Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1984 said:
Interesting thought:
IBM could produce a 3 ghz multicore chip for Apple... They in fact are producing one for Microsoft. The chip designs are not that dissimilar. If you remember the development box for the Xbox360 IS a PowerMac afterall.
The heat issues also makes one wonder too, because the Xbox360 is a tiny box compared to a PowerMac.
IMO I really do believe this whole decision boils down to Steve being PO'd that IBM promised 10 Million 3Ghz multicore CPUs to Microsoft by Sept and Apple didn't get even a single core 3Ghz CPU from them.
swissmann said:
I think this is one of the problems we have as Mac and Apple followers. In my case I've never been an anti-Intel or anti-anything. All I care about now is running OS X on a fast machine which let's me finish my work faster and wait less, I really never cared that I was on a PPC. Having a G3, a G4 and G5 was just that, not having a Motorola, then a Motorola with Altivec and now an IBM proc. Of course I was aware those were the procs my computer was running. But most people who are buying iPods and Mac minis and iMacs, don't really care who's making the processor, as long as they use it and it's fast. Intel-based Macs have to be faster than other computers we'll see in the future. If they aren't, then we will know that the transition was a mistake. Until now, we can only hope to see faster and better Macs, which Jobs claims is their goal.
rhoorn said:
I think there's a lot more than just this. And I believe it isn't really like a conspiracy, just something that evolved over the years. This summary of decisions you talk about doesn't include one of Apple's most important cards in the game: the iPod.
The iPod, iTunes and the iTMS became such a big success that it undoubtfully has played in major role in Apple's decision-making. The 3 combined meant the true birth of legal and cheap music downloading from the internet, something most people probably thought was impossible at the time.
I think Apple's switch to Intel has something to do with this, and they are thinking more into the future with downloadable movies. I really don't know too much about processors as I'd like to but I was reading about the DRM features in some x86 chips and how Apple could take advantage of that to beging a truly legal movie download system. It seems something very believable, and it would seem to me as a real reason to switch to Intel, not like the "not delivering a 3GHz PowerMac" reason, which really doesn't seem as important to Apple. It's just speculation as of know, but that reason seams a lot more likely to me with all the attention iPod and iTunes has had over Macs the past few years.
Ktulu said:
yep yep, this is what happened when apple moved to PPC, they lost a ton of market share because people didn't want to take the time to switch. mac gaming is dead, no way around that. this will hurt apple more than many of the fanboys think. it isn't a good move..
MongoTheGeek said:This sounds like bargaining.
I wonder if this move was just to get game developers over to develop on Macs.
The high-end desktops and the XServes will be G5's and G6's. Laptops might be split and the rest would be intel and used by gamers.
Like I said...NOTHING to do with Games. Getting more games on the Mac platform is nowhere near reason enough to switch processor architectures. This is ALL because a certain someone has egg in their face regarding 3GHz. Think about it.
B_Gates said:
Perhaps you should scroll back to some of the threads from around that period. You'd be suprised what people's expectations with the mac mini were. In fact, I had big expections as well, and expected apple to gain at least 1/3 extra marketshare this year, but even that was a bit too optimistic i guess
Hard - To Hard To Handle
Well dudes !
I hate it to say but steve`s plan is to attack windows.
The foolish developers and the idiot users (us) help to
prepare for Jobs last battle. The iPod helped to bring
in enough money to develop such a mega - strike.
All will be transformed for the PC Platform, OEM Sale
in the End. Treason, for sure - and we pay the price.
The next big thing after iTunes is for sure a iMovie Pod and Store.
DRM in a well controlled Intel Machine - Hollywood Business...
But the Mac as it was ended finally on 6th this month !
Sorry, i hate these words...but the Mac has not only changed
his mind - it also lost his soul !
Stay Hungry - stay foolish Steve said...I complete...stay yourself
Well dudes !
I hate it to say but steve`s plan is to attack windows.
The foolish developers and the idiot users (us) help to
prepare for Jobs last battle. The iPod helped to bring
in enough money to develop such a mega - strike.
All will be transformed for the PC Platform, OEM Sale
in the End. Treason, for sure - and we pay the price.
The next big thing after iTunes is for sure a iMovie Pod and Store.
DRM in a well controlled Intel Machine - Hollywood Business...
But the Mac as it was ended finally on 6th this month !
Sorry, i hate these words...but the Mac has not only changed
his mind - it also lost his soul !
Stay Hungry - stay foolish Steve said...I complete...stay yourself
apollo8fan said:
I'm with you.
The dual-core e600 from freescale is truly a remarkable processor.
I believe the reason we didn't/won't see it in the PowerBook is 3 fold.
First: Jobs is dissatisfied with Moto/Freescale.
Second: They would outperform the current PowerMacs.
Third: They didn't become available in Quantity until recently.
dernhelm said:
Apple is planning on making an iPod with FULL mac capabilities to REALY get to the masses. There is the momentum for this, marketing-wise. Technically, they need a cool and low power processor and they need LOTS of them. Intel is their best partner for that.
