the 970 arrives. They need non-Motorola processors in their top of the line stuff to not look like dorks.

JtheLemur

Apr 15, 2003, 09:37 PM

As someone that works in the networking, mobile/wireless, and computing industries, I think this is great. Even just the threat of it. Motorola is one of the worst, least innovative, last-to-bat comapnies in the entire industry. Their processors are totally lackluster, zero developments on the processor front (embedded or not), and their mobile technology (including phones) are the biggest pieces of junk. Not to mention that all their stuff is cobbled together from preexisting technology. Like Dell - they think they're a computer COMPANY, but they're really more of a big RESELLER/REBRANDER. :D

Phil Of Mac

Apr 15, 2003, 09:47 PM

The AIM alliance is, in fact, dead. It died several years ago with Motorola decided to go after AltiVec and IBM decided to go after copper processors.

bousozoku

Apr 15, 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Grokgod
SUE SUE SUE!!!

Kick their asses!

Tell their Moms!

Take away the keys to the Porshe!

No desert for MOTO!

Moto is Grounded!

All priveleges are revoked!

Hey, "I'm shocked by your ignorance" person, ever think about learning to spell? :D I'm shocked by your spelling.

Mr. MacPhisto

Apr 15, 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman
Perhaps in a few years, we'll all be saying the same thing about IBM and its slower-than-molasses 970 chips... We should all keep this in mind: It is always great and wonderful in the beginning, but it will never lasts and almost always ends horribly.

While not out of the realm of possibility, this is doubtful. IBM is one of the world's largest corporations and also one of the most innovative. Big Blue will continue to develop their POWER processors - and it really doesn't take them much to scale them down and bring them to desktops.

The 970 may already be replaced as early as next year, with a Power5 derivative possibly available by Q3 2004 (August-September). A next-gen Power chip may be released by 2005 - meaning a derivative could be out within a year. I like Apple's chances with IBM - and I've thought for years that IBM was the best processor manufacturer in the world- and they've got tons more patented tech to match.

twelve

Apr 16, 2003, 12:32 AM

motorola made apple weak so apple sues motorola for damages and makes them weak. seems fair to me.

Snowy_River

Apr 16, 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Kyle?
...
1) Motorola had a contractual engagement at APPLE not to cease a
strategic production (G4 and... G5) without a one year notice.
However, Motorola had started for a long time to provide to APPLE
prototypes of processors "G5"....

I wonder if this counts as evidence to those who claim that there never was a G5, there never were any prototype G5 Macs, and that Motorola didn't stop developing a chip that was destined to go into our beloved Macs... After all, this doesn't seem to be rehashing the rumor from The Register...

:p

AidenShaw

Apr 16, 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I wonder if this counts as evidence to those who claim that there never was a G5...
It'll be "evidence" when Apple introduces it in court! ;)

In some ways, I question the possible grounds for this suit.

I can't really believe that Motorola would enter into a contract with specific production dates, performance goals, etc. The silicon business is full of uncertainty about dates, performance, and the other "facts" in this story.

Would Motorola sign a contract promising things when it knew that it might not be able to meet them? I would expect the contract to be full of "unforeseen circumstances" and similar clauses that would make it difficult for Apple's lawyers.

As far as "ceasing production", I would also expect the contract to define "production" as "announced, in the price book, and shipping" or something similar. Giving Apple a few prototype chips for testing (if that actually happened) would not count - otherwise Moto would be foolish to give Apple samples before it entered full production.

My guess (no proof, just speculation) is that the Register's infamous "G5" story was based on a hand-built Apple prototype that used a POWER4 chip. The performance numbers quoted by the Register are close enough to POWER4, and Apple could easily have adapted an IBM mobo to use as testing vehicle for portable (or even 64-bit) OS X - or just used it as a "message" to Motorola. It could even have been a proof-of-concept for a PPC970 system.

There are so many rumours about OS X running on Intel, running on Alphas, etc that it doesn't seem too far out for Apple to have tested it on small IBM POWER4 systems....

pseudobrit

Apr 16, 2003, 10:55 AM

If Apple does sue Moto (big if), Moto can't and won't "retaliate" by cutting off G4 supplies. It's business, not politics!

1) It's money in the bank. No company with financial troubles like Moto is going to be able to look their shareholders in the eye and tell them they passed on a paycheck over a pissing contest with a client.

2) They have a contract already and Moto would risk further lawsuits.

3) It would hurt Moto's other business, sending a message ("if we screw you and you sue us, we'll try to screw you even more by cutting off your supplies" -- companies will start looking for a new partner ASAP rather than end up in Apple's position)

4) Apple would wait to announce a lawsuit until the 970 is ready to go for the sole reason of public confidence in Apple. Someone pointed this out above.

BTW, Navy, I love that UoM analogy! I'm gonna have to remember that one.

2COOL4SCHOOL

Apr 16, 2003, 11:00 AM

Moto probably gave Apple notice, I think they wanted out for a while. Apple has to make their own "Switch". I would be supprised to see any law suit.

Snowy_River

Apr 16, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by AidenShaw

In some ways, I question the possible grounds for this suit.

I can't really believe that Motorola would enter into a contract with specific production dates, performance goals, etc. The silicon business is full of uncertainty about dates, performance, and the other "facts" in this story....

This rumor doesn't claim that there were specific production dates. It claims that the contract stated that Moto had to give one year notice before stopping development on the G5, and that they didn't do that. That, instead, they kept providing prototypes, and then, one day, said 'we've decided that this business isn't lucrative enough, so we're terminating the project', or words to that effect...

gopher

Apr 16, 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by amps211
Two things...rants, for you too ponder:

1. Apple had to know a long time ago that the G5 wasn't going to see the light of day. Man? I've been reading G5 rumours for 3 or 4 years now. If they can say with a straight face that they only found out 4 months ago that no G5 would ever surface Steve and the Mac boys must have some serious communication problems within the ompany. The 970 alternative has been thrown around for at least a year. Moto must be really good at stringing people along or Steve jobs and Co. are incredibly naive.

