Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

[polsons]

Has it occurred to anyone that since this is so close to the Mac OS X transition, that it might have been the plan all along. Seriously.

Whether or not the 3Ghz promise-fallthrough fiasco was planned I don't know. But this whole thing seems a little too much of a coincidence.

Apple has always struggled with trying to inform consumers that their computers really are as fast or faster as the windows counterparts. Apple has had to deal with pimplefaced teens working for BestBuy that say Macs are slow based on Mhz/Ghz.

SO when Steve got back at the helm of Apple, one of the decisions must have been along the lines of this thought pattern.

-Windows is dominating the market due to the Megahertz myth
-Mac OS 8 doesn't have a good road map.
-Let's base the next generation OS off of some concepts developed at NeXT
-Hey while we're at it. if we developed an OS from the ground up for x86 maybe we can compete more head to head with windows.
-Let's continue development on OS 9 and start migrating our hardware to support this new OS 10 thing.
- The new hardware will still be PPC based for a while. who knows how long, but the OS transition will happen first. Then will open the curtain and reveal the x86 version exists.
-Hey let's call the OS 10 system OS X. You know the roman numeral, plus it gives homage to the X in NeXT and the fact that it is base of of Unix. You know Unix has an X in it too.
-Now we need to get developers behind this. Let's also release a public beta for cheap.
-somewhere in here we'll introduce the G4 processor
-Okay our first release out of the gate is doing pretty well. let's offer our first point upgrade for free. Kind of a thankyou for the early adopters.
-10.2 has improved dramatically. Let's charge for this update
-Let's introduce the G5 proc. and promise 3Ghz in a year.
-10.3 is a serious update again.
-Conveniently, we don't have a 3 Ghz G5. Let's start putting heat on IBM.
-10.4 is some retooling of the system, but now groundbreaking user enhancements like 10.2 and 10.3 had. Let's hype this Dashboard thing and Spotlight.
-Announce that we've had an x86 version of OSX since it's inception, and begin to merge over to Intel.
-Now we need to get developers behind this. Let's also release a developer box for cheap. (Deja vu slightly)

So here we are today. um maybe I feel to much conspiracy behind this, but is it that much of a stretch to think that Steve wanted to really go after the computer market and attack windows market share?

Good theory, but not one that makes much sense. Though you're sort of on the right track.

In 1985, Apple was a computer hardware maker that by necessity happened to also make an OS.

In 1995, Apple was a computer hardware maker that by necessity also made software.

In 2005, Apple is a computer software developer that by necessity also makes hardware.

In 2015, Apple will be a software developer (only) for generic computer hardware.

More importantly, in 2015, Apple (the software only developer) will have a market share 5 times of what it is today, and a capital value 10 times what it is today.

Put simply, in the mind of any business analyst computer hardware is nothing more than a commodity. Software and services is the future of the industry. SJ might have a gigantic ego, but he is also an astute businessman, and this is without doubt the first step in reinventing Apple as a force within the industry with the additional (and primary) benefit of making Apple shareholders extremely happy.

 

[wdlove]

Good theory, but not one that makes much sense. Though you're sort of on the right track.

More importantly, in 2015, Apple (the software only developer) will have a market share 5 times of what it is today, and a capital value 10 times what it is today.

Put simply, in the mind of any business analyst computer hardware is nothing more than a commodity. Software and services is the future of the industry. SJ might have a gigantic ego, but he is also an astute businessman, and this is without doubt the first step in reinventing Apple as a force within the industry with the additional (and primary) benefit of making Apple shareholders extremely happy.

The only problem with Apple not making the hardware, quality would suffer. Just don't think Mac OS would function as well on generic machines. It's a problem that Bill Gates has.

 

[Tahko]

Put simply, in the mind of any business analyst computer hardware is nothing more than a commodity. Software and services is the future of the industry. SJ might have a gigantic ego, but he is also an astute businessman, and this is without doubt the first step in reinventing Apple as a force within the industry with the additional (and primary) benefit of making Apple shareholders extremely happy.

