Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised

[Sun Baked]

In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business.

"Technical issues were secondary to the business issues," said an executive close to the I.B.M. side of the negotiations. Because the business was not profitable, I.B.M. "decided not to continue to go ahead with the product road map."

Basically I can see why IBM was caught flat footed and thinks it was a cost issue.

When you are asking a company to start coughing up $100 and $250 million dollar bills (or more) to help "entice" IBM to pursue some of the research to build the next generation chip -- and have a horrid current ability to deliver today's chip.

Do they really think Apple will do it? 🙄

Basically it sounds like IBM killed the roadmap for desktop chips beyond PPC970 when the interested customers didn't buy it -- the chip was a flop and only Apple got "stuck" with it, therefore there was no reason for IBM a pay for the P5UL, P6UL, etc. Let's have Apple pay.

Even IBM declined to use the chip in a desktop machine and/or workstation.

 

[gwangung]

"How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac"

Check the clock speeds. Do the math. Not hard to figure out; when clock speeds were roughly the same, PPC could be the same, but if the clock sppeds for PPC are half or worse than Intel, then Intel is easily better.

If you can't figure that out, then perhaps you ARE the simpleton you claim everyone else is.

 

[MikeBike]

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

"Technical issues were secondary to the business issues," said an executive close to the I.B.M. side of the negotiations. Because the business was not profitable, I.B.M. "decided not to continue to go ahead with the product road map."

Does that sound like money or IBM Mgmt having no Long Term Vision.
Why was the business not profitable?
Because, IBM couldn't deliver on it's promises?
IBM wouldn't build a laptop chip?

It takes money ( R&D ) to make money.
Secondly, what about IBM losing sales to xServe.
They may have gotten a bit confused about their Goals.
- Did they want to lose current server sales to less expensive Apple Servers now but become the chip supplier for Apple's growing Laptop and Desktop market share.
- Instead of looking at it as a partnership, with both parties profiting and driving for a long term goal, they just looked at the current situation and said "the Heck with it".

Whatever.
Play Games IBM.

 

[puuukeey]

BS!BS!BS!BS!

so much of whats being said on this board is about emotions. like the world of corporate technology is a freakin soap opera. gateway cheated on adobe's boyfriend with a dotcom. no. its all lies. everyones trying to cover their ass and protect their image in the media.

I can not believe that in the hundreds of pages of forums on the subject, there have been only a few that deal with contracts and pricing. t

 

[sord]

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.

Exactly why they may have been suprised. If IBM was tired of Apple, they would probably expect to drop Apple instead of Apple dropping them. If IBM wanted to drop Apple they could do it at the right moment and if this is the case, Steve just took the ball into his court by picking his timing and doing it before IBM screwed Apple.

 

[iMeowbot]

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

You'll see more of it. Expect at least one of the Cell players to get some massively parallel computational beast in a decent spot on the Top 500.

But then, reality sets in when thinking of how many programs we run that would actually benefit from MPP or more vector processors. Encoding/decoding a compressed movie, or formatting rich text, or calculating a spreadsheet, is loaded with sequential dependencies. You can "cheat" some and try to guess ahead, but ultimately it runs into the same kinds of problems that make people itch when they see that a uniprocessor has long pipelines. Much of that computational power would be thrown away or untapped in very common desktop applications.

 

[iMeowbot]

... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

We really don't have any information about chip R&D that Apple may have already bought. If Apple funded the 970MP (where is that thing?), they're still going to get it. Besides, IBM probably already have a blade with the 970MP's name on it.

 

[gwangung]

Something else to think about: I hear far more in business case studies of companies who hang on too long to a past architecture or business model than I do about companies who move too fast. There are risks involved in this move, but these actions are of a company which is nimble and ready to take risks, which is a hallmark of sucessful companies.

 

[ixus]

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

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.

Taking advantage of new architecture (like CELL, 68040 => PPC) require complete rewrite and redesign of software architecture. Redesigning and rewriting 10 mils of codes is pain in the ass and no one in the software industries even want to think about it. But if done properly, the benefit is huge, think about the switch from 68040 => PPC, Win9x => WinXP, or even OS9 => OSX.