2. If the 970 does indeed shows it's face this June There better have the damn option of getting a multi buttoned pro mouse. I've been waiting for a long time to upgrade and when I flop my $5500 CDN down for a new mac the last thing I want to do is dish out another $45 for a multibuttoned mouse. Get over it steve! The one button mouse is dead. If you want to create a professional workstation then give us a damn 3 buttoned mouse.
Egad, you can pick any $10 two-button mouse at Staples or Office Depot that uses USB. It works great in Mac OS X. BOTH buttons. Apple only sells machines with one button mice
because it simpler to find every command in the menubar and use drag and drop than having to remember which things deserve a control (or right) click. Jeff Raskin made it a one mouse deal with the invention of the first Mac. Much simpler.

Don't forget the first PC with mice were officially designated mouses by IBM.

AidenShaw

Apr 16, 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
This rumor doesn't claim that there were specific production dates. It claims that the contract stated that Moto had to give one year notice before stopping development on the G5, and that they didn't do that.

As you've written this, it says that Moto was not under contract to produce the G5 - they could say "we're stopping development in a year", futz around for 365 days - yet never produce a G5 for sale.

And back to my point about semiconductor companies and risk - why would Moto contract to produce the G5 at all?

As a case illustrating the risks, think about the PowerPC 620....

Google for ("powerpc 620" failure) and you'll find things like:

http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-217.html

Further in the future are the PowerPC 604 and 620, which will each be a significant step up in performance potential from its predecessor. Raw processing power is likely to be multiplied by three to five in each of these steps, so a Power Macintosh of 1995 or 1996, based on a PowerPC 620, will be quite the screamer.

"Quite the screamer", it was. ;}

type_r503

Apr 16, 2003, 03:00 PM

Although I still think it is a good idea, Apple will never see anything from it. As released today MOT will be laying off 3000 more people. MOT sadly is on its last breath.

"People will never buy digital cell phones"

Raiwong

Apr 16, 2003, 03:23 PM

ironic isn't it motorola invented mobile phones and palm proccesors nearly the key to all small gadgets nowadays now they are dying, like apple guess the inventors never get credit.

shadowfax

Apr 16, 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Raiwong
ironic isn't it motorola invented mobile phones and palm proccesors nearly the key to all small gadgets nowadays now they are dying, like apple guess the inventors never get credit.
in the business world, you get paid for what you do, not what you've done. i despise companies like bose that make crap and price it high (or good stuff and price it exhorbitantly) just because they have a reputation, and equally bad are companies that expect to succeed because of what they have done in the past. one innovation puts you in the history books, maybe. it's continued innovation that makes you truly soccessful.

Raiwong

Apr 16, 2003, 05:53 PM

shadow your rena tanaka avator is really nice!!! shes so cute!!! where did u get that image from?

Raiwong

Apr 16, 2003, 05:54 PM

oh btw i'm sure microsoft has continued innovation *winks

macdong

Apr 16, 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Chisholm
Can I have their desert since they aren't going to eat it?

"You want their desert? I want their dinner!!!" says Steve.

ktlx

Apr 16, 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Raiwong
ironic isn't it motorola invented mobile phones and palm proccesors nearly the key to all small gadgets nowadays now they are dying, like apple guess the inventors never get credit.

Motorola did not invent mobile phones. But Motorola has probably done more than anyone (except possibly Nokia) to make them useful. The original cellular technology came out of AT&T Bell Labs but AT&T did not have the foresight to develop it.

ktlx

Apr 16, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Chisholm
Can I have their desert since they aren't going to eat it?

You can eat all the "desert" you want if you have the stomach for it.

As for me, I am off to eat my dessert. Yummy raspberries...

IVIIVI4ck3y27

Apr 16, 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
Does anyone know if the AIM PowerPC alliance is still together in any official/formal sense? Or is it like the relationship between microsoft and Apple now?

Been dead since Motorola bought the Somerset processor plant.

MisterMe

Apr 16, 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by ktlx
Motorola did not invent mobile phones. But Motorola has probably done more than anyone (except possibly Nokia) to make them useful. The original cellular technology came out of AT&T Bell Labs but AT&T did not have the foresight to develop it. Didn't have the foresight to develop it? You may have forgotten that there was a little thing called the "break-up of AT&T." Oh, yes, it was in all the papers. Cell phones hit it big soon thereafter. Where I lived at the time, our local Baby Bell was the largest cell phone provider. Its advertisements touted its use of "Bell Laboratories technology." IIRC, AT&T was prevented from entering the cell phone market under the break-up decree. Eventually, AT&T was allowed to enter the cell phone market. It is still in the market and seems to be doing reasonably well.

IVIIVI4ck3y27

Apr 16, 2003, 11:15 PM

As far as IBM "licensing" AltiVec for the PPC 970. Not true. IBM uses a vector processor noted as "SIMD" for their PPC 970. It does however "share" the basic architecture to remain compatibility, but it's an IBM design, likely contracted by Apple.

Why do I say "likely contracted by Apple"?

IBM has very little use for SIMD, as they use PowerPC's in server-class hardware where they run most everything on Linux or AIX (Unix). With little->no Linux applications out there relying on SIMD/AltiVec, IBM has been reluctant to invest in the technology. Largely because they knew that Apple was going to go with Motorola chipsets too. With IBM now seeing a disgruntled Apple, wanting an "easy out" for at least the near term 'til they can transition to Cocoa or make Carbon a subset of the portable Cocoa API, IBM likely received a great deal of funding to advance their next generation processors to take up the slack, knowing full-well Apple will gladly purchase from them to get away from Motorola.

It's a shame, I always liked Motorola, but after they got spurned in the cloning deal, they've become largely "Anti-Mac" and have a bad resolve for the whole situation. My ex-girlfriend's mom worked at their corporate center out in the Hoffman Estates/Schaumburg area and soon after the CHRP/PPCP-based G3 clone (the first G3 machine) was ixnayed by Jobs and Apple who were behind the 8-ball; Motorola began selling off or giving away "ANYTHING" Mac in their offices, and transitioning over to Windows PC's almost immediately. They were more of a 75/25 %Mac:PC ratio.

My bank... Apple might rely on up-rated G3's for the iBooks, but unless they can get a substantial speed boost out of them, my guess is they will still license a remaining supply of the G4 from Motorola until IBM can bring forth a shrunken die-size PPC 9XX series processor that'll be cool enough to work in a laptop.

