Analyst: Apple to lie down with Intel

sjs

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 15, 2002
284
0
GA
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html

"By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 2, 2002, 2:34 PM PT

Apple Computer will likely shift to using Intel chips, while circumstances exist that could well push Dell Computer and Sun Microsystems into a friendly embrace, predicted Bear Stearns analyst Andrew Neff."

Predicts this will happen in 2 to 4 years. This analyst also called the HP-Compaq merger.
 

sjs

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 15, 2002
284
0
GA
"Neff, for instance, predicted Apple, which uses chips from Motorola and IBM that currently top out at 1GHz, will switch to Intel, whose chips run at 2.5GHz, to get a performance boost and gain more customers. There's a better than 80 percent chance Apple will make the jump in two to four years, he said."
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
The threat factor of Apple switching to the x86 platform would lead MS to smite Apple.
 

shadowfax0

macrumors 6502
May 2, 2002
408
0
:mad: NO!, for god's sakes, NOT INTEL!, AMD PLEASE, Intel is garbage. Personally, I'm quite happy with the Motorola chips (and so is Steve Jobs) albeit I would like IBM to have more of a part in it. Intel though, they are NOT the fastest processors on the market, which sadly, is what the current consensus is... [/blurb]
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
Re: Analyst: Apple to lie down with Intel

Originally posted by sjs
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html

"By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 2, 2002, 2:34 PM PT

Apple Computer will likely shift to using Intel chips, while circumstances exist that could well push Dell Computer and Sun Microsystems into a friendly embrace, predicted Bear Stearns analyst Andrew Neff."

Predicts this will happen in 2 to 4 years. This analyst also called the HP-Compaq merger.
We've heard this before, but the previous predicts were that such a move was much more imminent. 2 to 4 years is an eternity in the computer industry.

Not to pile-on or anything, but right now Sun is cozying up to Apple, not Dell.

And besides, aren't these the same guys who told us to buy ENRON and WorldCom?
 

sjs

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 15, 2002
284
0
GA
This isn't about which chip you like better!!
This is about a marketing strategy that will allow Apple to attract customers and grow. Besides I think the analyst views Intel as the winner in the long run in the chip biz.
 

desdinova

macrumors newbie
Jul 19, 2002
5
0
Continental Divide
This is nothing more than an uneducated guess on this bozo analysts part, it has no basis in fact what-so-ever. He also owns stock in both Intel and Dull so it serves his best interest to make these kind of predictions. No one, not even Apple, can say what chips they will be using in two to four years because no one can say what chips will be available in two to four years.

However my money is on IBM. They are nearing completion on a new state of the art foundry that should be able to keep up with anything Intel can do.
 

G4scott

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2002
2,219
2
Austin, TX
It would be a disaster for Apple to switch to intel chips within the next 3 years. Apple has dedicated itself to the PowerPC platform and Alti-Vec, which are made only by Motorola or IBM. There's no way that Apple will get intel to make a chip with Alti-Vec on it just for them. Intel has bigger fish to fry. This guy just seems like the average, everyday pee-cee idiot who thinks that intel chips are supreme over everything... Too bad that the x86 platform is over 15 years old...

Oh, How far in advance did this guy predict the compaq-hp merger? This guy probably got lucky on that guess, and now he thinks that he's a reliable source...:rolleyes:

MAN!!! the guy who wrote that article, and the analyst are both idiots. They think that Apple will switch to intel chips because they have higher clock speeds... COME ON!!! That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. If he's any good in the tech sector, then he should know that intel chips don't perform as well as motorola chips half as fast...

Another thing that this analyst didn't even consider, is that Steve Jobs is VERY un-predictable. Nobody knows what's going around in his head right now, and no one can even possibly begin to imagine what will be going in his head 2-4 years from now. This guy obviously doesn't know Apple very well...
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,506
312
Middle Earth
Not impressed

With Pentium 4's. The fundamental questions that need to be answered are?

Which is more important...good Software or good Hardware?

Which Processor would allow Apple the most flexibility.

I'm a believer in Software over hardware and control. Apple will have the Software advantage and Moto will give them more control than they could ever hope to get from Intel.

