Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised

[RealDeal]

IBM fails to deliver..again...

as high school kid in UK (top 10 school, '87), won national finals versus thousands of other schools for macroeconomics with IBM- they never delivered and since then IBM has been "big idea, no result" company- btw- space ship fuel tank design, Airbus/Boeing (very subsedized by gov/t), chief scientist/engineer (IBM "forgot 5 mill$ server hunk/junk kit)- these guys are old world no quality rubbish....

 

[MontyZ]

I've already had two friends about to buy new computers ask me whether or not they should wait until the new Macs come out first. That's not a good sign for sales of Apple computers for the rest of the year.

 

[irobot2003]

[...]
I don't recall Apple or IBM ever stating that the G5 was implemented only for desktop configurations, as one would expect to hear.
[...]
So there's nothing to indicate that the G5 had been absolutely removed from consideration for inclusion in a laptop previously, by either Apple or IBM
[...]
Enter the final straw that broke the camel's back, and it's name is Xbox 2. When IBM announced it was supplying not just PPC chips for the Xbox, but multi-core PPC chips clocking in excess of 3ghz, that was more than enough for Apple to see exactly what IBM's R&D had been up too all this time. I think that announcement was astonishing to Apple, not because the Xbox chips could also be used in Apple gear, but because it showed a virtual collapse of IBM's resolve to bring the Apple G5 roadmap forward into at least the end of the decade.

I have never seen any indication from IBM that the G5 was intended for laptops usage... that's not to say it wasn't, but given it's heritage, it seems like a stretch. Kind of like contemplating putting a Xeon in a laptop. Motorola/Freescale is just as much to blame in this area.

Your point about the Xbox is I think on target... that's exactly what ran through my head when I first heard about the Apple/Intel deal. I can just see Jobs thought process... must have pissed him off good when the press release about the 3.2GHz cell processors came out.

 

[MontyZ]

Then again, there's also this.

 

[VanNess]

I've already had two friends about to buy new computers ask me whether or not they should wait until the new Macs come out first. That's not a good sign for sales of Apple computers for the rest of the year.

That depends in part on what you advised your friends to do.

 

[irobot2003]

[...]
I don't recall Apple or IBM ever stating that the G5 was implemented only for desktop configurations, as one would expect to hear.
[...]

Sorry for the split follow up to the same post, but out of curiosity I checked IBM's web site, and here:

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780

they say:

"Disclosed are the technical details of the new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers...."

This is from a summary of a 2002 presentation on the 970. To me this is a reasonably clear indication that the 970 was not designed for laptops...

 

[VanNess]

I have never seen any indication from IBM that the G5 was intended for laptops usage... that's not to say it wasn't, but given it's heritage, it seems like a stretch. Kind of like contemplating putting a Xeon in a laptop. Motorola/Freescale is just as much to blame in this area.

I agree. It wouldn't have been easy design-wise with the G5's IBM has supplied up until now. But then, who would have thought that you could cram a G5 in the present iMac form factor? It seemed like they were making a lot of progress towards downsizing the case, especially when you compare the iMac to the Powermac. So my guess (and its just a guess) is that Apple thought it was doable, but they were counting on IBM to pitch in and help with a slightly smaller, cooler G5. Apple has shown that they can arrange physical components very efficiently and do small very well, a la the Mac mini.

 

[VanNess]

This is from a summary of a 2002 presentation on the 970. To me this is a reasonably clear indication that the 970 was not designed for laptops...

Thanks for the research.

See? Apple was right all along. Don't expect one soon...lol.

 

[iMeowbot]

"Disclosed are the technical details of the new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers...."

This is from a summary of a 2002 presentation on the 970. To me this is a reasonably clear indication that the 970 was not designed for laptops...

The 970FX Apple are using in the current G5 desktops is IBM's idea of a mobile G5. Stop laughing, I'm serious. Here.

"Norman Rohrer, chief designer of the PowerPC 970FX chip used in Apple's Power Mac G5 desktops and Xserve servers, said the same chip that IBM uses for its desktop machines can also be used comfortably within future PowerBook notebooks through a power-management technique called 'PowerTune.'"

 

[DeepIn2U]

Been a Long Time...

A Long while since I checked this thread. Got some info I'd like to share, sorry if its been posted before but I thought it was important to us all. I cannot believe I didn't see it before.

