Apple in Talks with Intel?

[Lacero]

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.

 

[iGary]

Is it WWDC yet?

Proves to be a very interesting conference.

 

[drison]

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.

I do like that idea. I only use my pc for gaming these days but if Apple could pull off a card with integrated cpu/video or cpu and integrate with existing video, that'd be worth a couple hundred to me to dump my pc. I'm afraid that would be prohibitively expensive for Apple though and may not have a high enough roi. I rather just have native games for Mac.

-Dave

 

[nomore]

I really don't think Apple would use x86 based CPU.

This is why:

Even if they used a different system archiecture, programs like PearPC will still enable generic PCs to emulate the differences, but the biggest difference, and the one with the most impact on performance is the CPU... and this would allow the system to run natively. Apple would turn essentially into a software company.. and this is bad because...

People would build their own PCs and run OS X on it. How many people that build PCs these days acutally purchase a Windows XP licence? I bet it's a very small percentage.

Apple would loose control of hardware... thus stability, and Apple would loose control of what hardware their OS and software runs on... thus high levels of piracy.

The reason for this is because x86 based components are much easier for individuals to source than PPC based components. So there would be a lot of home brew Macs running pirated OS X and pirated Apple software.

 

[frodicus]

There's absolutely no point in going to Intel for a 'third way'. The only benefit to going to them at all would be for cross compatibility and marketing thereof. Picking them would alienate the traditionalists but buy the mass-market. Locking out everyone initially simply in order to gain some marketing 'Mhz' numbers is an incredibly bad idea, and would fool no-one. People want OS X on their PC. Moving to x86 would only really enable easier games playing for Mac owners - an incredibly stupid idea at the birth of a new console generation.

It would be tantamount to splitting the market even further, maybe something Intel might like to do to what is possibly the current largest PowerPC customer, but of no benefit to Apple whatsoever.

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

" Standard & Poor's Equity Research reiterated a "hold" rating on Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) after a report stating that the company may start using chips from Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ). Apple has made statements in the past that it has considered a switch from IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ). "We think Apple could potentially benefit from Intel's economies of scale, which could lower its component costs," the research firm said. "We believe key considerations would be whether the switch includes all of Apple's computers and the timeframe involved." S&P Equity Research views Apple as fairly valued, citing its strong balance sheet and iPod success. "

Men, come on, this is only crap, only gossips spreaded for some wall street broker trying to make more money! This is only rumors. That's all. They don't even know about the diference from Apple products and Dell computers! It's only ******** and start talking about switching processor suplier. It's not so easy an you know that!

People here have posted that Apple could be talking about PCIe and other wi-fi solutions and this is very likely to be true! Forget about changing processors!!

 

[Platform]

Because no one wants to read 400 posts before they put theirs up

Well you should....if not every thread will just repeat everything = No point in posting

 

[Mitch1984]

Probably just in talks to develop OS X for PC's that's all.

 

[jouster]

Probably just in talks to develop OS X for PC's that's all.

"That's all?"

Nothing major, then?

 

[fluidinclusion]

Are you sure?

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.

While your comment is technically valid, it isn't realistic. When is the last time you bought a brand name PC? No Windows CD comes with it. And, when they do come with machines, they are OEM only for that machine. I've dealt with IBM and SONY, and neither includes the Windows CD. The restore "CD" is a partition on the hard drive. IBM would not give us a Windows restore CD for any of the 9 computers we bought from them. After our warranty runs out this year, we're left buying a retail copy of Windows. Not right.

How are people who don't have Windows CD's going to install this on a new Mac if it could run Windows?

 

[iDrinkKoolAid]

First time posting!

The current Apple offerings are as good as anything you are going to get in the PC world.

Hi. First time posting. Left MacCentral since they've tended to censor many of my posts. No free speech on that web site.

This is not a personal attack towards you Sedulous, but I own a 12" PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz with 1.25GB RAM and I think its speed sucks big time. I am envious of my friend who owns a Sony Vaio with a 1.7GHz Pentium M with 2GB RAM. That computer runs circles around mine. Faster processor, lower heat dissipation, and awesome screen. But awful OS, of course. With Sony in its doldrums, I think Apple should buy Sony and incorporate some of their engineering prowess. The Sony design studio uses Macs anyway.

