Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple in Talks with Intel?

Long live Apple

vibinc said:
As for the OSX on Intel processors, I agree with the majority of the other posters. Too many hurdles and Apple hardware would almost certainly die out. Hardware is still a money maker, though it doesn't play very high in their marketing efforts, that they would be foolish to abandon.

- vibinc
Click to expand...

I have heard this argument so many times and I still don't understand it's logic? Why would Apple's hardware business die out? Because it's more expensive? Even if it were, there will always be a demand for strong quality industrial design. There will always be folks who will pay a little more for a beautiful computer over just some ugly piece of $... Not only that, but there will always be Mac purests that will want a computer with the Apple logo.

For example, I think the iMac is a beautifully designed all-in-one computer. If I needed one, and it was a choice between the iMac and a Dell or Gateway, I would pay a little more for the iMac. Have you seen their all-in-one designs? Please...

There would also be a great deal more OS X users. This in turn, would increase the potential market for Apple computers. There is a real reluctance on the part of people to "switch" because it's new or different. So, if Apple had say a 30% OS marketshare that would equal ten times more potential Apple hardware customers. I think Apple's hardware business would actually increase dramatically.

I think Apple will always make computers no matter how much money they make in other aspects of their business. As long as there is an Apple there will always be a strong demand for Apple computers.
 
MUHAHAHAHAHA

Amazing how Steve-o can make people jump - he probably got a little mad seeing IBM provide triple core 3.2MHz chips for M$, so he placed a warning shot across their bow. It's unlikely Apple would change chip providers, but I think we know that if you make Mr. Jobs mad, you could lose all your business with him. Apple may just use this as leverage against IBM.
 
MacEyeDoc said:
Amazing how Steve-o can make people jump
Click to expand...

-MacEyeDoc

How many time do I have to say that this was caused by Paul Thurott?

Steve has nothing to do with this.

-BTW the specs of the next XBox is pure vaporware. There are no shipping 3.2 GHz PPC chips of that make - yet.
 
The more competition the better, if IBM can't deliver it then Apple can't rely upon one supplier, I am more than up for the idea of Apple using the fastest and cheapest AND delivered in large quantities processor chips available...

But in all seriousness I dont think Apple will switch to x86, too much hassle on the software side of things, one thing that popped in to my mind is that rumors from december 2004 from cnet I believe said that the next PowerPC processor from IBM will allow to run multiple OSs simultaneously and I wonder what role that Apple/Intel meeting had in that...

I still believe that IBM has the best processor technology to offer, problem with them is they lack the manufacturing punch of Intel but I am guessing that will change soon too as they have contracts for the PS3 and Revolution processors (XBOX360 will outsource the processors) so they will have to up their manufacturing quantities which means they will have to build more manufacturing plants... If IBM wants to become a real player in PowerPC development they will have to manufacture the processors for customers in a reliable fashion, its POWER EVERYWHERE afterall...

Anyway, Apple is doing fine in the desktop processor market right now, they pretty much are competetive and in some ways faster than current competition, sure amd/intel released the dual cores but those chips are available in small quantities and are too expensive (not to mention software is not optimized for it) so in all reality we will probably see this technology boom by the end of this year where Apple/IBM should be with the big boys too...

I guess Apples problem are the processors for portables but wasn't Freescale supposed to release some low power dual cores soon? I doubt we will ever see a mobile G5 but its not like Apple hasnt ever skipped a genaration of processors they had in their desktops that didnt appear in laptops...

This rumor probably was a shove at IBM to hurry up with their manufacturing process, on the other hand all those new console chips are not available now but will be available by the end of this year so who knows what Apple will have by then...
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
The horror... :eek:
God forbid that.
I don't agree with people that says Macs are just about the OS. It is the entire thing. A computer and a OS designed to optimal as a unit, hence no clones. When I hear people talking about building their own Macs or proting the OS to run on Dells... I just crumble.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with building your own pc? Plenty of people who build their own take better care and attention to detail than your average factory worker at Quanta in Shanghai making $1.50 a week screwing together a powerbook.
 