Intel typically partners with its OEMs like Dell to help in their advertising efforts. While helping the OEM, the ads also market the Intel processor. Mulloy wouldn’t comment on whether the Apple/Intel deal announced this week would include any kind of co-marketing plan.

“Apple has one of the top brands in the world, and I’m sure they will do what they need to be consistent with what people have come to expect from them,” Mulloy added. “The key for us is to give them what they need for them to be successful. What they do with respect to marketing is going to be their call—far be it for us to tell them how to manage their brand.”

Historically, Apple is one of the most secretive companies in the technology market, choosing to make a big splash when Steve Jobs takes the stage during one of his keynote speeches, rather than pre-announce products. Intel, on the other hand, opts for a less secretive marketing approach. Intel plans to continue doing business the way it always has.

“We will market our products the way we normally do,” Mulloy said. “Apple, like any other OEM, will choose the parts the want to use and then it’s completely up to them how they will roll their products out."

Source: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/10/intelinterview/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
(sorry mods I dont see options to link correctly, ??)
The quotation marks are to highlight Chuck Mulloy, Intel’s corporate spokesman.

Cheers. I really love Intels push for Apple's business, and how they know from day one a) not to mess with Apple's marketing, and b) to supply what they need and give them choice!

Just hoping they'll truely deliver, but hardly any doubt that they will now.

 

[TheCheat]

One thing that I really like about the switch to Intel processors is that we will finally be able to have some meaningful benchmarks between Windows and Mac OS X. It will be very interesting to see how things actually stand performance-wise, especially with games.

I hear standard video cards will be supported (pending drivers), so that's a definite plus.

chaz

 

[pigwin32]

I won't wait for the intel's definitely, I need a high end mac now but should I wait a little more? Maybe new IBM chips will come? Apple will update its towers definitely before the intels, probably twice. But still, when will the update come?

I think it will probably come next Tuesday.

 

[pigwin32]

Too bad that you decided to *pirate* 10.4 for the iMac, rather than buy an honest copy.

Nice, the guy just bought a new iMac for which he is entitled to an upgrade to 10.4 and you beat on him?

What about me, I bought a Mini and installed OpenBSD on it to use as a webserver, does that make me a baddy for using the software that came with the Mini on my PowerBook? Sheesh.

 

[Mord]

One thing that I really like about the switch to Intel processors is that we will finally be able to have some meaningful benchmarks between Windows and Mac OS X. It will be very interesting to see how things actually stand performance-wise, especially with games.

I hear standard video cards will be supported (pending drivers), so that's a definite plus.

chaz

games will still suck, there is still the directx open gl divide.

 

[AidenShaw]

No, it's an upgrade license....

Isn't the up-to-date cost just for media and handling, and not an "upgrade fee" for the license?

In that case, using the DVD he has just saves Apple the cost of sending him something he doesn't need. It'd be sketchy if he bought the mac used, but that's not the case.

I don't think that you'd come to this conclusion if you read the terms and conditions of the up-to-date offer (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/).

If you'd bought three qualifying Macs on the same invoice, you could purchase one upgrade kit for $9.95 and request "right to copy" for the other two.

If you bought the three Macs on separate invoices, you'd need to buy three kits for $9.95 each.

That doesn't sound like a "media and handling fee".

Putting it on a Mac bought used wouldn't be "sketchy", it would be piracy.

"This offer is not valid on the purchase of used, auction, or demonstration equipment."

 

[AidenShaw]

Nice, the guy just bought a new iMac for which he is entitled to an upgrade to 10.4 and you beat on him?

Yes, he is entitled to purchase an upgrade. In his post he did not say that he was going to purchase the upgrade.

What about me, I bought a Mini and installed OpenBSD on it to use as a webserver, does that make me a baddy for using the software that came with the Mini on my PowerBook? Sheesh.

It depends on the SLA that you agreed to with Apple when you purchased the Mini with OS X installed.

Your scenario (completely delete software from one computer, then install it on a different computer) would be legitimate if you'd purchased a retail copy of OS X according to the SLA (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html).

I couldn't find the SLA for the OEM version of OS X on the Apple website, so I can't confirm whether your scenario would violate the OEM license.

Remember that: The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

The only way Macs will get significantly cheaper is if they start moving a lot more Macs and save money from economies of scale. This won't happen over night.

Another way they could get cheaper could be by offering Celeron CPUs as a build-to-order option for people who want to save money by giving up some performance.