Either that, or we'll see a transition away from "G#" naming conventions to a new 2 prong assault with a ::name 1:: processor being an ultra fast G3, while ::name 2:: equals the PPC 970 as Apple classifies it. After all, Apple did a similar deal when they balked on "AltiVec" in favor of "Velocity Engine" for the name of the technology inside. Probably a good move because that's an Apple term, not a Motorola term, and it'll likely transition smoothly over to the "SIMD". I still don't see Apple embracing a G3 for aluminum/titanium PowerBooks though, not even at 2Ghz. It's probably more of a backup plan than anything... as they'll hopefully have a more efficienty 9xx processor out within a year or so I figure, which... I'm sure they could eek out on G4 Powerbooks for another year, assuming Motorola doesn't pull the plug on them. This "lawsuit" deal is probably a protective posturing by Apple more than anything, just in case Motorola gets another dumb idea in their head.

Not that the PPC 970 is entirely out of the question for laptops even, but it'd definitely not be something I'd want to sit down with, wrapped in aluminum/titanium, and have it parked in my lap. LoL Ladies wouldn't even need Nair... just burn the hairs right off. LoL It'd at least be "CLOSE" to what the PC contingent has to suffer through, although I have no idea how hot the Centrino laptops get... I know the Pentium M and Duron-based laptops throw out some heat though, although... even the G4 isn't exactly lukewarm itself, being rather "scalding".

I doubt we'll even see the lawsuit as I think PPC 970 is written in stone for the near term, as I really think Apple's just using this as a lobby to keep the G4 in production 'til a more efficient, less heat-emitting 9xx is ready for primetime. So, I think Big Blue is our saviour... at least for a bit.

What the future holds further down the road though is anyone's guess. Depends on what we see out of IBM. I have more faith in them than Motorola at this point, but I wouldn't even mind a move to SPARC or Alpha if it came to it, down the road. SPARC actually makes a lot of sense (Alpha is wicked fast, but... it's not geared for laptops, which it would have to be... plus... have to see how dedicated Compaq/DEC really is to landing Apple, rather than remain a bit player) as Sun could be a "VERY" strategic ally, and a good fit as both companies are similarly loose and fleeting, and notoriously antagonistic to Microsoft (although Sun's pretty staunch against HP and IBM as well; of which... HP was a company Jobs looked to as a mentor of sorts, and IBM has had decent ties with Apple since Pink/Taligent). I could even see Apple buoying themselves with Sun, re-working OS X to integrate a lot of Solaris into it (also based off of BSD Unix), and merging together... with Apple at the low-middle end and Sun at the middle-high end.

Of course... Jobs and McNeely might clash though, as they're both mercurial and opinionated, although both want to beat Microsoft BAD! Then again, Apple's in a slightly more healthy position than , but Sun "STILL" has a stranglehold on the high-end of Enterprise that no Wintel competition can hack. IBM might get them with PPC/Power# equipped Linux boxes; but I really think Apple down the road is gunning for competing with them there too... what would be best... forge a deal with a giant monolithic corporation that's full of red tape and bureacracy (definitely not a Jobs forte), or deal with a smaller-scale enterprise-only company that fits Apple's philosophies nicely, because it mirrors them? A few years ago, SGI would've been a good fit too... but they've cannibalized themselves so much, that outside of Maya and Pro-Engineer and the like... Apple is almost on a par, and SGI isn't even in the ballgame compared to Sun.

I don't think Apple will be as successful in Enterprise if they go it alone (take too long, might lose out on beating Microsoft by then, if Microsoft "EVER" finds a way in substantially enough; Linux might beat them all in, as they're doing pretty good as "young" as the movement is), and I think it'll take them awhile to get where Sun is now. Merging the two... and I personally think Apple should buy Sun instead of Universal... you have a company that does "EVERYTHING", top to bottom... and trust me... merging two of Microsoft's biggest competition in two differing markets (and Sun is big in education with their servers and workstations; the bookstore at OSU even sells them)... and the advantages of a Vector-graphics add-on processor to SPARC, and that evolving into everything from a low cost iMac/eMac to a high end server farm (or smaller clustering XServes that are bigger than todays model)... Apple could do everything from personal desktop to rendering for Pixar, and have "COMPLETE" control over their processor situation, in-house. Plus Sun has StarOffice, Java, Jini, their server and redundant hardware experience, countless engineers, their own line of hardware products (even make their own RAID disk arrays).... much more robust and valuable than Maya alone.

Raiwong

Apr 16, 2003, 11:50 PM

no still motorola invented the mobile phone in a way because they made the technology actually small enough to be mobile (well kind off), nokia came much later after the motorola startacs (evolved motorola clamshell phone).

of course wireless technology was alrady invented before mobile phone

ktlx

Apr 17, 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by MisterMe
Didn't have the foresight to develop it? You may have forgotten that there was a little thing called the "break-up of AT&T." Oh, yes, it was in all the papers. Cell phones hit it big soon thereafter. Where I lived at the time, our local Baby Bell was the largest cell phone provider. Its advertisements touted its use of "Bell Laboratories technology." IIRC, AT&T was prevented from entering the cell phone market under the break-up decree. Eventually, AT&T was allowed to enter the cell phone market. It is still in the market and seems to be doing reasonably well.

I was talking about cellular technology and not necessarily cellular service. AT&T Bell Labs did not provide service--it developed equipment and technology for others to provide service.

AT&T was barred from providing local phone service in the US but that did not prevent AT&T Bell Labs from developing the best local switch for the NAR market--the 5ESS. AT&T Bell Labs was not barred from developing any equipment or hardware.

That is what I meant by not having the foresight to develop it.

But even if I meant the service portion, your post is not relevant because cellular technology was invented over a decade before the break up. There were no serious discussions about the breakup of AT&T during the Nixon administration. Please check your dates in the future.

ktlx

Apr 17, 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
I could even see Apple buoying themselves with Sun, re-working OS X to integrate a lot of Solaris into it (also based off of BSD Unix), and merging together... with Apple at the low-middle end and Sun at the middle-high end.

The Solaris 2 series of OSes (Solaris 2.1-Solaris 2.6, Solaris 7, Solaris 8, Solaris 9, etc.) is not based on BSD Unix. It is based upon System V Release 4 with POSIX and BSD compatibility added.

The Solaris 1 series of OSes (SunOS 4.1.x) was based upon BSD Unix but SunOS has been obsolete for years. I don't believe it was ever updated to run on the UltraSPARC processors.

