Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised

[Chomolungma]

Donation

Well, is anybody even past the Motorola chips? I know I haven't seen any PowerPC chips yet...

i think you can get it with a donation or payment. If not, it may be a good idea. I'm sure a good number of people will donate to get a Pentium avatar.

-chomo

 

[macmax77]

Maybe Jobs knows his cancer is going to take him on vacation to the other side and wants to take Apple with him to rest in peace.

 

[cube]

He didn't say the PPC was less effective.. he said Cell processor is less effective than the PPC.

I suppose its the way you read it - you could read it both ways - that he also infers the PPC processor is ineffective, like you say.

The post states "he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC", so it is saying that the PPC is not effective.

 

[narco]

I heard that IBM lost interest in the deal anyway; claiming they weren't making much money through Apple. This is so dramatic. People are already saying that Jobs should be removed for his dumb decisions like he was before. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[SiliconAddict]

See. Trust that Apple DID do their homework before making the decision. As for IBM. I have zero doubt in my mind anymore that Apple leaked the information. The date stamp for the article from c|net making not bold claims such as negotiations but the outright statement of transition was 5PM PST. They notified Big Blue at 3PM PST. That wasn't just a lucky shot. One can't help likening it to the Japanese notifying the US (late) of their attack on Pearl Harbor. The timing is JUST TOO perfect.

You can bet that it Jobs himself who made the call. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall of IBM's exec who took that call. 😀 It prob came as one hell of a surprise but I doubt IBM is losing any sleep over it. PowerMac chips are a drop in the bucket at the end of the day. If they can sell of their valuable ThinkPad line without breaking a sweat what do they care if Apple runs away.

 

[DickArmAndHarT]

I like the fact IBM saying "pricing issues" maby well be getting getting fast Intel Processors, and big price decreases. Maby Intel is truthful in saying it was price more than performance (i called steve a fibber) I think this is looking better for us every minute. Is apple trying to decrease price, but cannot because IBM processors were two expensive. Ahh this could be a magical transition.

 

[jseamster]

C'mon Now

Guys, let's be honest with ourselves... Most of the comments here sound like either completely unfounded speculation or snippets of information gathered from a number of external articles which have been recklessly reassembled.

Would Steve Jobs really be solely making a final decision on a choice of two processor roadmaps? Keep in mind that when he introduced the G5 processor, he mostly joked his way through its improved performance features like advanced pipelining and predictive branching.

And there is little or no reason to why the Cell processor would even be considered for comparison or reference when deciding Apple's CPU future. The design of the Cell is not geared toward PC design and was never meant to be.

I realize that I didn't add anything here but let's stop going back and forth with borrowed commentary and misinformation. I hope we can all still go to the movies together this weekend.

 

[MikeBike]

IBM was really surprised?.... They didn't have a clue?... If so, then thats really shows the core of the problem. IBM was comfortable enough with what they had with Apple that they didn't have a clue. They didn't see that the Powerbooks sucked, and that people were not buying them, which hurt Apple.

The is an interesting point.
These guys were clueless about market conditions and the need for competitiveness? Plus, they've lost the DREAM, you know, to be an actual Player in the Game. Not just a side show attraction.
They where comfortable to kiss off the business. After all this is their ONLY CHANCE to sell Desktop and Laptop chips.
What was the GOAL here, JUST to fufill Apple's Contract OR Get back in the Game and take the whole PIE away from Intel.
Apparently, they were only interested in Just Filling the Contract. Which they did poorly.

 

[heisetax]

PPC in 2015

So are you assuming every single Mac buyer will switch to intel by 2007 or that apple will have all products based on intels by 2007. I can tell you that there will be a lot of PPC's out there still in use in 2008 and 2009.

I'd say that a lot of people will choose not to switch. Just like the vast number of OS 9 users, there will be a large number of PPC users using both OS 9 & OS X. Because of the need for new software, many will not switch until 2015. Remember Mac hardware will last longer than other hardware. I still have customers using pre PPC Macs for their daily work.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[beatle888]

-- or at least try to be less snarky when other people misunderstand your confusing posts.

your right. he could of just misunderstood. but i'll tell you what, your post was definetly uncalled for. so the other poster and i had a misunderstanding. thats honest enough. yours on the other hand was downright nasty....are you here to save the day Mr. butt nugget? or is that SUPER butt nugget? i can see you now in your brown cape and leotard with that butt nugget logo proudly worn on your chest.


sorry but i think you were out of line. my post was not even close to being as acrid as yours. did someone wipe you the wrong way this morning?





i do however understand your point that he might of just misunderstood. i didnt think so at first....but maybe he did. WHO CARES though, i mean really.

