Apple in Talks with Intel?

[chicagdan]

QuickTransit is the key

I think the C|Net story is half right -- Apple will start using Intel x86 chips, but they'll also keep selling PPC-based systems too. In fact, I expect Jobs to tout the upcoming IBM upgrades just as much as the Intel possibilities ... remember, what Apple wants is the ability to provide a broad range of products and having three major chip suppliers gives Apple the flexibility it needs and lets it play one supplier against another to always get the best deal. (Note: this is the spin, not necessarily the reality.)

To sell this, Jobs is going to make QuickTransit sound like the greatest invention since the internal combustion engine. No need to recompile means OS X software written once will run anywhere. Perhaps that 80 percent speed has been tweaked to 90 percent. Run OS X apps on an x86 with only a 10 percent speed penalty and they'll run just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs announces that Apple has bought Transitive on Monday and that the company has even more interesting technology on the way that will make recompiling software a snap. The message: no need to recompile your software now, keep developing OS X for PPC, it's going to be with us for "a long, long time."

Of course, all of this is smoke and mirrors, Jobs has to keep PPC viable because it's going to be all Apple has in the hardware pipeline for the next 6 to 18 months. Two years from now, I'll bet that Apple sells 100% x86-based systems ... but we'll go along with the transition because of the Jobs QuickTransit gambit.

BTW, my dream is that Apple has a true trojan horse OS X 10.5 plan in mind ... run OS X and Windows simultaneously on the same computer. No need to emulate ... the trick is allowing an OS to run without booting into it. You boot into OS X and then run your (existing, full license) Windows programs in a window. Think of what it might be like to release such a product simultaneously with Longhorn -- you can install this entirely new MS OS or you can keep your current Windows installation while putting a fully-tested, stable OS X over top of it.

 

[Calihafan]

Good point, MacDong

Good point... I hadn't thought about it that way. However, who do you think would buy a Mac that costs $3000 when they could just buy a OSx86 for less? Maybe the people who think aesthetics is a factor - hmm, a computer that will last me seven years... will it be the beautiful, strong G5 tower? Or the shoddy plastic Dell? Anyway, Mac OS X may run faster on PowerPC chips then on x86 anyway, of course I don't know about chip architectures or anything, but that could be an incentive for customers to buy from Apple. I mean -

OS X is virus free. Get it on your Intel-based PC today. If you want speed and beauty along with your virus protection, get an Apple-made OS X machine.

Maybe? I could see them crippling OS X for Intel to seduce users to buy from them. Maybe this version of OS X is a version for a tablet PC anyway? If the two rumors are linked, then it also works with the rumor that the version of OS X that would run on the tablets would be different from those that run on the other machines - even to the point of not running the same software. In that case, it wouldn't MATTER if they put Intel chips in the tablets.

Also, as I'm sure it has been previously mentioned, they might be using Intel chips for things OTHER then the processor. Maybe.

Thanks for the reassurement, I'm better now.

Calih

 

[Warbrain]

we wont be Mac users at all then, we would be OS X users.

I'll be a Linux user.

 

[ArizonaKid]

Outside of Apple's Perspective

Many of the post here are from Apple's point of view that Steve Jobs wants to leave IBM because of slow growth.

...Perhaps IBM just doesn't want to support Apple anymore and has placed them down the line after their own chip fabrication needs, as well as those of Sony and Microsoft. If IBM is "trying" to loose Apple as a customer, Apple may just be out of options.

Also, remember that Apple is a software company. I have seen at least five interviews when Steve Jobs repeated this. When asked about the iPods success on CNBC, he stated its because of software. The iTunes software makes the iPod's success, both the software in the iPod and outside the iPod.

I see a lot of Mac people "freaking" out on this rumor. Why, Because of uncertainty? I think Mac user's need to admit the obvious. Microsoft scares the living sh** out of us, and when going after Microsoft's territory there ultimately is no shared winner. It's win or loose, and Bill won't have it any other way.

If this is true, it would be a huge change, and lead "possibly" to a big showdown. "Microsoft vs Apple" once again, but on much different terms. And that's a very scary, dirty battle.

I am going to be sticking with Apple if they make the switch.