I doubt an Apple/Sun alliance like you mention would work because Sun makes better enterprise equipment than Apple does. Unless you are locked into Mac OS X, no enterprise customer in their right mind would choose an Xserve over a Sun Fire.

ktlx

Apr 17, 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Raiwong
no still motorola invented the mobile phone in a way because they made the technology actually small enough to be mobile (well kind off), nokia came much later after the motorola startacs (evolved motorola clamshell phone).

That still is not inventing something. That is taking someone else's invention and making it useful. However I would argue that is the far more valuable role. The phones AT&T Bell Labs used were still mobile just not lightweight or able to fit in your pocket.

Raiwong

Apr 17, 2003, 12:01 PM

naaah so apple didn't invent home computers? simply because they took larger circuit designs and shrink it down. Inventing things is about taking things and putting them together in a usefull ways, nobody ever builds everything themselves.

its like just because the guy who invented the lightbulb didn't invent electricity doesn't meant he isn't making something new.

kenohki

Apr 17, 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
...but I wouldn't even mind a move to SPARC or Alpha if it came to it, down the road. SPARC actually makes a lot of sense (Alpha is wicked fast, but... it's not geared for laptops, which it would have to be... plus... have to see how dedicated Compaq/DEC really is to landing Apple, rather than remain a bit player) as Sun could be a "VERY" strategic ally...

Neither of these will happen.

Compaq/DEC is now HP. HP is set on "knifing the baby" so to speak after the Alpha EV79. They aren't even touting the performance of the thing even though it's pretty darn snappy. It's just a design that fulfills their comittments under various (including government) contracts for Alpha development. Heck, they already sold much of their Alpha assets to Intel. HP is going to move to Itanium, case closed. (And well they should, because it's their architecture.)

Sun has been notoriously behind with SPARC. UltraSPARC III was behind on arrival and UltraSPARC IV uses the III core (although there is a process shrink in there). While Sun servers have good throughput, their workstations aren't competitive and probably won't be, at least in the near term. Thus, the mass migration in many 3D houses to Linux on Intel (WETA or Pixar anyone?). And if Linux has the high end features and hardware support to do some of the higher end visualization stuff, Sun will become even less relevant in the workstation market (as will SGI and most other RISC workstation vendors).

IVIIVI4ck3y27

Apr 17, 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by ktlx
The Solaris 2 series of OSes (Solaris 2.1-Solaris 2.6, Solaris 7, Solaris 8, Solaris 9, etc.) is not based on BSD Unix. It is based upon System V Release 4 with POSIX and BSD compatibility added.

The Solaris 1 series of OSes (SunOS 4.1.x) was based upon BSD Unix but SunOS has been obsolete for years. I don't believe it was ever updated to run on the UltraSPARC processors.

I stand corrected there. You are correct. However, Bill Joy who is an engineer at Sun; worked strongly with BSD prior, having been a student at Berkeley and contributing to the development of the kernal. Apple's BSD variant isn't a monolithic kernal anyhow (as in a BSD variant, verbatim), but Apple's system is flexible enough to swap out the kernal for whatever is good/better. After all, they seem to think Mach with BSD is a better choice... but that remains to be seen. If you side with Torvald's... that probably isn't the case...

I doubt an Apple/Sun alliance like you mention would work because Sun makes better enterprise equipment than Apple does. Unless you are locked into Mac OS X, no enterprise customer in their right mind would choose an Xserve over a Sun Fire.

In a sense, that's exactly why Apple would look to purchase into Sun. You have to understand... for Apple to get to the "ENTERPRISE" level that they are pursuing (heir apparent as they compete with low-end x86 servers with XServe, XServe RAID, and the XServe Clustering hardware), it would take time and development to play catch-up to even get "CLOSE" to where Sun is. The idea, of course, is to merge the companies together to exploit each other's strengths. This is exactly why the initial fruits of the venture would take "TIME" to develop, but it'd likely involve the evolution/merger/cross-pollenation of OS X and Solaris, and possibly even shifting to a Linux foundation in a "BRAND NEW" OS that contains the best of both worlds... Apple's renowned GUI savvy, and Solaris's renowned serving, scalability, and engineering for Enterprise.

It'd also likely evolve into a singular architecture shared between the two companies for hardware. Whatever that chosen architecture... even x86 (not particularly viable for it's legacy elements... it's good for low-end because it's fast, and even moreso... cheap, but it's got it's share of flaws as well, and isn't as flexible or powerful as SPARC even), which Sun has moved to for some products, and whether it's based on BSD/Mach, Linux, or a System V release 4 or whatever... if Apple eventually wants to enter Enterprise, and I feel that they "WILL" because it's the colossal $-maker of the computer segments... they're not going to "EVER" get there alone.

Sun isn't as healthy as they once were... but they're far, far, far from being in the same predicament SGI has fallen into. SGI was first and foremost a "workstation" company... they do have a rather nice Enterprise division, but whoever would buy into them would find that their technological assets were stripped by nVidia and Microsoft, and that they're left with a decent enterprise firm, a disarray in terms of their Intel and platform strategy (x86/Itanium or MIPS? Linux, Windows, or Irix? Which way do we go George? Dahhhhhh... Okay George.), and an awesome roster of software under Alias/Wavefront... but then you have that colossal festering mess that is "Cray". The mainframe purchase of Cray was what put SGI in their present predicament. Sun was a workstation company that transcended the market... even giving up a good body of the "Workstation" market to x86 Wintel PC's. Linux doesn't even really play into this market yet. It's mostly a server platform... working best as a rendering farm via clustering or as a server for web serving, file serving, print serving, or mail serving than anything else at the present.

So yes, Sun conceded the Workstation segment... then again, they did that as of the "early" 1990's. How long have ya'll been sleeping to suddenly realize that?

IVIIVI4ck3y27

Apr 17, 2003, 05:35 PM

Neither of these will happen.

Compaq/DEC is now HP. HP is set on "knifing the baby" so to speak after the Alpha EV79. They aren't even touting the performance of the thing even though it's pretty darn snappy. It's just a design that fulfills their comittments under various (including government) contracts for Alpha development. Heck, they already sold much of their Alpha assets to Intel. HP is going to move to Itanium, case closed. (And well they should, because it's their architecture.)

Actually, Compaq/DEC is now HP/Compaq... it's all "OWNED" by HP, but Compaq still exists and still sells machines. Even many of HP's servers they sell now are Compaq designs, and many still contain Compaq logos. HP, unlike what Compaq did to DEC, is not killing off the Compaq nameplate... at least in the "nearterm".