So now Apple is switching BACKWARD to X86 architecture, oh great, software companies now have a much better time writing and selling softwares because now not only it requires MUCH less effort is developing, but also increases the prospects thus the sales of products. Yes, you will get more PC games. And Apple will once again increases the sales and market share. (OSX WILL DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO BE RUN ON A DELL COMPUTER, LIKE IT OR NOT. Because X86 OSX is designed to run on STANDARD Intel architecture (bios) , based on x86 debian linux.) Just don't expect any major computing advantage from an APPLE.

Personally knowing many IBM engineer, IBM is committed to the future of the PowerPC line. IBM has increased the capacities of their NY fab plant many times for the PPC and Cells, well before any official Cell announcement. It is Apple who wish not to be the underdog and committed to the future of the computing.

By the way, for the professionals demand performances and wouldn't mind to rewrite every single line of codes from scratch, they wouldn't bother to look at the outdated x86 architecture. Good luck with your "new" Mactel PC, and be sure to read more rumors and press releases to expand your knowledges, Fanboys!

 

[themacman]

the future of apple is riding on the next gen intel processer. It must be so much faster hten the current g5's for apple to change that much.

 

[gwangung]

CELL is ofcourse better!

For what?

 

[cube]

IBM surprised? I don't think so. Now you know why they got rid of their PC division..

 

[512ke]

"IBM surprised?"

IBM is acting like they were caught off guard.

Why would Steve piss them off by not giving 'em a hint ahead of the switch announcement?

Steve still needs IBM to provide chips during the transition (2 yrs? 3 yrs?).

Why cut what you can untie?

But then again... you look at the Pixar/Disney history. It seems driven by a few really forceful personalities... as much as by "logic".

I figure... IBM pissed Steve off... He was like, I'm not only gonna change, I'm gonna tell the world via my actions... stuff it, IBM.

 

[Anarcho-Commie]

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.

yeah, thats what i did. i was going to get the 2.7 powermac but just got the 2.0. should be here next week!. yaay!
😕

 

[Trekkie]

Surprised IBM were left in the dark so long...shows how powerful Apple must be I guess. Nice to see details will be emerging. Guess it's not much of a surprise that IBM make excuses about price, they wouldn't want their products lookin' bad.

You don't have to be powerful to not return phone calls. Petty, yes, Powerful, no.

I'm betting dollars to donuts it was about price, plain and simple. Intel 'incents' you pretty heavily with all sorts of little programs to use their chips, and their chips alone. You want fun, negotiate by saying you're going to use another chip vendor and more money appears as incentive not too...

Of course it's all 'marketing dollars' or 'rebates on volume' etc. I'm sure Apples volumes were a blip on the radar of a $96B company like IBM.

Though I'm pretty disappointed, at the workstation class (powerMac) level I don't see what Xeon has to offer over PowerPC, but at the notebook level I see tons of things power (wattage) related.

 

[ixus]

For what?

Unlike other fanboys saying, Cell is more than capable of running traditional OS thread. You will soon be seeing Linux running on Cell, guarantee!. The problem is all OS and softwares will have to be rewritten, and possibly redesign.

It is like a dual core 64bit Intel pentium M, with 64bit power core and very low power consumption, except it's ultra scaleable. Its architecture is designed to be scaleable, multiple processors (10s, 20s) can be work together in ease with very little modification on the software side. Its calculating power is undisputed. And most importantly, it's actually in production in IBM NY plant, as well as Sony Plant in Japan, right now, at this very moment.

It could well be used in Apple future Powerbook laptop. It's Apple who would not only need to rewrite the entire OSX and its development suite, and to gain 3rd party support of the completely new architecture.

It might be understandable why Apple would switch to x86 instead of future power/cell. After all, money matters. But blaming IBM for future roadmap and performance/watts is just plain BS. Apple is not so "innovative" no more.

Well, think about it, even Intel tried and can't switch away from x86 architecture.

 

[Ti_Poussin]

What amaze me here, is that people seem to think that making a microfabrication chip is easy as hell, only willing to do it is enough to create it. Microfabrication can go wrong very quickly, problems can occure at any step and there's a lot of step to bring a silicium substrat to a fonctional chip. I believe that IBM though the roadmap of the 970 would be easier than it's really is. They don't have the experience of those fabrication for making low power, small chip or portable chip. They get ability to make big server chip.