 

[365]

I'll be a Linux user.

This thread is full of people throwing teddys out of their prams, telling us how that's it and they're off to Linux. The thing is perhaps one of you could answer me a question ...

Bearing in mind that if this rumor is true and Apple does go to Intel, the OS - Tiger - will still look and feel the same, the only difference being that it will have a more capable processor under the hood (I'm using the logic that Apple aren't going to make such a bold move without very real and obvious benefits that Intel chips would bring). As I say bearing this in mind, why would you move to Linux?

You can buy a x86 PC today for a few hundred Dollars and stick a free Linux distribution on there, run OpenOffice and Gimp etc.. all for free and all this without the major price overhead that buying a Mac brings, so why are't you whingers already doing this?

If you can so easily say you're off to Linux you obviosuly don't need any of the quality commercial applications that most OSX and Windows users enjoy so why pay the premium?

Linux has two things going for it, it's a great server/development OS and it isn't from Microsoft (if you're a M$ hater) but as far as being a desktop OS is concerned, it's disjointed, fragmented and quite frankly chaotic. You're very welcome to it.

 

[xnu]

Interesting, if OSX is installed on a PC and allows windows to run so people could use their old programs and have OSX programs it would almost be the same thing Apple did with OS9 in classic mode. Even if the underlying windows system gets crapped up, you would at least be able to check your email and still run programs in OSX. Your core system would be stable and secure. People would eventually just drop windows as they did classic... assimilation. Out system the system software giant?

 

[neildmitchell]

well, again, is Apple a hardware company or software company?
of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?
just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.

I agree. A good point for Microsoft is that it can run on just about any x86 compliant computer hardware configuration, where they try to make it the best OS for the widest range of possible hardware configurations. But that can also have drawbacks.
A good point for Apple is that they have developed the OS to be compatible with a only certain limited hardware configurations. So when you buy a mac product you know that it is quality, if you need to upgrade something only a few hardware components are available, keeping the quality assurance maxed. But that can also have drawbacks.

Price point should be considered too.
Microsoft XP Pro $300 Mac OS X $130
5 users license $1,500 $200

Well, It would at least be interesting to see Apple try and compete on Windows turf. Help/Hurt Apple if they were to do so....??? It would at least be interesting to see

 

[chicagdan]

Interesting, if OSX is installed on a PC and allows windows to run so people could use their old programs and have OSX programs it would almost be the same thing Apple did with OS9 in classic mode. Even if the underlying windows system gets crapped up, you would at least be able to check your email and still run programs in OSX. Your core system would be stable and secure. People would eventually just drop windows as they did classic... assimilation. Out system the system software giant?

Right -- it's exactly what IBM tried to do with OS/2 Warp before Windows 95 came out. The problem for IBM is that they had no installed based, they relied totally on switchers and since every Warp user was running Windows 3.1 software, 95 totally killed it.

An OS-X version of this strategy would be far less risky ... and it would give Apple a risk management "in" with corporate IT departments. The transition to an OS-X + Windows installation could be far less expensive and risky than a full-out corporate move to Longhorn.

 

[Trekkie]

Is it too early to start a thread describing how to remove the "Intel Inside" stickers from new Powerbooks?

Of all the things out there, that is one of the things I most hate. But it's big bucks for the computer vendor to put them on, along with the 'designed for Windows XP' ones.

 

[Trekkie]

Right -- it's exactly what IBM tried to do with OS/2 Warp before Windows 95 came out. The problem for IBM is that they had no installed based, they relied totally on switchers and since every Warp user was running Windows 3.1 software, 95 totally killed it.

Not exactly. IBM had full rights to Win32 which was part of Windows 3.11 as part of their cross licensing agreement. When MS developed Windows 95 they developed a new rev of Win32 that IBM had no rights to (Win32S I think) and then OS/2 would not work with any 95 software and THAT killed it.

What also killed it was lack of commercial software development, namely MS OFfice.

 

[MontyZ]

well, again, is Apple a hardware company or software company?

Simple. They are both.

of course they could release Mac OS X for x86, but would that hurt or help the company?