At present, the only low-cost CPU option Apple has is to use older CPUs.

 

[jiggie2g]

games will still suck, there is still the directx open gl divide.

Yes hector is right Direct X is going to be a huge factor in the future. I wonder if Apple will License it from M$. I sure wouldn't want my PCIe 6600GT going to waste.

Damn you Apple just when I was about to save up for an X2 4400+, they drop this bombshell. Now I gotta save up for a Pentium-M Powerbook. Messing with you apple is gonna keep me broke. 😡

Hey Hector I guess we won't be hearing anymore PPC is better crap outta your mouth anymore will we. 😀

Damn now I gotta decide weather or not to sell my AMD system. Need $2000K+ by MWSF 2006.....I guess that's what I get for being a hardcore Techie. 🙄

 

[Mord]

Yes hector is right Direct X is going to be a huge factor in the future. I wonder if Apple will License it from M$. I sure wouldn't want my PCIe 6600GT going to waste.

Damn you Apple just when I was about to save up for an X2 4400+, they drop this bombshell. Now I gotta save up for a Pentium-M Powerbook. Messing with you apple is gonna keep me broke. 😡

Hey Hector I guess we won't be hearing anymore PPC is better crap outta your mouth anymore will we. 😀

Damn now I gotta decide weather or not to sell my AMD system. Need $2000K+ by MWSF 2006.....I guess that's what I get for being a hardcore Techie. 🙄

the desktop G5 is currently up to par but next year is obviously wont be thus apples decision.

and i have heard that the x86 build is floating around in the p2p community, and it's bootable on any x86 pc

 

[JFreak]

Direct X is going to be a huge factor in the future. I wonder if Apple will License it from M$

i surely and sincerely hope that they won't do such a thing. directX is garbage compared to openGL, but games are programmed with it because it's just easier; in other words, game developers are either lazy pigs or just plain incompetent. openGL games are the best ones out there. i wonder why... 😉

 

[BenRoethig]

games will still suck, there is still the directx open gl divide.

If Mac and Mac game sales increase, more open standards will be used by the game industry.

 

[wdlove]

A Long while since I checked this thread. Got some info I'd like to share, sorry if its been posted before but I thought it was important to us all. I cannot believe I didn't see it before.

Source: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/10/intelinterview/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
(sorry mods I dont see options to link correctly, ??)
The quotation marks are to highlight Chuck Mulloy, Intel’s corporate spokesman.

Cheers. I really love Intels push for Apple's business, and how they know from day one a) not to mess with Apple's marketing, and b) to supply what they need and give them choice!

Just hoping they'll truly deliver, but hardly any doubt that they will now.

It still sounds as though we may hear more from Intel about chip development than we have from Motorola or IBM. Just wish that Apple was a little more like Intel.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple may have to change....

It still sounds as though we may hear more from Intel about chip development than we have from Motorola or IBM. Just wish that Apple was a little more like Intel.

It will be interesting when:

• everbody knows what Intel procs are coming
• everyone knows that the latest revision/speed bump is going to be announced next Tuesday
• on Tuesday morning Dell, HP, Gateway and all the others are selling new systems with the chip announced that day

If the Apple store doesn't have the new chip on Tuesday, the whining will be intensive....

 

[sehix]

CELL is ofcourse better! x86 architecture is damn old and it's drawing us backward! Just because we have to stay "compatible" with old x86 and windows software architecture, major cpu calculation and software architecture still have to stay in 32bit bandwidth.

So, you're saying that you haven't actually read Intel's roadmap for the next few years, or haven't had anyone explain to you what it means, and what architectual changes are coming?

 

[~loserman~]

YRemember that: The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.

Not so....

It depends on the laws of your particular State.
For example in the State I live software IS a license and therefore is non taxable... but where I used to live when you purchased software you owned it and could use it however you wanted as long as you didn't violate the EULA in the form of multi-use and or fair-use.

Here is another State law quirk. In California there is legal precedent set by a lawsuit against Microsoft that allowed individuals to recoup the cost of software( in this case Windows) from machines that they were bundled with, when the end user had no intention of running that software on there machines. These end users chose to run Linux instead.
State laws can be funny... and EULAs are very ineffective.

Think of how funny this could be if done against Apple.
You buy say 128 Xserves and the sue for the recoup cost of OS X because you want to run Linux. hmm a savings of over $500 per node.

(Both state names withheld to keep my identity secured)