Apple, if you're gonna keep this awful G4 processor, at least give us better displays on the laptops. None of this non-XBrite 1024 x 768 crap on my 12-inch. I'll gladly pay more for a better display option - don't bite the hand that feeds it. But what else is new. Your latest G5 update is pathetic. If the processor update was so horrid, at least put PCIe and a modern graphics card in your machines to save face. I have no complaints about the pricing though. I understand that Macs need to cost more than Dull Dimensions.

I an research student in engineering and all, yes ALL my work is done on the WinBlowz dark side unfortunately since no software exists (except an unusable one or two) for the Mac. What are you doing Apple to port S.P.I.C.E., which has been axed since 1995 for people who need to do electrical engineering? Apples 'Made for science' campaign is a joke.

I have used and will always use Macs since generally 'they just work' and is a much less infuriating experience than WinDoze but there is much to be desired from someone with my needs. Yes, I like to rant.

 

[iGary]

That computer runs circles around mine.

Does it run OS X?

Next.

 

[kirk26]

Originally Posted by Sedulous
The current Apple offerings are as good as anything you are going to get in the PC world.

I almost spit my water out after reading that. Too funny.

 

[milano2004]

What's pity!

I could only feel pity for what they were talking.

----
The rumor originated at The Wall Street Journal:

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

 

[csubear]

I an research student in engineering and all, yes ALL my work is done on the WinBlowz dark side unfortunately since no software exists (except an unusable one or two) for the Mac. What are you doing Apple to port S.P.I.C.E., which has been axed since 1995 for people who need to do electrical engineering? Apples 'Made for science' campaign is a joke.

install fink
open terminal
type
fink install spice
.....
.....

No its not pspice, but it is spice.

 

[lotus87]

Not across the board, but in some areas.

This really isn't a logical move for Apple across the line and I doubt that's what they're doing. Apple knows quite well that at the high-end they have the top processor and architecture, even if the clock speeds are lower. They wouldn't be investing in G5 computing clusters if that wasn't the case. If you need more proof, witness the similar (but not the same) IBM processor architecture being used in Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution game systems. (I smell G5 game development platforms around the corner -- and hopefully that leads to more games on MacOS X).

Where this does make sense is in two other areas. First, in motherboard components. Intel has within 5 years went from a bit player to a leader in motherboard controllers (mostly be leveraging their processor business, but that's another discussion). They also make a variety of other component chips. Second, the power & heat dissipation requirements of the latest PowerPC G5s has prevented Apple from improving laptop speeds as much as they want and need to. Intel definitely has the market cornered and dominated AMD with its Pentium M line, which is highly regarded for efficient performance at low power consumption and low heat dissipation. The recent tablet PC patent shows Apple wants to expand its portable offerings, so this may fit with that product as well.

 

[whooleytoo]

They shifted from Motorola to IBM and no one lost any sleep over it.

I'm not so sure, Motorola seemed to have a bigger emphasis on low power consumption (probably as most of their chips were destined for embedded use, whereas IBM designed primarily for workstations), which might explain why we haven't seen any moves from IBM towards a new G4 or mobile G5 for PowerBooks yet.

 

[Church]

Well you should....if not every thread will just repeat everything = No ponit in posting

I have read every post in this thread. I was just saying not everyone else did or was going to. POST 342!

 

[rolandf]

Some thoughts

Some general remarks:

Just to be cheaper in the sens of being cheap does not work: nobody so far was able to beat Dell
cf. HP Compaq merger

What keeps companies like IBM ahead, is inovation and research!

Putting OSX on Intel machines would hurt MS, and they would have to react!

You always want to have people who have something to distinguish themselves, e.g. many Mac users
with Intel you loose it. Then probably a new company would come up, to give that feeling back.

However, it is true, that Apple has to work on some issues hard.