How do you know it would be an x86 chip that Intel would make for Apple? Maybe they have something new up their sleeves.

just because Windows make Microsoft a lot of money doesn't mean OS X could do the same.

I don't think OSX will make Microsoft much money. But it could make Apple a load of cash if they extend their OS to Intel-based computers.

 

[wdlove]

From reading all the above posts, this transition, that is if there is going to be one will certainly be very interesting. All we can do at this point is trust in Apple and Steve Jobs. Apple just needs to be more open with their plans.

 

[harveypooka]

Yeah, you're right about that. Apple really do need to give a roadmap. Most
other companies let their customer's know what's happening but that's probably because they can't keep their 'secrets' under wraps from size of operations and the variety of companies they use. Apple are selective and secretive...but yeah, perhaps they should open up a bit...

 

[macdong]

Also, remember that Apple is a software company. I have seen at least five interviews when Steve Jobs repeated this. When asked about the iPods success on CNBC, he stated its because of software. The iTunes software makes the iPod's success, both the software in the iPod and outside the iPod.

right, but there is a difference between "profitting by selling software" and "profitting by selling hardware because of the software".
which one is Apple?
and if you think by switching to x86 Apple can bring out computers cheaper than IBM or even Sony, that's probably not realistic.
so, here is the question again.
if Apple is a hardware company, are they prepared to take on all those x86 vendors?
or, are they prepared to become something like Microsoft and face the same problems they have?
i am asking questions, because i don't have the answer.

 

[macdong]

I don't think OSX will make Microsoft much money. But it could make Apple a load of cash if they extend their OS to Intel-based computers.

and you know that by how?

 

[MontyZ]

and you know that by how?

It's an opinion. That's all. No one knows what is really going to happen until the official word is released from Apple. Everyone is just speculating on rumors in this thread. Chill dude!

 

[Adurbe]

if apple wants the 'buisness market' they may have to conform to x86 (I know my company wouldnt buy all new hardware to switch to OSX)

now would be an ideal time. OSX is being seen as capable of replacing windows.. this good will may die when longhorn eventually comes along

Depends if you buy a mac for the os or the hardware (i know overly simplified, but still)

 

[bosrs1]

if apple wants the 'buisness market' they may have to conform to x86 (I know my company wouldnt buy all new hardware to switch to OSX)

now would be an ideal time. OSX is being seen as capable of replacing windows.. this good will may die when longhorn eventually comes along

Depends if you buy a mac for the os or the hardware (i know overly simplified, but still)

That is probably at the heart of their reasoning.

 

[macdong]

It's an opinion. That's all. No one knows what is really going to happen until the official word is released from Apple. Everyone is just speculating on rumors in this thread. Chill dude!

so true, so true

 

[slooksterPSV]

Ok, here's the deal, if Apple is in talks with Intel (I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, and I'm not going through the 700+ posts), and Apple is/was having a MHz issue, then maybe its only for servers. Intel Xeon on Mac OS X Server. That is what I'm strongly believing now. I don't think they'll give up PowerPC, but give up (since PowerPC doesn't have server processors) to Intel for server side CPU's. There how's that.
Also, IBM and Apple have the fastest FSB around (well... with exception to AMD). So why would they give up PPC for slow FSB Intels - except for server operation.

 

[macdong]

Ok, here's the deal, if Apple is in talks with Intel (I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, and I'm not going through the 700+ posts), and Apple is/was having a MHz issue, then maybe its only for servers. Intel Xeon on Mac OS X Server. That is what I'm strongly believing now. I don't think they'll give up PowerPC, but give up (since PowerPC doesn't have server processors) to Intel for server side CPU's. There how's that.
Also, IBM and Apple have the fastest FSB around (well... with exception to AMD). So why would they give up PPC for slow FSB Intels - except for server operation.

well, if they are moving OS X server to x86, it would only make sense to move everything else as well.

 

[slooksterPSV]

well, if they are moving OS X server to x86, it would only make sense to move everything else as well.

Not necessarily. My School is moving to where the Mac labs can connect to the Netware 6.5 servers. File access is not an issues, probably the only issue with x86 Mac Server (that name is so horrible) is that you couldn't run any Mac Only Apps.... so I guess an application server.... that would be out hmm.... striking point.....