If Apple would take software-only route, it would make the company just another IT-firm. That on turn would actually make markets more cautious after a short boom on stock prices, developing quickly into another IT-bubble that would burst sooner or later. That happened in 2000 on a very large scale and would happen to Apple as well. Apples P/E is even now dangerously high. Next spring APP share will begin to fall drastically, heed my words. Not because of the bad revenue, but because it's stock is over-hyped.

 

[BenRoethig]

Apple will always make hardware. They make some of the best laptops and the niche market desktops should have a market. This isn't about ditching the PowerPC to become Microsoft. This is about Apple being Apple to make new machines with up to date technology without having to pay boatloads of money to have IBM or Freescale to make custom chips for them. Apple wanted a certain type of chip and Intel could give it to them and be able to deliver it in the quantities that Apple wants.

 

[avkills]

Apple will always make hardware. They make some of the best laptops and the niche market desktops should have a market. This isn't about ditching the PowerPC to become Microsoft. This is about Apple being Apple to make new machines with up to date technology without having to pay boatloads of money to have IBM or Freescale to make custom chips for them. Apple wanted a certain type of chip and Intel could give it to them and be able to deliver it in the quantities that Apple wants.

I doubt Intel is making anything special for Apple. But you are correct about the economics, Apple is simply tired of paying for CPU R&D and money towards fabrication plants. Although I still think that Apple may still design their own system controller chips, all they really need to do is re-engineer them to talk to the Intel CPUs by way of Intels FSB technology. Although I can see Apple even ditching that to save even more money.

-mark

 

[Surreal]

i sure wouldnt mind a G5 Pci-e/Pci-x DSP card.

 

[Platform]

The only problem with Apple not making the hardware, quality would suffer. Just don't think Mac OS would function as well on generic machines. It's a problem that Bill Gates has.

Yes.

Just because Bill has that problem does not mean that Apple needs it

 

[Muzukun]

well this has probably been said, but I'm not going to go through reading pages of posts either way so here goes...

IBM is just doing nothing short of cleanup, they're trying to show that their company isn't crap, the PowerPC line still has alot of potential and is still a worthwhile processor. Every presentation I have seen however seems to suggest that what IBM wanted from Apple was a little more money for them to actually go ahead and make a G5 for the powerbook, IE, a bribe.

Considering Dell's stance towards new technology (they don't give any money towards research and what not, that's what I heard from some random news site out there, because other companies are already doing that for them). Apple's move to intel will allow them to more or less play a Dell, sit there, let other companies cough up the cash for the new technology, and like Dell, Apple will be able to reap the benefits without having to really spend any money on it. Along with this line of thought is that Intel would be able to use whatever new and flashy chips they (and apple) want on Apple's systems, which is just more for Apple in terms of power and what not.

Overall, good move by apple, good for intel, bad for IBM but they deserved it. Considering all their press releases and statements as cited by online news sites, it seems like they could have done everything apple wanted of them and then some... but didn't because they either wanted more money, or some other BS reason they have yet to disclose. They got what they deserved and now they have to deal with a company that is practically known for using the best stuff out there leaving them.

 

[840quadra]

Sounds to me like IBM and Apple had a falling out. Apple got to speak out first, and now IBM is disputing what apple said.

Either way I am curious and excited to see what comes from both companies (IBM and Intel). I kinda like IBM chips, and I would be happy to buy one or two more apple systems featuring them.

 

[Militar]

We might see Pentium M chips in desktop Macs. That would be my wish, anyway. Integrated wireless and (gasp) integrated video will make for much cheaper Macs that what we are currently used to.

Imagine dual core hyperthreaded dual processor Pentium 4s.

 

[neocell]

I remember reading somewhere on the web that Steve Jobs claimed that biggest mistake he had ever made in his life (or more correctly running Apple) was to not go with intel chips. I read this when I first started thinking of switching to a mac ~3 years ago, right about when OS X came out (apparently in both PPC and intel versions). So as a lot of people have been saying that this has probably been something that Steve has wanted to do for a long time, I wouldn't at all be surprised. If only I could find that article again...