If you'll re-read what I wrote prior, it was a matter of whether or not Compaq/HP "WISH" to make Alpha viable beyond just it's current market, as in to expand it's presence or keep it alive. I believe Compaq (prior to HP involvement) had been looking in the past to "Knife the Baby", as you say, until h= "2g a squabble with Intel that led to them "NOT" selling the remainder of the development off. This was around the time that Compaq began looking "SERIOUSLY" at AMD. Either way, it doesn't mean the Alpha will become anything more than what it is... and likely fizzle out after that, but... I do believe Compaq had been looking into what they "COULD" do with Alpha to compete. After all, I'm sure if Compaq wanted to sell the remainder of the Alpha manufacturing and tooling over to Intel, they could've... even with the government support of Alpha and previous commitments signed to Alpha.

Getting Alpha marketed? Alpha hasn't been marketed since it's inception!!! LoL Don't blame that on HP, hell... not even on Compaq... DEC did a pitiful job getting the flags and banners raised for Alpha, otherwise they would've likely stayed afloat to keep the Alpha in production themselves!! LoL It was a niche processor, with plenty of capability, but it was left to sell itself to anyone and everyone... and noone bought it, because few knew of it, and those that did... realized there was little->no application support for it, going all the way back to Windows NT.

What HP does with them... is probably just pull the plug and sell it off to Intel. Yet they haven't so far... and with Linux, Alpha has life, life like it had 'NEVER' seen prior under any DEC/Compaq, or even HP UNIX variant. I don't know that I'd pour billions into further development, but as long as Alpha has life, and Linux makes it viable (any processor is viable with Linux, as adaptation and portion of applications and the system itself is easy... unlike Windows, which NT [XP] has been ixnayed on Alpha largely due to low volume sales, same with NT being killed for PowerPC after version 4), go for it... knock your socks off, and see what comes out of it. If Itanium goes bust, and it's not been exactly "earth-shattering", it could well make you out to look like God when the minions come running to be saved from the dead-end religion that Itanium could well be...

Many are incredibly disappointed by what they've seen out of Itanium, enough that Sun... who staked a lot of their future on Intel, has dove back into SPARC development while embracing x86 for some low-end stuff. "LOW-END" = keyword here... and btw, Sun embraces said x86 hardware with Linux and Solaris, just look at their LX50.

Of course... if Apple really needed a new processor platform, they could purchase the remainder of Alpha's development and manufacturing, and move it in-house. The problem with this though... is manyfold. Apple would have to get OS X on Alpha das pronto, or buy a suitable OS (OpenVMS) or modify Linux to get on Alpha in a hurry, then try to integrate it into the Apple scheme 'til a more OS X Mac-like interface was ready for Linux, or until OS X Server was suitable, then they'd need hardware suitable enough for enterprise... something unlike Apple has ever built. They'd have to get the machines put together so they could produce viable product in the markets where Alpha is viable, right now, and transition those platforms that were previously Alpha-centric to the new platform on Alpha in a hurry. They'd have to transition Alpha to a efficiency formula to get it to be "cool" enough to work in laptops. Any company that purchases Alpha and doesn't immediately setup shop is going to eat development costs for a lonnnnnnnnnng time, and take losses as a result.

Going with Intel or AMD (outside supplier), Apple could slowly develop the OS in-house (in the background while deployed on PowerPC/Power#), transition the move, and then pull the plug on PowerPC with ample warning to developers so they're ready for the change, and smoothly move from one to the other with minimal loss or hurt as a result of it, and without a highly fragmented system roadmap. They could get development machines out to software developers using the new chipsets, and work on porting much of the applications over.

Apple moving to Intel/AMD is an option but it also holds the great potential of demeaning Apple. When you compare a higher cost Apple machine to a lower cost <PC brand here> machine... the only differences are OS and a proprietary, non-ATX case/motherboard design. Compared on price... it'd make it harder for Apple to sell machines unless the GUI was that much better (or unless Apple went to a PC format of modularity, bad idea), and unless the machines were that much cooler looking, and unless you could make the system seem significantly better in all areas and manners.

Even said, buying Sun is still a benefit... as Apple could even transition Sun/Apple hardware to Intel, x86 for desktops and workstations (Apple) and low end servers (Sun), and then Enterprise could move to Itanium. Shift Mac OS X and Solaris to a merged platform down the road (perhaps Mac OS XI or whatever you wish to refer to it as) with Solaris underpinnings, OS X GUI, and combined API's (Solaris, Cocoa, Carbon, and Java) and x11 support (for leveraging Linux apps.). It could even use a Linux-based kernal (non-monolithic, of course) as the foundation. The point is... Apple would still profit on "CURRENT" Sun hardware and software "UNTIL" they could get things hashed out and reach that future roadmap of the combined Apple/Sun entity on whatever processor they fathom as best for them.

IVIIVI4ck3y27

Apr 17, 2003, 06:16 PM

Sun has been notoriously behind with SPARC. UltraSPARC III was behind on arrival and UltraSPARC IV uses the III core (although there is a process shrink in there). While Sun servers have good throughput, their workstations aren't competitive and probably won't be, at least in the near term. Thus, the mass migration in many 3D houses to Linux on Intel (WETA or Pixar anyone?). And if Linux has the high end features and hardware support to do some of the higher end visualization stuff, Sun will become even less relevant in the workstation market (as will SGI and most other RISC workstation vendors).

Once again, you're presumptious that Apple is strictly looking at "WORKSTATION" development (Workstation does "NOT" equal "ENTERPRISE", it has nothing to do with "SERVING"). The truth is, Apple has quite a decent low-priced workstation line in their Pro models, that are comparable to the PC-based Workstations and better in many cases than what Sun and SGI build on the low-end. With PPC 970 coming online, and support for nVidia (in-house) and ATI, Apple has much of the same advantages of what Windows has built over SGI in the late 1980's and into the 1990's when SGI slipped. Of course, Wintel has these advantages in engineering and graphics for workstations (largely because of ATI and nVidia and other cards like Oxygen cards), but Apple has a key software base to work from to compete, and can leverage x11-based applications that Linux can... via Apple's support for x11 and of services like Fink.