Apple needs to stay on their present course.
 

sageenos

macrumors member
Jan 5, 2002
57
0
South Carolina
Originally posted by Shrek


I doubt it. M$ is structured much differently than Apple, so I doubt M$ would want to buy them out. ;)
Sun Baked said MS would "smite" Apple...that's not a buyout. MS seems very well experienced at crushing competition...and sadly it seems they can get away with it.

On the matter of processors..I kinda like the mips architecture. They run slower...but they're efficient...I remember hearing that a 600 mhz mips outperformed a G4 1ghz. They also run cooler from what I've heard. Might be cheaper than powerpc chips..but I haven't been able to see the price difference for myself yet.
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
386
2
Originally posted by G4scott
It would be a disaster for Apple to switch to intel chips within the next 3 years. Apple has dedicated itself to the PowerPC platform and Alti-Vec, which are made only by Motorola or IBM. There's no way that Apple will get intel to make a chip with Alti-Vec on it just for them. Intel has bigger fish to fry. This guy just seems like the average, everyday pee-cee idiot who thinks that intel chips are supreme over everything... Too bad that the x86 platform is over 15 years old...

Oh, How far in advance did this guy predict the compaq-hp merger? This guy probably got lucky on that guess, and now he thinks that he's a reliable source...:rolleyes:

MAN!!! the guy who wrote that article, and the analyst are both idiots. They think that Apple will switch to intel chips because they have higher clock speeds... COME ON!!! That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. If he's any good in the tech sector, then he should know that intel chips don't perform as well as motorola chips half as fast...

Another thing that this analyst didn't even consider, is that Steve Jobs is VERY un-predictable. Nobody knows what's going around in his head right now, and no one can even possibly begin to imagine what will be going in his head 2-4 years from now. This guy obviously doesn't know Apple very well...
And you think you know them that well? The thing of it is is that no one really knows. Not you, me, or this guy. He essentially does not know and is admitting it when he claims an 80% chance. I'm not sure what you're all fired up about. The consumer is beginning to speak and they're seeing the differences in speed and cost. Apple has to address this in a way that they can count on for the long haul so, yes, I might agree with this guy that there is an 80% chance over the next 2-4 years. It'll take time just to implement a way to move software over.

People like to throw around how they don't want an Intel chip because it's crap or inefficient. First of all they're not crap. Cyrix and the old amd stuff were all crap. So what if the mhz has to be cranked up. That's a design decision somewhat based off of marketing. Sure the early P4's seemed to be crap but Intel stated over and over that people needed to be patient and look where it is now. Nothing is touching it at the moment on the market.

Don't get me wrong I don't hate PPC's. I just don't blindly worship them or any chip. I want one that gets the job done for a reasonable cost and so do other consumers. If Apple can offer PPC's in single, dual, or quad configs and be competitive in price/performance; that would be great but I don't see that happening for the long term.

One more thing people are hoping that Apple will go with an AMD chip if they jump to x86. They could but AMD needs to work more on the heat that's gets generated as well as power consumption. Unless someone can prove me wrong Intel is still ahead in that area between the two. Those are big factors that I know AMD is trying to work on while fighting to stay competitive.
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
386
2
Originally posted by desdinova
This is nothing more than an uneducated guess on this bozo analysts part, it has no basis in fact what-so-ever. He also owns stock in both Intel and Dull so it serves his best interest to make these kind of predictions. No one, not even Apple, can say what chips they will be using in two to four years because no one can say what chips will be available in two to four years.

However my money is on IBM. They are nearing completion on a new state of the art foundry that should be able to keep up with anything Intel can do.
Actually each of those companies *should* have an idea of what they're using in at least two years. They should be working on designs now. Ever see a roadmap? You better believe Apple has.
 

sjs

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 15, 2002
284
0
GA
Imagine that when Apple went to the PPC architecture several years ago, they had instead decided to join the crowd and go to x86.

Now for the past several years every Mac had been running with the same chips as everybody else, so you are used to the idea and it doesn't seem strange.

Apple still makes the most innovative and beautiful machines, though with cooling fans, and still run on the best, most stable and most beautiful OS in the world.

No one (pc users or reviewers) can say Apples are slower, because of course they use the same chips and same DDR memory, etc, that the pc's have. Every other Apple advantage is still intact.