Apple seem to have plan this switch since a long time, so don't just blame IBM over this one, I think Motorola have a part to play in it. But it's hard for those two compagnie to justify an invenstement for such a small market that Mac are. Let's face it, Apple haven't any choice and they did it right. I feel a bit sad, cause I prefere the PPC design over the X86 soo many times, hope Intel change the X86 into something great now on.

About the cell chip is a great chip, it's not only for gaming console by the way like many where saying. Parallele computing yes, but it have a lot of punch for what it does, vector computing. Vector computing is the future of very demanding multimedia stuff. Cell is an architecture by the the way, the PS3 use one kind of the cell chip for a specific application gaming console. You could change a cell chip to use it in almost anything. But, most software aren't code to use it's power, they're code for Intel architecture X86. Developpe software in the Cell chip way to do stuff and bring it a great compiler, you may get blow with it's capability. But again, popularity win over technology again. I wish people got a class in school name "Technology, understand it, don't get foul by number". Maybe a day will come.

 

[polyesterlester]

Several executives close to the last-minute dealings between Apple and I.B.M. said that Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment - 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 - to inform Big Blue [IBM]. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple's negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks.

That sounds like how most of my relationships end.

 

[Evangelion]

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

The Cell absolutely kicks ass on some certain tasks. And it's mediocre on some others. as a general-purpose CPU Cell is way behind current PPC's and x86-CPU. And general-purpose-CPU is what Apple wants/needs. But it's not what Sony wants//needs for PS3.

 

[pubwvj]

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.

WoW! I love people like you. You help lower the price of technology for the rest of us. I update my PB and other computers about once every five years (or longer). Let me know when you're dumping your PB.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn

Money?

 

[slackpacker]

CELL is ofcourse better! x86 architecture is damn old and it's drawing us backward! Taking advantage of new architecture (like CELL, 68040 => PPC) require complete rewrite and redesign of software architecture. Redesigning and rewriting 10 mils of codes is pain in the ass and no one in the software industries even want to think about it. But if done properly, the benefit is huge, think about the switch from 68040 => PPC, Win9x => WinXP, or even OS9 => OSX.

So now Apple is switching BACKWARD to X86 architecture, oh great, software companies now have a much better time writing and selling softwares because now not only it requires MUCH less effort is developing, knowledges, Fanboys!

Dude you know nothing...

Dude where is the Cell Processor.... So we/Apple should wait for a non existent chip. Dude What are the most powerful laptops today... PowerPC.... Cell? No its Intels Pentium M processor based laptops. I don't care how great the Cell is its not ready for prime time yet and we would have to wait another year for it to be ready. Plus the thing must be a beast to program for.... dont let SONY fool you with all their marketing.

Regards,

SLACKPACKER

 

[Evangelion]

The CELL can only use 256 megabytes of RAM.

Where did you hear THAT claim? Hell, IBM is planning to sell servers with Cell-CPU's, and I'm pretty sure their mx RAM wont be 256MB! Not to mention workstations and the like.

 

[slackpacker]

Unlike other fanboys saying, Cell is more than capable of running traditional OS thread. You will soon be seeing Linux running on Cell, guarantee!. The problem is all OS and softwares will have to be rewritten, and possibly redesign.

Well, think about it, even Intel tried and can't switch away from x86 architecture.

And like any of us CARE about Linux.... this is an OS X board... I care about OS X.... not your FANBOY mentality over Linux and the Cell.

 

[tdewey]

Though I'm pretty disappointed, at the workstation class (powerMac) level I don't see what Xeon has to offer over PowerPC, but at the notebook level I see tons of things power (wattage) related.

You're talking today. What about tomorrow?

An (as yet unreleased) dual-proc Conroe has much to offer, over the (as yet unreleased) dual-proc 970MP.

A 2007+ Intel roadmap (with a quad-proc Whitefield) has much to offer a 2007+ IBM lack-of-roadmap.

Finally, MacOS will be prove to the Windows world that it kicks the crap out of Windows XP.