SGI, Sun, and Linux lack "MANY" of the key software applications to do "SIMPLE" Office-style stuff, which most "WORKSTATIONS" rely on, as well as the hardcore applications that a "WORKSTATION" is known for. You can't fire up Photoshop, open Excel, Final Cut, After Effects, Vectorworks, Form Z, Archicad, or use Powerpoint. There's no SGI or Sun laptops... etc. etc. Sun is tied primarily to a proprietary hardware/processor roadmap used largely in "ONE" segment (Enterprise), and they've not scaled any processors down to the smaller markets to take advantage (increase development), nor have they had the infrastructure, being a smaller company, to focus on workstations... that is where Apple complements Sun, because Apple works from workstations down. The G4 Pro line is in effect, workstations, and equipped with 970's with OS X... they're a perfect match for anything Wintel throws at them, which is the "REAL" workstation segment. Linux isn't workstation-ready yet for much of anything commercially purchased, and won't be anytime in the "NEAR" future I don't feel, unless Adobe, Macromedia, AutoDesk, and Microsoft, et al. jump on the bandwagon....

Linux has support for doing higher end visualization because the people that work on those machines (those you mentioned) have the programming savvy to develop it for it. They could make their own OS if necessary, but it's highly impractical, hence they have gone with Sun in the past, and now favor an open-source Linux OS because they can take something pre-existing and morph it to their needs (it's not that the hardware is better, but their integration is, and their flexibility, for being so savvy, is immense... plus, no doubt... it's CHEAP!). It's largely in-house and proprietary software that reigns on Linux, made for specific tasks by people that want a more encompassing and flexible need, and have the tremendous resources to get it without lobbying to a company. It's a means to an end...

You can "BANK" on it that Linux won't replace the whole kit and kaboodle anytime soon, or make a "BIG INROADS" into Workstations. They lack the fundamental smaller apps... and I doubt we'll see Adobe making Photoshop anytime soon for Linux (they're tied strongly to Microsoft, with secondary support for Apple for the timebeing... which I expect Apple to launch a Photoshop competitor overtime... following their iDVD DVD Studio Pro philosophies... as well as their iMovie/Final Cut Express/Final Cut Pro philosophies... iPhoto/***/***?)... and GIMP isn't even in PS's ballpark yet. It's good... but not great, although given some work it could rival PS (won't change people's perception over night though), but it's so far from having a "Human Interface Guideline" set for both KDE and Gnome that it's ludicrous to even think it could rival PS.

The problem with Linux is... there's no leadership on the levels that there is in other systems (it's more like a tug of war), as Torvald's is a "TECHNICIAN"-minded opinionated individual, unlike Gates who is a visionary pirate, and Jobs who is a true visionary (with adept pirating skills). If Linux turns out to be a better choice, it'll still trickle down into someone tossing a proprietary system on top, and keeping the "Linux" name out of the limelight on the consumer end. Torvald's believes strongly in a lot of things, but he's also a "technical" man and until we see a dumbed down GUI on the order of what Lindows brings, only 10,000x's more refined, and with more applications and support... Linux will struggle getting to the desktop without someone like Gates or Jobs supporting it, and without an understanding of how to make "easy to use" and "compelling" equate "Linux".

For the giant companies with permanent, on-site, IT staffs and custom-written proprietary softwares... Linux is an option. For smaller to larger SoHo-type stuff and small-medium-sized corporations who pay for services though, small mom & pop local shops doing their own Linux servers will be competing against Sun, HP, IBM, Dell, et al. in terms of x86 equipped Linux servers that are "SUPPORTED" and "INTEGRATED" via trained technicians from each of the big companies, or via technicians from the local mom & pop computer shop. This is exactly where Apple's x86 rivalling XServes and XServe RAID's, and XServe Clusters fit, along with OS X Server equipped G4 desktops... as they compete in low-end servers with a very comparable, and competent, platform. It also comes without the tremendous needs for support staffs or services, as it's as easy to use as... well... a Mac. :)

For higher-end... Linux has it's champions (almost every vendor), but it also has a long uphill battle. One where everyone is entrenched, and to their right... they face Apple and Microsoft in workstations/desktops. Not going to be easy, especially without an intuitive GUI and a large roster of apps., games, productivity software, and workstation apps. Server software is relatively easy... the rest is difficult. Server hardware is hard... desktop hardware is relatively easy.

I don't see Sun's lead slipping anytime soon... and I don't see Apple just hopping up into the market and taking on the big dogs. That is why a Sun/Apple merger would work... because even if Apple transitioned Sun's mainstays away from say... Solaris and SPARC (over time, right away would be foolish) you would definitely see the technologies of Sun combined into something else, or see Apple embrace something comparable and worthy... perhaps even in-house PowerPC development (using Sun's team) or a next-generation SPARC or <your name here> architecture (as in, new, never brought forth).

So to expect Apple to just slap OS X on everything, as it is now, is naive. If OS X transitions to Sun, it'd do so based on a merger of Solaris and OS X, perhaps as a future OS that'd share the GUI and API frameworks (compatibilities) of an OS X, along with the API's and frameworks (compatibilities) of Solaris, riding on top of either a BSD or System V kernal... or perhaps even... Linux, or an all-new kernal. Those that figure OS X will be Apple's OS forever without any significant changes along the way are foolish. Let's face it, they're probably the same one's that bough "Apple II Forever" t-shirts, or believed that Mac OS Classic should remain forever. ::buzzer:: Not happening... and having a good future game plan, is a definite plus. Given time to get Solaris and OS X together... I think Apple would have great success. Whatever processor they choose...

Apple could dust off the old "OpenStep" (Cocoa) API's for riding on top of Solaris, update them to the current spec, and deply them on Solaris X (10), adding Carbon API's along with them. Suddenly, a simple recompile of programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand, Flash, Director, Fireworks, GoLive, DreamWeaver, Final Cut (Express/Pro), etc. etc. would run on Solaris X... and said developers could release the next "VERSIONS" of their software on hybrid OS X/Solaris CD's. XServe could be Sun's new low-end server line, and Apple could benefit from Sun's patents and technologies in ramping up PPC 970 workstations/servers (and lower end G4/PPC 9xx laptops/iMacs/eMacs) in the near term 'til they solidify their future roadmap and where they're going.

Will Apple buying Sun happen? Who knows?!? Yet it'd be a far better investment than Universal Music, that's for damn sure. Apple can license music from "ALL" of the labels and make a minimal profit per song, or they could start their own label themselves, focused on bringing the considerable wealth of Indie artists to the masses... in a way that none of the sharing services has been able to do.