Not the same...

It just wouldn't be the same,it wouldn't make it a Mac. I love the PowerPC architecture,it runs effeciently and with Intel multitasking on a Mac could be trouble. PowerPC is what made the Mac and I hope it always stays like this. The PowerPC is absolutley amazing...also it is what makes the PowerMac better on Photoshop and on video editing.
 
iHome

Don't know if this has been suggested already, but I wonder whether an Apple-Intel tie-up might be linked to the rumoured iHome/digital media hub. This is certainly an area that Intel are pushing hard to get into, so there might very well be a logical strategic collaboration in this field?
 
game chips mac chips IBM intel

It seems that Apple is tired of IBM putting it on the back burner. IBM has been late with most of all the chips that we are all waiting to have in our macs.
Remember, Game chips are low margin products and chips made for the mac have a significantly higher margin.

So when IBM grabbs the game chip market it needs to balance those margins with more of a money maker. IBM needs APPLE, simple as. Apple is just letting IBM know not to F*** with them, or else they will jump ship.

Note that one of the reasons why INtel left the game chip market or significantly derailed their game chip R&D was due to the low margin factors.

I think this move by APPLE will put some needed fire under IBM's arrsss.

J
 
Pinks, I don't think we will really see an iMedia center around for a while, unless they change the marketing strategy on the Mac Mini and have some cool peripherals come out for it because of the lazy market of some of the other products Apple offers. And for everyone else, refer to post 342, because I solved this whole thing back there.
 
Jobs said publicly LAST NIGHT that this was not going to happen.

Why are people still debating this?
 
smc9972 said:
I think Apple is just stirring up the waters with this one, but what is the possibility of Apple jumping onto Sun's UltraSPARC in the long-run? I don't think anyone here has mentioned that possibility.
Click to expand...

while a little off topic, i think this would be cool. i love the SPARC processors they are great.
 
Bigheadache said:
What's wrong with building your own pc? Plenty of people who build their own take better care and attention to detail than your average factory worker at Quanta in Shanghai making $1.50 a week screwing together a powerbook.
Click to expand...
There was a reason why Apple didn't want clones around. By having total control of manufacturing both the hardware and OS you get very stable systems.
If you allowed clones or people to build there own Mac we would soon be in the same swamp as Windows, with a bloated OS trying to comprise all possible combinations of components. This would just as in the case with windows result in a jack-of-all-trades OS ok with many combinations but not as now excellent with a few combinations.
 
hcuar said:
I originally bought my PB and PM for OS X... Well, I must say that I've continued using them for OS X and the PPC.
Click to expand...

I switched from PC to Mac in Oct '04 as a final measure (retaliation???) against the constant crashing of Windows while writing up my thesis ("dissertation" in American speak). While on PC, I was on the university network so viruses weren't too big of an issue (although worms were). But I got fed-up with Office crashing every time I moved a figure or a complicated table!!! And all those illegal operations...Grrr...*nightmares*

Now happily completing my thesis on an iBook - it is currently 8 chapters long, almost 15mb and has never crashed. Life has never been better...until my brand-spanking new iMac arrives!

I don't mind Apple switching to another processor, as long as Mac OS remains STABLE and SECURE, and the threat of viruses/malicious code is minimal.
 
BWhaler said:
Jobs said publicly LAST NIGHT that this was not going to happen.

Why are people still debating this?
Click to expand...

Because no one wants to read 400 posts before they put theirs up :(
 
Object-X said:
I have heard this argument so many times and I still don't understand it's logic? Why would Apple's hardware business die out? Because it's more expensive? Even if it were, there will always be a demand for strong quality industrial design. There will always be folks who will pay a little more for a beautiful computer over just some ugly piece of $... Not only that, but there will always be Mac purests that will want a computer with the Apple logo.