What's our market share now??? That's what the analyst is saying. From a marketing standpoint, the pc crowd would be much more inclined to switch and Apple's market share would several points higher.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Yes it was smite, not smitten.

Somehow I can't see Jobs and Gates fighting over who gets to wear the famous blue dress.

But I can see M$ lawyers hand delivering one of their famous suitcase nukes (aka, patent bomb), and vaporizing the Cupertino campus and squares of the surroung countryside.
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
it's just that apple prides themselves with having faster processors than intel...not in clock speed, but in benchmarks
apple has ni\o right to pride itself on those benchmarks. They are benchmarks showing speed in apps using Altivec (mostly photoshop), and there are only a precious few of those. THose benchmarks are also comparing 4000 $ systems to 2000 $ systems. Apple has nothing to brag about when it comes to speed. Apple is way behind. :(

But when it comes to OS, overall performance, and quality.... :D
 

i_wolf

macrumors regular
Jul 17, 2002
136
0
check out what this guy said over at VIA
It makes for some VERY interesting reading........

http://www.viahardware.com/x86apple.shtm

Anyhow.... the only problem that i would see with Apple going X86 is that currently apple has cornered a market that sees them as 'different' to the pc world. If apple were to go all PC hardware only offering OS X and their great i apps.... i reckon that it could backfire. Apple would have to ditch there ludicrous pricing regime... which is great for us customers but bad for apple.... because apple would then be directly comparible with dell , conpaq etc.... Currently i reckon as a 'switcher' that most PC fold reckon that you should switch because you can run stuff on the mac because not alone is the OS different but the hardware is different. I think that if they go to x86, apple will ultimately reside to making software mainly, as i doubt that apple would stay in business long making PowerMacs, imac, emacs etc (ipods and laptops excluded). Apple are not really used to other hardware manufacturers in the same niche and ultimately changing hardware for apple would be changing niche.
Ideally apple should be a big fish in a small pool, not a small fish in an aquarium!
I am not an expert and would like some opinions on this ...educate me!
Personally i think that apple will pull something out of their hats..... G5 or IBM scaled down power4. I also reckon that they will come sooner than later.... apple are hurting at the moment with their creative line... i doubt speed bump (slight 1.2 / 1.4Ghz and ddr will appease growing disatisfaction with apples traditional creative customers. And now more than ever i think that apple need to appease these people.
Regards.
 

sageenos

macrumors member
Jan 5, 2002
57
0
South Carolina
If Apple switched to x86 it wouldn't force Apple to start moving away from hardware development and focus solely on software. Apple can just implement security measures in the hardware as they do now (or better) to ensure that someone won't buy some cheapo Dell and install OSX. All a switch to x86 would mean is different guts inside the same beautiful cases and a change in software packaging (to support ppc and x86 users until such time that Apple decided to try and shift its entire user base over to one architecture or the other).
 

G4scott

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2002
2,219
2
Austin, TX
Originally posted by Cappy


And you think you know them that well? The thing of it is is that no one really knows. Not you, me, or this guy. He essentially does not know and is admitting it when he claims an 80% chance. I'm not sure what you're all fired up about. The consumer is beginning to speak and they're seeing the differences in speed and cost. Apple has to address this in a way that they can count on for the long haul so, yes, I might agree with this guy that there is an 80% chance over the next 2-4 years. It'll take time just to implement a way to move software over.

People like to throw around how they don't want an Intel chip because it's crap or inefficient. First of all they're not crap. Cyrix and the old amd stuff were all crap. So what if the mhz has to be cranked up. That's a design decision somewhat based off of marketing. Sure the early P4's seemed to be crap but Intel stated over and over that people needed to be patient and look where it is now. Nothing is touching it at the moment on the market.

Don't get me wrong I don't hate PPC's. I just don't blindly worship them or any chip. I want one that gets the job done for a reasonable cost and so do other consumers. If Apple can offer PPC's in single, dual, or quad configs and be competitive in price/performance; that would be great but I don't see that happening for the long term.

One more thing people are hoping that Apple will go with an AMD chip if they jump to x86. They could but AMD needs to work more on the heat that's gets generated as well as power consumption. Unless someone can prove me wrong Intel is still ahead in that area between the two. Those are big factors that I know AMD is trying to work on while fighting to stay competitive.
Let me just say that the Mac OS would take a big performance hit on the transition from Power PC to x86 based systems. With no Alti-Vec, you'd have to have a good processor to equal, if not go beyond the power of Alti-Vec. A P4 at 2.5 Ghz might work to match a dual 1Ghz G4, but nobody really knows for sure.