Universal is a bloodletting, mired in so much red tape and bureacracy and the RIAA witch-hunt syndrome that it "COULDN'T" possibly fit Apple's loose principles and policies and loose handling of product. Sun is just as loose... more like a fraternity than a corporation. Apple's investment in Sun and Cafepress.com would return profits (maybe not all the time... but at least a good percentage of the time)... the Universal purchase would eat up a "TON" of cash reserve, and likely not produce a profit for quite some time, if ever.

ktlx

Apr 17, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
I stand corrected there. You are correct. However, Bill Joy who is an engineer at Sun; worked strongly with BSD prior, having been a student at Berkeley and contributing to the development of the kernal.

That is true but Bill Joy has long since moved along to other things. He was off OS development a long time ago. You don't waste your Chief Scientist's time on kernel porting.

In a sense, that's exactly why Apple would look to purchase into Sun. You have to understand... for Apple to get to the "ENTERPRISE" level that they are pursuing (heir apparent as they compete with low-end x86 servers with XServe, XServe RAID, and the XServe Clustering hardware), it would take time and development to play catch-up to even get "CLOSE" to where Sun is.

While that is true, of what benefit would there be to Sun? Sun has a market cap over twice what Apple's is. While Sun's future is not certain in the least, their hardware sales are not declining in double digit percentages like Apple's are (except for the PowerBooks).

In the eyes of Wall Street, Sun is the stronger company. Sun would have to see a benefit in merging or working with Apple in order for the relationship to happen. I just don't see where Apple brings anything to Scott McNealy's vision of Sun's future.

The idea, of course, is to merge the companies together to exploit each other's strengths. This is exactly why the initial fruits of the venture would take "TIME" to develop, but it'd likely involve the evolution/merger/cross-pollenation of OS X and Solaris, and possibly even shifting to a Linux foundation in a "BRAND NEW" OS that contains the best of both worlds... Apple's renowned GUI savvy, and Solaris's renowned serving, scalability, and engineering for Enterprise.

The problem is that Apple's GUI savvy is completely irrelevant to Sun's core markets. As much as Steve Jobs talks about it, people simply don't manage a data center filled with dozens, hundreds or thousands of servers using a proprietary GUI interface. The people managing these systems are not your grandmother trying to surf the Web. I am not saying the existing tools are perfect (far from it). What I am saying is that Apple's core competencies have very little (some would argue no) intersection with Sun's core business.

Mac OS X does not really have anything interesting to pick up for Solaris that isn't already there and bulletproofed. Mac OS X is a great desktop OS. But as a server OS when compared to Solaris it is a joke. On the low end, Mac OS X even has a difficult time competing with Linux. It has the support by established players. Mac OS X does not.

I think Steve Jobs is guiding Apple in the only right path for the company. As much as people want Apple to become a significant enterprise player, that simply won't happen. Apple's strength is in the creative professional arena and they need to continue to focus all of their energy in that area. The only criticism anyone can really point at Apple for that market is that their PowerMacs are overpriced and underpowered. I believe that is only a temporary situation and once the PowerMac 970s arrive, creative professionals will start buying PowerMacs again in quantity. Those companies will need servers and an Xserve is likely to meet their needs as well or better than a Solaris/SPARC, IBM/Power4 or Windows/Intel server.

ktlx

Apr 17, 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
Many are incredibly disappointed by what they've seen out of Itanium, enough that Sun... who staked a lot of their future on Intel, has dove back into SPARC development while embracing x86 for some low-end stuff. "LOW-END" = keyword here... and btw, Sun embraces said x86 hardware with Linux and Solaris, just look at their LX50.

This is completely wrong. Sun never bet any part of the future on Intel. In fact, completely the opposite. Sun has tried to kill off the Solaris/x86 development and contributed so little to the Solaris/Itanium development that Intel gave them the boot.

Scott McNealy has been one of the most vocal critics of the Intel Itanium since the beginning. Only Sun and IBM have been steadfast in their insistence on focusing on their own processors.

Even said, buying Sun is still a benefit...

Apple cannot buy Sun without someone so believing in that marriage, they will loan Apple billions and billions of dollars. Apple's cash on hand could not buy even 1/2 of Sun at current market value and Apple's market cap is less than half of Sun's. A stock swap is out of the question so it has to be at least a combination stock and cash deal. Apple does not have enough cash.

Someone would have to loan them probably $7B to $8B in order for this to happen. In the process, you would kill Sun because Apple would never let Sun run the resulting company, so there goes all your experienced enterprise people.

bousozoku

Apr 17, 2003, 09:12 PM

eric_n_dfw

Apr 17, 2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by zigi
Motorola have not been any use to Apple for many years now. The last major architecture advance was with the G3, and then later only with AltiVec. The G4 is only a modification of the G3 with added vec units and a couple of other changes.
Please read at least the thread you are commenting on before posting.

As stated multiple times here, the G4 is not simply a G3 with AltiVec. They are very different cores.

GeneR

Apr 17, 2003, 11:41 PM

I'd love to see this on an episode of JUDGE JUDY with Steve Jobs against Motorola's CEO. Funny stuff. :D

Seriously, though. Who knows?

Phil Of Mac

Apr 17, 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by GeneR
I'd love to see this on an episode of JUDGE JUDY with Steve Jobs against Motorola's CEO. Funny stuff. :D

No...THE PEOPLE'S COURT! :)

Sun Baked

Apr 18, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No...THE PEOPLE'S COURT! :) Nah...

You have to stick with the original with Judge Wapner and bailiff Rusty Burrell...

Which means they must fight it out in Judge Wapner’s Animal Court. :D

Sun Baked

Apr 18, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by bousozoku
SIMD is a generic term, Single Instruction Multiple Data. The SIMD part is VMX, the same name given it by Motorola and IBM did license Motorola's design although this doesn't mean that they're about to use it. They just need compatibility with it. As stated...

They most likely licensed the instruction set and the some of the characteristics of the Altivec Black Box Motorola is using, although internally IBMs implementation may be quite different.

Since Altivec is a mature instuction set used by many different PPC platforms, IBM using the Motorola Altivec instuction set isn't too outrageous.

If Motorola did kill the 7457-RM and beyond processors, there are quite a few VME and blade manufacturers that can jump over to IBMs 970. And a few Linux PPC board makers that'll jump on also (cough, an Amiga furball, cough).