 

[MikeBike]

Note that the CELL is essentially a weak PowerPC core with 8 programmable Altivec units surrounding it. The 8 programmable Altivec units behave like DSPs - able to do parallel processing work at nigh speed.

The problem is that much personal computer work is serial not parallel. Outside of graphics and scientific number crunching, almost everything else is done serially in the CPU. Thus, dual or quad FULL cores are better for personal computer work.

Apple SOLVED the problem of faster parallel processing by harnessing the existing power of the programmable GPUs in the graphic cards provided by ATI and nVidia. These GPUs have much more power now than the CELL processor. Newer ones can easily outstrip the CELL processor. People don't realize how powerful their graphics cards are when used for other functions. Mac OS X no longer needs to use the Altivec processor to speed up its graphics. It instead gives the work to the GPU - which does a fantastic job of speeding up drawing the user interface - as much as 2000% faster, or more.

Thus with Intel providing leading edge general purpose CPUs and ATI/nVidia providing leading edge GPUs, Apple is no longer constrained in power as it has been over the past several years.

Note that when Sony advertises the terraflops of power provided by the Playstation 3, it does not tell you that most of that power is provided by the GPU - not the CELL.

Nice Post, stated well.
I also beileve the Cell doesn't have in hardware the code necessary for user switching? Which IBM said could be implemented in software. ( Software is 10 time slower then a hardware feature ) Pointing to Cell being really designed for it's specific, primary purpose: Single User Games.

 

[kaos]

Did Jobs kill the Mac's sales momentum?

Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

 

[MikeBike]

Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

ROFL: Thanks, Waiting for Longhorn really got to me.

First, there can Only be an Osborne effect if you think,
- All Software will be ready by 2006
- You use VirtualPC for 90% of your programming needs.
Then, it would be effective to wait for Intel.

Otherwise,
One Last Buy, is the more effective strategy.
And this has two choices.
1) Buy the Best you can afford -- because your a Pro user and you Need the Horsepower or
2) Downgrade your purchase to a lesser model and wait for the transition to finish, then by an Intel pc, if you're not a heavy pro user.

 

[kirk26]

IBM suprised? Not really. This is the first news story I've read claiming this. All other sites are saying IBM got tired of Apple and wanted to concentrate on gaming consoles.

 

[narco]

Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

I hardly think this is the wrong time to do so. Sure, it would have been better before the iPod "halo effect" came into place, but Mac sales are still rising so it's best to do this now rather than wait and have all the new switchers deal with this transition.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[heisetax]

Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a computer dngineer

Guys, let's be honest with ourselves... Most of the comments here sound like either completely unfounded speculation or snippets of information gathered from a number of external articles which have been recklessly reassembled.

Would Steve Jobs really be solely making a final decision on a choice of two processor roadmaps? Keep in mind that when he introduced the G5 processor, he mostly joked his way through its improved performance features like advanced pipelining and predictive branching.

And there is little or no reason to why the Cell processor would even be considered for comparison or reference when deciding Apple's CPU future. The design of the Cell is not geared toward PC design and was never meant to be.

I realize that I didn't add anything here but let's stop going back and forth with borrowed commentary and misinformation. I hope we can all still go to the movies together this weekend.

Steve Jobs always has trouble talking hardware because he is a saleman, not a computer engineer. If he lived in most other areas of the country I could see him as a used car saleman. He just tells you what he wants you to know. Just enough to make the sale. LIke a used car salsman, we must always check what he says. This is the only way we have to tell how much if any truth he tells us.

How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac? When were we lied to. My money would go to both times.

My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software. Remember, new software requires new hardware.