 

[DakotaGuy]

(gasp) integrated video

If you thought people got upset on here about computers with 32MB 9200 video cards and 64MB FX5200 Ultra's just wait until they ship the first with "Integrated Intel Graphics!"

 

[DakotaGuy]

Apple's move to intel will allow them to more or less play a Dell, sit there, let other companies cough up the cash for the new technology, and like Dell, Apple will be able to reap the benefits without having to really spend any money on it.

BINGO! Someone just stated the main reason behind the switch no matter what Steve says. Development cost on Apple hardware will go down considerably and the profit margin will increase. Apple is first and foremost concerned with profit, all corporations are and Apple is no different. This was a business move and along with that maybe some cool new things down the line.

 

[Eastend]

Sounds to me like IBM and Apple had a falling out. Apple got to speak out first, and now IBM is disputing what apple said.

Either way I am curious and excited to see what comes from both companies (IBM and Intel). I kinda like IBM chips, and I would be happy to buy one or two more apple systems featuring them.

As far as the statement made by the VP at IBM (Adkins) goes, if he worked for me he'd already be looking for another job somewhere else.

http://www.appleturns.com/

the above URL is just a joke, but it has a lot of truth in it, scroll down to "We Meant (Not) To Do That" (7/1/05)

Brian

 

[sucafrutpi]

This is NOT about Freescale or IBM failing with their products or roadmaps. If Apple does not give the guaranty to IBM to buy their mobile solution they will sure as hell not develope it into production, as it is their ONLY costumor for PPC. Apple is the one holding the cards here.
So get it in your heads fanboys, this was a STRATEGIC move, not a tactical one based on the situation on the battlefield.

are you really suggesting that if ibm had a mobile g5 ready for apple right now that apple still would have moved? i don't think apple could have resisted the avalanche of pb g5 sales that have been building for two years. apple is by no means ibm's only ppc customer, yet adkins actually suggested that if apple really wanted a mobile g5, ibm could have designed it for them for only "few hundred million dollars, much less than the cost of the transition." the issue is that apple does have a high enough volume to support developing their own OS, their own chipsets, AND their own microprocessors. it is really a shame, because we were finally seeing most apps optimized for the G5. it's really a shame, because the G5 has so much potential and we were just starting to see many apps optimized for the G5.

 

[~Shard~]

are you really suggesting that if ibm had a mobile g5 ready for apple right now that apple still would have moved?

I agree with you, it's unlikely, but I could see there still being an outside chance that IBM finally got their act together and developed one, however Apple sees it as "too little too late". Who knows, perhaps we will see a 3 GHz G5 as well, but again, 2 years late is too late, so thanks but no thanks.

Still though, I agree, I just don't see any G5 PowerBooks coming anytime soon, and I think one of the reasons Apple moved to Intel is because they have more attractive mobile solutions, both now and on their roadmaps. I think if anything we're more likely to see a dual-core G4 PowerBooks than a G5 PowerBook at this stage.

 

[fiercetiger224]

Okay, first of all, IBM DIDN'T satisfy Apple. There's a difference between saying you can make something, and actually making something. IBM hasn't produced a 3 Ghz chip yet, nor have they produced a PowerBook G5 chip. IBM is being full of crap as far as I'm concerned.

Of course there's a reason why Apple switched, and Intel does have the horsepower to research and develop something quickly, and in great quantity. I believe in Apple and Intel.

 

[lgoss007]

Speculation

I don't think anyone can really say who's to blame. From the eWeek article there is a link with another interesting speculation:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1824781,00.asp

And really that's all that can be done, speculation. There are many different theories but I doubt anyone really knows, except for the IBM and Apple executives.

 

[macdong]

I don't think anyone can really say who's to blame. From the eWeek article there is a link with another interesting speculation:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1824781,00.asp

And really that's all that can be done, speculation. There are many different theories but I doubt anyone really knows, except for the IBM and Apple executives.

perhaps you are right, there is not much to do except speculate.
but there is one thing this article didn't explain.
if IBM was giving Apple as much support as possible, where is PowerBook G5?