There's not just one reason
There are several reasons, most mentioned here.
There is definitely the Intel DRM for movies (reported in the British press at the time of the switch)
Heat (my G4 Powerbook is giving me 3rd degree burns to my privates as I type this)
Lack of clock speed
Fear that IBM don't care any more / knowledge that Intel will always have a competitive chip
Centrino - type chipsets
One less thing for Switchers to worry about
You can always run Windows on it too. Let's face it every Mac sold with an Intel processor will have W2000 or Longhorn on it as well as OSX, because it can run Windows.
But it isn't to attack the Windows base. Steve Jobs doesn't want to be number one in the Operating System market (he couldn't be anyway), he wants to change the world.
The future of Apple is not as a computer company (let's face it, the present isn't as a computer company). Apple is about new devices that do what PC's do now. You can't replace Windows on PCs. But if you create a whole new device you might replace PCs. The iPod was the first such device.
Just ride the wave and see what happens - remember 31 years ago there were no personal computers - it's just that most of you are too young to know that
There are several reasons, most mentioned here.
There is definitely the Intel DRM for movies (reported in the British press at the time of the switch)
Heat (my G4 Powerbook is giving me 3rd degree burns to my privates as I type this)
Lack of clock speed
Fear that IBM don't care any more / knowledge that Intel will always have a competitive chip
Centrino - type chipsets
One less thing for Switchers to worry about
You can always run Windows on it too. Let's face it every Mac sold with an Intel processor will have W2000 or Longhorn on it as well as OSX, because it can run Windows.
But it isn't to attack the Windows base. Steve Jobs doesn't want to be number one in the Operating System market (he couldn't be anyway), he wants to change the world.
The future of Apple is not as a computer company (let's face it, the present isn't as a computer company). Apple is about new devices that do what PC's do now. You can't replace Windows on PCs. But if you create a whole new device you might replace PCs. The iPod was the first such device.
Just ride the wave and see what happens - remember 31 years ago there were no personal computers - it's just that most of you are too young to know that
i guess there is something in the contract between apple and ibm that apple has to use a minimum number of cpu's from intel till 2007. that would explain steve's and ibm's claim that there are ppc products to come.
would be cool to see a dual core g5 in an imac 23" soon. but i'm not holding my breath.
ibm of course has to respond that way. now not only apple says their cpu's aren't good enough for the future but also the new gaming consoles running on ibm cpu's are said to be slow. ibm get's hit on two sides. that will loose them billions in sales and that hurts.
it's just funny, because in order to avoid saying "we can't do it" they rather say "well, we could but aehm, we didn't, because if we really wanted we could make those cpu's, but aehm we just aehm didn't". thats corporate BS. they deserve to lose the business they couldn't or didn't want to do.
would be cool to see a dual core g5 in an imac 23" soon. but i'm not holding my breath.
ibm of course has to respond that way. now not only apple says their cpu's aren't good enough for the future but also the new gaming consoles running on ibm cpu's are said to be slow. ibm get's hit on two sides. that will loose them billions in sales and that hurts.
it's just funny, because in order to avoid saying "we can't do it" they rather say "well, we could but aehm, we didn't, because if we really wanted we could make those cpu's, but aehm we just aehm didn't". thats corporate BS. they deserve to lose the business they couldn't or didn't want to do.
minimax said:
I don't know if people care about the CPU. Most people don't know the difference between an AMD and an Intel, but as long as it runs Windows and is a good price, they'll jump on it.
My observations of Windows users and the Macintosh is that you can always get interest from the enthusiasts...the guys who work in IT for a living, or who are just straight-out 'geeks' and who love new technology. I have a few friends who have been PC users for 15 years and have gone out and bought Mac minis and absolutely love them...to the point of never turning on their PC setups which are much more powerful than the mini.
On the other hand, there are the masses who use one or two applications on Windows for their job, or who just need to check their e-mail and look something up on the web. These are the people for who the computer is just a tool...nothing more. They are the ones, in my experience, who are most resistant to the Mac or OS X...or anything which isn't Windows. "Why isn't the window close button in the right place?" "Where's the Start menu?" "Where's Internet Explorer?" "The menu bar is in the wrong place!" "Oh forget this stupid piece of crap...I'm going back to the Windows machine...it works RIGHT!!"
The first few times I witnessed that type of behaviour, I was a little surprised. I honestly thought the average computer user was more flexible in their ability to quickly adapt to basic changes in a GUI. But what I have learned over time is that most computer users don't actually seem to understand the basic concepts of a GUI and them apply them in a general context to a GUI which is subtly different to what they are used to. They learn operations by rote, and then when something like the program launch menu is in a different spot, or the window controls are on the left side of the title bar instead of the right, they are thrown into a tailspin, get rapidly frustrated, and give up on the Mac within a few minutes, declaring it to be 'wrong'.