BaghdadBob

Apr 19, 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
As far as IBM "licensing" AltiVec for the PPC 970. Not true. IBM uses a vector processor noted as "SIMD" for their PPC 970. It does however "share" the basic architecture to remain compatibility, but it's an IBM design, likely contracted by Apple.

Why do I say "likely contracted by Apple"?

IBM has very little use for SIMD, as they use PowerPC's in server-class hardware where they run most everything on Linux or AIX (Unix). With little->no Linux applications out there relying on SIMD/AltiVec, IBM has been reluctant to invest in the technology. Largely because they knew that Apple was going to go with Motorola chipsets too. With IBM now seeing a disgruntled Apple, wanting an "easy out" for at least the near term 'til they can transition to Cocoa or make Carbon a subset of the portable Cocoa API, IBM likely received a great deal of funding to advance their next generation processors to take up the slack, knowing full-well Apple will gladly purchase from them to get away from Motorola.

It's a shame, I always liked Motorola, but after they got spurned in the cloning deal, they've become largely "Anti-Mac" and have a bad resolve for the whole situation. My ex-girlfriend's mom worked at their corporate center out in the Hoffman Estates/Schaumburg area and soon after the CHRP/PPCP-based G3 clone (the first G3 machine) was ixnayed by Jobs and Apple who were behind the 8-ball; Motorola began selling off or giving away "ANYTHING" Mac in their offices, and transitioning over to Windows PC's almost immediately. They were more of a 75/25 %Mac:PC ratio.

My bank... Apple might rely on up-rated G3's for the iBooks, but unless they can get a substantial speed boost out of them, my guess is they will still license a remaining supply of the G4 from Motorola until IBM can bring forth a shrunken die-size PPC 9XX series processor that'll be cool enough to work in a laptop.

Either that, or we'll see a transition away from "G#" naming conventions to a new 2 prong assault with a ::name 1:: processor being an ultra fast G3, while ::name 2:: equals the PPC 970 as Apple classifies it. After all, Apple did a similar deal when they balked on "AltiVec" in favor of "Velocity Engine" for the name of the technology inside. Probably a good move because that's an Apple term, not a Motorola term, and it'll likely transition smoothly over to the "SIMD". I still don't see Apple embracing a G3 for aluminum/titanium PowerBooks though, not even at 2Ghz. It's probably more of a backup plan than anything... as they'll hopefully have a more efficienty 9xx processor out within a year or so I figure, which... I'm sure they could eek out on G4 Powerbooks for another year, assuming Motorola doesn't pull the plug on them. This "lawsuit" deal is probably a protective posturing by Apple more than anything, just in case Motorola gets another dumb idea in their head.

Not that the PPC 970 is entirely out of the question for laptops even, but it'd definitely not be something I'd want to sit down with, wrapped in aluminum/titanium, and have it parked in my lap. LoL Ladies wouldn't even need Nair... just burn the hairs right off. LoL It'd at least be "CLOSE" to what the PC contingent has to suffer through, although I have no idea how hot the Centrino laptops get... I know the Pentium M and Duron-based laptops throw out some heat though, although... even the G4 isn't exactly lukewarm itself, being rather "scalding".

I doubt we'll even see the lawsuit as I think PPC 970 is written in stone for the near term, as I really think Apple's just using this as a lobby to keep the G4 in production 'til a more efficient, less heat-emitting 9xx is ready for primetime. So, I think Big Blue is our saviour... at least for a bit.

What the future holds further down the road though is anyone's guess. Depends on what we see out of IBM. I have more faith in them than Motorola at this point, but I wouldn't even mind a move to SPARC or Alpha if it came to it, down the road. SPARC actually makes a lot of sense (Alpha is wicked fast, but... it's not geared for laptops, which it would have to be... plus... have to see how dedicated Compaq/DEC really is to landing Apple, rather than remain a bit player) as Sun could be a "VERY" strategic ally, and a good fit as both companies are similarly loose and fleeting, and notoriously antagonistic to Microsoft (although Sun's pretty staunch against HP and IBM as well; of which... HP was a company Jobs looked to as a mentor of sorts, and IBM has had decent ties with Apple since Pink/Taligent). I could even see Apple buoying themselves with Sun, re-working OS X to integrate a lot of Solaris into it (also based off of BSD Unix), and merging together... with Apple at the low-middle end and Sun at the middle-high end.

Of course... Jobs and McNeely might clash though, as they're both mercurial and opinionated, although both want to beat Microsoft BAD! Then again, Apple's in a slightly more healthy position than , but Sun "STILL" has a stranglehold on the high-end of Enterprise that no Wintel competition can hack. IBM might get them with PPC/Power# equipped Linux boxes; but I really think Apple down the road is gunning for competing with them there too... what would be best... forge a deal with a giant monolithic corporation that's full of red tape and bureacracy (definitely not a Jobs forte), or deal with a smaller-scale enterprise-only company that fits Apple's philosophies nicely, because it mirrors them? A few years ago, SGI would've been a good fit too... but they've cannibalized themselves so much, that outside of Maya and Pro-Engineer and the like... Apple is almost on a par, and SGI isn't even in the ballgame compared to Sun.

I don't think Apple will be as successful in Enterprise if they go it alone (take too long, might lose out on beating Microsoft by then, if Microsoft "EVER" finds a way in substantially enough; Linux might beat them all in, as they're doing pretty good as "young" as the movement is), and I think it'll take them awhile to get where Sun is now. Merging the two... and I personally think Apple should buy Sun instead of Universal... you have a company that does "EVERYTHING", top to bottom... and trust me... merging two of Microsoft's biggest competition in two differing markets (and Sun is big in education with their servers and workstations; the bookstore at OSU even sells them)... and the advantages of a Vector-graphics add-on processor to SPARC, and that evolving into everything from a low cost iMac/eMac to a high end server farm (or smaller clustering XServes that are bigger than todays model)... Apple could do everything from personal desktop to rendering for Pixar, and have "COMPLETE" control over their processor situation, in-house. Plus Sun has StarOffice, Java, Jini, their server and redundant hardware experience, countless engineers, their own line of hardware products (even make their own RAID disk arrays).... much more robust and valuable than Maya alone. [/1]

Umm...I want Apple to buy Adobe...because it would be cool, I mean REALLY cool...damn, I thought I could ramble ;)

:confused:Who is this masked man???