 

[~Shard~]

if IBM was giving Apple as much support as possible, where is PowerBook G5?

... And the 3.0 GHz PowerMacs...

 

[minimax]

are you really suggesting that if ibm had a mobile g5 ready for apple right now that apple still would have moved? i don't think apple could have resisted the avalanche of pb g5 sales that have been building for two years. apple is by no means ibm's only ppc customer, yet adkins actually suggested that if apple really wanted a mobile g5, ibm could have designed it for them for only "few hundred million dollars, much less than the cost of the transition." the issue is that apple does have a high enough volume to support developing their own OS, their own chipsets, AND their own microprocessors. it is really a shame, because we were finally seeing most apps optimized for the G5. it's really a shame, because the G5 has so much potential and we were just starting to see many apps optimized for the G5.

Let's put it this way: I suspect Apple drove towards a forced split. Of course, when IBM developes a new chip for a specific customer, the customer needs to invest in it too, that's just how it works with low-volume chipsales. Although it's just speculation I would not be surprised if Apple refused to invest in PPC any longer. Why else complain about the lack of a G5 when there is a second supplier with a next generation chipsolution (Freescale). Why didnt we hear about Freescale failing too?
The arguments used for the transition are just too weak and circumstantional: no 3 GHz yet? join the club! only netburst is past the 3 GHz, really impressive. And the watts per performance figure was just too embarrassing, did they hire Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf as their public relations expert?
Some real arguments for the delay would have been:
IBM cannot deliver dual core in time, Freescale cannot deliver 8641 in time. (apple's timetable deadline for those processors please to support and verify the claim)
If those were the case it could have been a convincing case, but not mentioning them, and serving some old cheese doesnt make their case really convincing.

 

[wdlove]

I remember reading somewhere on the web that Steve Jobs claimed that biggest mistake he had ever made in his life (or more correctly running Apple) was to not go with intel chips. I read this when I first started thinking of switching to a mac ~3 years ago, right about when OS X came out (apparently in both PPC and intel versions). So as a lot of people have been saying that this has probably been something that Steve has wanted to do for a long time, I wouldn't at all be surprised. If only I could find that article again...

If neocell is correct on his recollection of that article, then it really doesn't matter what IBM does. Hopefully that article can be found again. It sounds as though Steve has been planning the move for years. Mac OS X was the beginning of the transfer.

 

[~Shard~]

It sounds as though Steve has been planning the move for years. Mac OS X was the beginning of the transfer.

Precisely - I chuckled during the WWDC Keynote whenn Steve mentioned that ALL versions of OS X had been tested and compiled to run on Intel hardware.

 

[lgoss007]

if IBM was giving Apple as much support as possible, where is PowerBook G5?

IBM could have been giving Apple as much support as Apple paid for. The article actually mentions this a little:

"If all Apple wanted was more variety, it could have paid IBM to develop more processors, just as Sony and Microsoft have done for their videogame consoles."

(Nintendo too). The PowerPC market works a little different than the x86 market. Take a look at the IBM website here: http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/asics/

You won't find custom chip solutions at Intel or AMD.

... And the 3.0 GHz PowerMacs...

Use your imagination. I could speculate if you want. Everyone (even Intel) ran into the speed barrier, so there definately could have been some problems meeting SJ's projected guarantee (or whatever it was). So that might have been part of the problem. But if SJ was intent on moving to x86 anyways, then blaming problems on other companies would be a good fuel to motivate your users to want to move to. If everything was fine in the PowerPC world would users want to move? Maybe, but there would be a little more hesitation I would speculate... I seem to use that word a lot, but for good reason.

I'm leery to trust either business and do my best to hold an open and objective opinion.

 

[Militar]

Precisely - I chuckled during the WWDC Keynote whenn Steve mentioned that ALL versions of OS X had been tested and compiled to run on Intel hardware.

It's not good to put all your eggs in one basket. It's good to see this being practiced in such a high profile fashion.