Another thing about the G4, is that they beat the sh*t out of a P4 at the same clock speed. If Motorola, or IBM could bring the clock speed of the Power PC up to 2-2.5 Ghz by this time next year, Apple would have no problem keeping up with the x86 world. Now, you may say that it's impractical for IBM or Motorola to make a jump in clock speed that big, but hey, intel did it. The thing about the x86 platform that I really don't like, is that it needs such a high clock speed to give it that little 'edge' over a Dual 1Ghz G4... Just remember, a G4 at 3 ghz would blow the P4 of this planet and out of existance... I think It's time for Apple to call in IBM to get the PowerPC platform up there...
 

G4scott

macrumors 68020
Jan 9, 2002
2,219
2
Austin, TX
Originally posted by i_wolf
check out what this guy said over at VIA
It makes for some VERY interesting reading........

http://www.viahardware.com/x86apple.shtm
I think that guy just focuses on a few things about Apple, and blows them way out of proportion. They say that the G4 has no life left, except for longer pipelines. Well, what's the P4 doing? The only changes being made to that are giving it longer pipelines. If a G4 had 20 pipeline stages, it would probably run at well over 1.5 Ghz, maybe even 2 Ghz... And, as far as the 64 bit thing, Intel's Itanium holds no match to the G5 (or at least to what we've heard about it...) I haven't heard much about the Itanium lately, but is it still stuck at 800Mhz? And what about AMD? I think that IBM's a better chip-maker than AMD, and Apple can already take advantage of IBM's chips...
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
386
2
Originally posted by G4scott

Another thing about the G4, is that they beat the sh*t out of a P4 at the same clock speed. If Motorola, or IBM could bring the clock speed of the Power PC up to 2-2.5 Ghz by this time next year, Apple would have no problem keeping up with the x86 world. Now, you may say that it's impractical for IBM or Motorola to make a jump in clock speed that big, but hey, intel did it. The thing about the x86 platform that I really don't like, is that it needs such a high clock speed to give it that little 'edge' over a Dual 1Ghz G4... Just remember, a G4 at 3 ghz would blow the P4 of this planet and out of existance... I think It's time for Apple to call in IBM to get the PowerPC platform up there...
You're talking about "what if" scenarios and right now fantasy with the G4 and clock rates. The rest of the world is not going to just set still while Moto gets the rate up. Again so what if the P4 needs a higher clock rate? How does that *really* affect anyone in a negative sense? It doesn't. It's merely a positive that the G4 and AMD's chips can do more with less. It's foolish to talk about what if's. You may as well talk about how much faster the 6502 might be if the clockrate was the same as the G4. Or how about the 68k line.

Design decisions are what make this happen and, yes, marketing plays a role in this. Apple has to look at this and unless Apple is moving toward an embedded market, Moto is going to out of the picture.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that IBM is the savior for the PPC and its clockrate/performance. They haven't proven that they can overcome much of the design decisions anymore than Moto to make it competitive with the x86 chips. Frankly the breakup of AIM is more obvious than ever and it's time people people understood and coped with it.
 

awrc

macrumors regular
Apr 20, 2002
215
1
Milwaukee, WI
At the end of the day, remember that the person making these predictions is an analyst. Then take a look at the state of the stock market, particularly with reference to tech stocks. Then look at what remains of your IRA :D

Personally I wouldn't trust an analyst to reliably tell me what color the sky was. My current opinion of market analysts is that they're basically just a more elaborate variation on a Magic 8-Ball with a slighter larger number of possible responses and a tendency to respond in a manner that reflects their own investments.
 

Sherman

macrumors regular
Jul 23, 2002
121
0
Berzerkeley
If apple DID decide to switch to the x86 platform i'm about 90% sure they would use the new Itanium architecture and not the old x86 crap. If they did this, they would still have their edge over Microsoft because all of the old software won't run on the new architecture, but apple would still have the might and power of Intel working on the processor line instead of itty-bitty retarded ass-backwards Motorola.

And Mac os X tries to spell Intel "Lint".