Highly frustrating (especially when a lot of my non-geeky friends and co-workers fall into this category), but very, very common. I don't think it has much to do with the choice of CPU to be honest.
Oh, please. IBM could have made chips if they wanted to? They didn't want to! That's the whole reason Apple left them! If they had wanted to do it, it would have been done. Nice PR ploy, but everyone can see right through it.
No Apple investment
Right. To me the telling quote is when the IBM guy says that Apple wants to "invest" more in their software. I took this to mean that they chose not to give IBM some of the $4-5 billion they have in the bank to invest in more IBM R&D. Probably a reasonable decision on Apple's part versus the recent track record of IBM.
roadapple said:
Right. To me the telling quote is when the IBM guy says that Apple wants to "invest" more in their software. I took this to mean that they chose not to give IBM some of the $4-5 billion they have in the bank to invest in more IBM R&D. Probably a reasonable decision on Apple's part versus the recent track record of IBM.
oingoboingo said:
yeah I guess. Still I'm baffled. It's not the performance per watt, that's obvious with the e600 and e700 from Freescale in the pipeline, so the only logical explanation for me seems to be the one mentioned by gwangung.
Apple needs a. corporate credibility to grow further in the pc market b. does not want to keep spending resources on hardware design (chipsets, motherboards) and c. being dependant for its survival on corporations for which apple is just a nice addition to their portfolio, albeit a bit demanding.
edit: also SJ mentioning the 3 GHz really only weakens his argument. I mentioned it earlier, but it's not just IBM that did not keep it's promise. Surprise, surprise, in a parallel universe SJ asked one month ago: where's my 4 GHz P4? And why is there still no Netburst P4 that fits into the powerbook?
I think if I were IBM I'd start up this ad campaign again...
http://archive.bibalex.org/web/20011217231744/http://apple.com/g4/myth/
http://archive.bibalex.org/web/20011217231744/http://apple.com/g4/myth/
In hindsight, that's probably the key reason the announcement initially seemed more negatively fatalistic to me than it would have been if it were an and instead of an or. And there's still an air of pessimism about it that's hard to shake.BornAgainMac said:
Hopefully Steve has considered there soon may not be anyone left who wants to share the stage with him at future keynotes.
Well no duh. Of course IBM will say they could have built things for us. The point is that they didn't. I wonder how much live x86 has in it.
wow, we used to have purely emotional, juvenile bashing of intel and love of IBM, and now it's switched....
Well, I don't know exactly how to interpret this story-maybe IBM is lying, maybe they could have made the chips but weren't going to, and now just don't want to look technically inferior, maybe it was supply....
only new idea in this is for me is that perhaps IBM was able to make and supply competitive chips in the roadmap as well as intel was able, and it wasn't about the technology or the supply. Perhaps, apple simply wanted to lessen it's risks. Go with the same platform as microsoft, and there's no chance to gain greatly because your supplier is way better, but no chance at loosing on account of that either. IBM is better than intel, but intel is safe. And at 2% market share, you are best advised to play it safe.
Oh, and what I meant to say was, this change happened because of the timing-it hurts to do the change, so apple waited until it was at the top of its' game to do it.
Well, I don't know exactly how to interpret this story-maybe IBM is lying, maybe they could have made the chips but weren't going to, and now just don't want to look technically inferior, maybe it was supply....
only new idea in this is for me is that perhaps IBM was able to make and supply competitive chips in the roadmap as well as intel was able, and it wasn't about the technology or the supply. Perhaps, apple simply wanted to lessen it's risks. Go with the same platform as microsoft, and there's no chance to gain greatly because your supplier is way better, but no chance at loosing on account of that either. IBM is better than intel, but intel is safe. And at 2% market share, you are best advised to play it safe.
Oh, and what I meant to say was, this change happened because of the timing-it hurts to do the change, so apple waited until it was at the top of its' game to do it.
Excellent post !!Abercrombieboy said:
I've been watching the PPC vs x86 mode change on these fora for the last couple of weeks, and with detached amazement have watched the mood swing from "Intel bad, PPC good" to "PPC bad, Intel good".
Some, maybe to save face, say "Yonah good, Prescott bad" - when in fact the P4 chips are more-or-less equal to the PPC970 in power and power consumption. (100 watts doesn't fit in a laptop, neither does 85 watts - that's more-or-less equal)
May you live in interesting times....
did anybody find it funny that the guy from IBM said they were working with apple on their high end computers-the POWERBOOK, the imac, and xserve (and what about powermac??).
so, they WERE able to provide chips to fit into notebooks, but....
??
wouldn't it be ironic if we were just about to get G5 pb's? yeah right. but it is weird that IBM was working on powerbook chips.
so, they WERE able to provide chips to fit into notebooks, but....
??
wouldn't it be ironic if we were just about to get G5 pb's? yeah right. but it is weird that IBM was working on powerbook chips.