Do you believe that IBM would deliver a dual core 3 GHz PPC to Apple at this time. I would think that they have stopped all development of the PPC 970. It has too narrow of a market at present with Apple sales going lower everyday. With this change of processors two things will happen. First those that like the PPC like me will buy the latest & greatest PPC G5 to help insure that they have a working computer for 5 to 10 years into the future. I so far have chose not to reward Apple for changing processors. My PowerMac G5 upgrade has been cancelled for the present. This action by PPC supporters would help Apple in the short term. Then those that want to support the Intel Mac will put off their purchases until the Intel Macs come out. As Steve Jobs has declared the PPC Mac junk & the new Intel Mac to be the greatest Mac ever to be made, I would think that sales would take a gigger cut from waiters that PPC users. Who wants to spend $3,000-8,000 on a new PPC Mac system that Steve Jobs has alreeady declared as dead?

My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods. In recent years Apple has changed to a music company away from a computer company. This Intel move will divide the already small Mac market into pieces. Maybe too many to keep it alive.

To many the processor does not matter. To many like me it is all about the processor. I chose the Mac 21 years ago & I still am just as anti-Intel as I was then. I was a Heath-Kit computer user before that time. They chose to make IBM Clones with Intel 8086 processors in them. Being anti Intel I chose not to follow. Now Apple is making the same decision. This time I will make the same decision, not to follow my computer manufacture. This is limiting my choices severly. That is why I must keep what I haverunning for as long as I can.

Who knows what will be available in the 5-10 years before I will have to make any new purchases. Others won't be as severve as I am.

I did this same multi year wait from my Clones, & this will be easier as my 5 Clones still all run at least OS 9.2.2. 2 have G4's in them, 2 have G3's & one is still a 250 NHz 604e. All have 1 GB of ram in them. They also have USB & FW. THis is just proof that you don't need the latest & greatest to do your needed & useful work.

Bill the aging TaxMan

 

[javiercr]

I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.

Cell is made for video games and may be for video, a graphics card kind of requirements, nobody said it was good for general computing.

 

[lewdvig]

no more "cell is better" talk - I hope.

 

[cygnus23]

...And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

So previously your sole motivation for buying Apple was a devotion PPC processors? If the new MacTel machines have better cost/performance than the PPC boxes you were willing to upgrade every nine months, how does that necessitate switching to an OS that is still at least 18 months away...it sounds to me like nothing is changing, but the engine.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

No one in the zealot crowd seems to be acknowledging the distinct possibility that PPC Macs will not progress over the next 2 years and that Mac sales will suffer much due to that.

I just bought a 20" iMac for heavier lifting over a truly pathetic 12" PB, and I'd be insane to buy a PPC Mac before the "transition". These things (PPC Macs) are dead in the water despite what the BOZO's say over and over.

PPC's not dead as IBM seems to be doing fine putting them in their own stuff and other people's, but the PPC 970 series is dead and buried as IBM has no reason, other than whatever the duration of their contract is, to develope them. Think about it, I'm sure there was explicit language in the Apple/IBM contract about performance improvements and IBM hasn't/can't deliver, so, if they know know that they really don't have to, why bother any more when they're already persona non grata at Apple?

 

[MikeBike]

Steve Jobs always has trouble talking hardware because he is a saleman, not a computer engineer. If he lived in most other areas of the country I could see him as a used car saleman. He just tells you what he wants you to know. Just enough to make the sale. LIke a used car salsman, we must always check what he says. This is the only way we have to tell how much if any truth he tells us.

How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac? When were we lied to. My money would go to both times.

My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software. Remember, new software requires new hardware.

Do you believe that IBM would deliver a dual core 3 GHz PPC to Apple at this time. I would think that they have stopped all development of the PPC 970. It has too narrow of a market at present with Apple sales going lower everyday. With this change of processors two things will happen. First those that like the PPC like me will buy the latest & greatest PPC G5 to help insure that they have a working computer for 5 to 10 years into the future. I so far have chose not to reward Apple for changing processors. My PowerMac G5 upgrade has been cancelled for the present. This action by PPC supporters would help Apple in the short term. Then those that want to support the Intel Mac will put off their purchases until the Intel Macs come out. As Steve Jobs has declared the PPC Mac junk & the new Intel Mac to be the greatest Mac ever to be made, I would think that sales would take a gigger cut from waiters that PPC users. Who wants to spend $3,000-8,000 on a new PPC Mac system that Steve Jobs has alreeady declared as dead?