The screens they are selling in their notebooks are outdated, and those of the iBook are really bad.
In science and education, there are still a lot of apps that are not available for Mac (just check it out on Amazon)
Further, many people in research have notebooks which are either from Dell or IBM.
The story of Apple in research and is highly overrated; Europe is PC based.

Sadly, in the last time Apple induced a lot of negative press and not many convincing solutions.

It would be better, they focus on core things, like
bringing a new OS, that represents the future. So far, that did not happen!

 

[Sunrunner]

Intel has consistently been ahead of IBM, and I see no reason to suspect this will change in the near future. Maybe it's a good idea?

X86 Architecture has reached the end of its useful life. It makes no sense for Apple to jump on a tired horse at the end of its game.

 

[Sunrunner]

Some general remarks:

Just to be cheaper in the sens of being cheap does not work: nobody so far was able to beat Dell
cf. HP Compaq merger

What keeps companies like IBM ahead, is inovation and research!

Putting OSX on Intel machines would hurt MS, and they would have to react!

You always want to have people who have something to distinguish themselves, e.g. many Mac users
with Intel you loose it. Then probably a new company would come up, to give that feeling back.

However, it is true, that Apple has to work on some issues hard.

The screens they are selling in their notebooks are outdated, and those of the iBook are really bad.
In science and education, there are still a lot of apps that are not available for Mac (just check it out on Amazon)
Further, many people in research have notebooks which are either from Dell or IBM.
The story of Apple in research and is highly overrated; Europe is PC based.

Sadly, in the last time Apple induced a lot of negative press and not many convincing solutions.

It would be better, they focus on core things, like
bringing a new OS, that represents the future. So far, that did not happen!

There is perhaps some creedence to the rumor if you think about it from a different angle. I have an idea that may perhaps be Apples optimum solution to slap down Bill Gates and gain marketshare, while maintaining their current PowerPC chipset: Integrate an Intel chip onto a secondary daughter-board inside the computer, and integrate that chipsets access to the main boards system rescources. Apple could offer this option as a BTO to PowerMac users for, say, $200. Users would then be able to use their legacy PC apps.In this way they (Apple) could blow the main reason stiffling migration to Mac out of the water.

 

[jouster]

X86 Architecture has reached the end of its useful life. It makes no sense for Apple to jump on a tired horse at the end of its game.

That has been said many times about X86, and it is still going strong. I suspect the upcoming (indeed, some are currently available, unlike PowerPC) dual core X86-based processors will go a long way to determining whether you're right.

Personally, I disagree. Market forces will keep X86 sales and development strong, irrespective of how dated people consider its architecture.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

The only means of regulating this would be by using dedicated bios/firmware on the cards themselves. This removes any possible price advantage by requiring bespoke hardware again, rendering the whole exercise pointless. If this route isn't taken, as with some third parties already providing hardware for the Mac with their own device drivers, as we can already see, with varying results. Multiply this by a few thousand, for instant beigebox PC reliability.

Maybe the price advantages wouldn't be that high (even so I see no impact on the lower Intel CPU costs) it would be a complete nightmare for Apple if their OS could run on any Dell or other PC.

This would mean a move from a hardware company to a software company. I don't see this coming.

Cheers

 

[JonMaker]

I have another idea. Maybe Intel will fab the next generation of the PPC. I doubt it though.

Hey, I wonder if this thread will get 1000 negatives

 

[csubear]

Prehaps, just prehaps, Apple is talking to Intel about making CPUs and not some ARM processor, or motherboard component.

And prehaps they are talking to Intel about having Intel Fab PowerPC chips. Intel has nothing to lose from this. It does not affect their market x86, and it puts them in to several new markets (macs, gaming consoles, ect..)

I think that if Apple is talking to Intel about making CPUs then it is about Intel making powerPC. Apple will not and can not switch to x86, the G5 is a very strong preformer, and the altivec vector engine is one the the best vector unit implementations out there. What they need is a higer volume of faster processors at lower prices. What they need is more that one chip supplier.