For example, I think the iMac is a beautifully designed all-in-one computer. If I needed one, and it was a choice between the iMac and a Dell or Gateway, I would pay a little more for the iMac. Have you seen their all-in-one designs? Please...

There would also be a great deal more OS X users. This in turn, would increase the potential market for Apple computers. There is a real reluctance on the part of people to "switch" because it's new or different. So, if Apple had say a 30% OS marketshare that would equal ten times more potential Apple hardware customers. I think Apple's hardware business would actually increase dramatically.

I think Apple will always make computers no matter how much money they make in other aspects of their business. As long as there is an Apple there will always be a strong demand for Apple computers.
Click to expand...

People who make the argument that Apple hardware would hurt if Apple opened up their architecture are remembering history. The words for you: Mac Clones. (More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clones). Offering OS X on "generic" x86 hardware would create a situation very close to the Clone fiasco. Until Jobs killed the licensing of Mac OS and the necessary ROMs to third party Clone makers, Apple lost a lot of the Mac market to them due to their lower price point and good performance.

And while Apple COULD make an x86 based computer that would be closed, I doubt they would. The practical barriors to the move would be rough. Remember the Motorolla 680X0 to PPC transition. It was a monumental undertaking and they spent tons of time and money pulling it off. All the while, developers and analysts complained that it was too painful. Sure, Apple could develop some kick-butt emulation software, but it wouldn't run at 100% which would defeat the original purpose of the move: fast hardware at a cheap price.

IBM and Motorola wouldn't lease the PPC to Intel, so that's probably out. The idea of Intel developing a PPC-like RISC architecture is somewhat plausable, and this would make emulation significantly easier and faster, but I still don't see it.

My money is on other devices. iPods maybe? Wireless technology? A new gadget? A home entertainment products running OS X and x86 (little third-party software would have to be ported)? Or maybe they're just trying to scare IBM into faster/better production.

Whatever it is, I don't see Apple moving to x86 as their primary platform.

Taft
 
After having read all of the posts in this thread I must say that it is again fun to see all of the passion concerning Apple.

You don't find anything this funn on "Dellrumors.com" or "HPrumors.com".

I think that only good could come from Intel making PPC chips, but it would be a mixed bag for Apple to move to x86.
 
Headlines........

Broadcom and TI joint venture to make the G6! :D

I wouldn't care who makes it, as long as Apple has vetted it for speed, accuracy, security and yes COST!

This is probably a fishing expedition to put more heat on IBM, or hedging, and both are smart to do.
igary said:
Is it WWDC yet?
Click to expand...

teehee....ya and I heard they were announcing G6's sterioded by 10.5 this time!
 
well when freescale releases the e700 core and cranks more speed out of the newish e600 dual cores apple may not need IBM at all.
 
This wasn't even started by Paul Thurrot. This was what BILL GATES was saying a couple of weeks ago. Thurrot picked it up, and only now is the WSJ et al. picking it up. This shouldn't even have made Page 2.

IF, and that's a BIG if, Apple is in talks with Intel at all, it's for WiMax or PCIe chips. Move along folks, nothing to see here. The big news is yesterday's demo of iTunes 4.9 which is going to support Podcasting. Why isn't that on the main page.
 
GeeYouEye said:
IF, and that's a BIG if, Apple is in talks with Intel at all, it's for WiMax or PCIe chips.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking as well. Maybe they could be discussing PCIe chips for use in future macs.
 
and the truth finallly comes out

After reading this thread it seems clear to me that apple is virus free (to the extent that it is) not because of a rock solid OS or a high level of skill and committment from Apple Computer.

It seems apple just has a chip that makes it so.


Hmmm.... sad.... all this time I thought it was because apple did a better job. :rolleyes:
 
Apple could be looking at an alliance with handheld devices.

More importantly to light a fire under IBM to further research in advanced chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back