My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods. In recent years Apple has changed to a music company away from a computer company. This Intel move will divide the already small Mac market into pieces. Maybe too many to keep it alive.

To many the processor does not matter. To many like me it is all about the processor. I chose the Mac 21 years ago & I still am just as anti-Intel as I was then. I was a Heath-Kit computer user before that time. They chose to make IBM Clones with Intel 8086 processors in them. Being anti Intel I chose not to follow. Now Apple is making the same decision. This time I will make the same decision, not to follow my computer manufacture. This is limiting my choices severly. That is why I must keep what I haverunning for as long as I can.

Who knows what will be available in the 5-10 years before I will have to make any new purchases. Others won't be as severve as I am.

I did this same multi year wait from my Clones, & this will be easier as my 5 Clones still all run at least OS 9.2.2. 2 have G4's in them, 2 have G3's & one is still a 250 NHz 604e. All have 1 GB of ram in them. They also have USB & FW. THis is just proof that you don't need the latest & greatest to do your needed & useful work.

Bill the aging TaxMan

Bill the TaxMan,
What's your problem with Intel's future road map?
A Dual Core 64bit Pentium M Powerbook would be just a sweet as a dual core G4 from Freescale. Sure, I'd rather get it from Freescale, but, they are taking their good old time to deliver the chip as well. So, what choice do we have?

IBM won't invest in it's own product.
Freescale has been talking about it's dual core for what a year now?
Talk is cheap.
I think we're all abit tired of it.

 

[kaos]

ROFL: Thanks, Waiting for Longhorn really got to me.

Lol. As much of an Apple fanatic as I am, I figured there would be plenty of those who can't even think straight when someone mentions Microsoft or Longhorn in a post. I didn't say I was waiting for Longhorn, or that I would do so, or expect anyone else to do so. I said it was bad timing for Apple to be in the middle of a transition when Msft releases their next OS, and it would prompt me to consider switching back in a way I would probably not if the Mac platform were more stable. I doubt I'm alone in that, although a better platform may prompt many in the larger Windows user base to do the same.

My fundamental point is that the Mac has some very nice momentum right now. Jobs showed that in his presentation. It's a big gamble to make a change like this right at the point where the Mac platform has moved from losing market share to gaining it. We'll know soon enough (6mos) whether announcing this transition hurts sales or not.

 

[MikeBike]

I just bought a 20" iMac for heavier lifting over a truly pathetic 12" PB,

Yes, you would be insane to buy another machine( unless it's a Mini ), if you just bought a 20" iMac. But, someone with a 3 or more year old machine has to ask himself what kind of software does he run, and will it be converted, does he want to be on the bleeding edge of half is software not working? If it's Apple based, this type of user shouldn't be waiting around for the Intel Miracles.

I don't plan to wait.
But, I don't think I now need the 2.7 Powermac.
A Dual 2.0 might be the perfect machine. And after the dust settles, I can get an Mac-x86 and run Folding@home / and a database / turn the old machine into a server.

 

[kaos]

So previously your sole motivation for buying Apple was a devotion PPC processors? If the new MacTel machines have better cost/performance than the PPC boxes you were willing to upgrade every nine months, how does that necessitate switching to an OS that is still at least 18 months away...it sounds to me like nothing is changing, but the engine.

No, I bought it for the OS, no doubt. But I could generate a list of a dozen persistent complaints with Apple's products (hardware and software). None of those items would be that my Macs run too slowly. My point is that I'm a huge Apple fan, but not an Apple zealot and so I am not taking it on faith they will manage this transition well. If I think they're having quality problems tranitioning to the new platform, I'd check out Longhorn (assuming it is even out there at the same time) and evaluate making the switch. Given my prior experience with Msft, I would not even think it possible they have a better platform were it not for the doubts I now have about Apple's future.

 

[w_parietti22]

IBM claims pricing was the major issue, while Apple insists performance delivery was at the core of the switch. "

If this is true... does this mean cheaper Macs? 🙂 Or does Apple just make more money?