Freescale CEO on Apple, Intel and IBM

[AidenShaw]

Cooling is Apple's problem, not IBM's

If IBM couldn't deliver on the Apple's top sellers on the computer side and their chips overheat on the second best sellers, what is Uncle Steve supposed to do?

Maybe if you phrased this "and their chips are too hot for the second best sellers" it would be better.

It isn't IBM's fault if Apple puts IBM chips into systems with inadequate cooling systems - it's Apple's fault for bad thermal engineering.

 

[Super Dave]

So IBM just brought this upon themselves, although now they claim to have a low-power version of the G5 (whose performance relative to the G4 is questionable). If Jobs had considered moving to Intel waaay back then, I wonder if in retrospect the switch to IBM was a mistake. The PowerPC never really outshined Intel's processors. It was (is?) a good processor, but it never managed to outdistance itself from the competition.

That's not true. During the Power Computer days, the various clone manufacturers were well ahead of Intel competitors.

Also, the Quad G5 arguably kicks any processor out there's bum quite nicely to this day. And before we write off Altivec, it has been a great leverage for specific Applications. The PowerPC was never that shabby in its day, except in Mhz terms, or possibly near the end in Apple's portable line.

I am still glad Apple is switching as IBM does need a good slap, but to say the PowerPC never really outshined Intel isn't quite accurate.

David

 

[dongmin]

Meanwhile, Mayer goes on to say that IBM's focus has shifted to consoles:

What's ironic is that Apple in a way is going the same route. What this Mayer guy is saying about the future being in consoles and consumer electronics is on the money. Sure we'll have desktops for work and for high-end gaming solutions. But you can kind of see the vast majority of home users moving to media/game consoles.

If this 'Media Mini' and new content delivery system, as rumored, works out, it could be the next iPod, the Next Big Thing. And Apple could sell as many of these as they do the iPod. Think 5-10 million units a quarter, outselling the xbox, playstation, or whatever. Of course, these Apple consoles will be powered by Intel's Viiv, not PPC. What sweet revenge that would be!

 

[iDM]

What's ironic is that Apple in a way is going the same route. What this Mayer guy is saying about the future being in consoles and consumer electronics is on the money. Sure we'll have desktops for work and for high-end gaming solutions. But you can kind of see the vast majority of home users moving to media/game consoles.

If this 'Media Mini' and new content delivery system, as rumored, works out, it could be the next iPod, the Next Big Thing. And Apple could sell as many of these as they do the iPod. Think 5-10 million units a quarter, outselling the xbox, playstation, or whatever. Of course, these Apple consoles will be powered by Intel's Viiv, not PPC. What sweet revenge that would be!

I like the theory, I personally would love to have a home media center created by Apple. Front Row is definitely a step in the right direction but something the size of the mini with access to DVR, my iTunes, my iPhoto and my Movies on my network computers(while supporting network access so my lazy as* doesn't have to get up) would definitely sell me!

 

[m-dogg]

I like the theory, I personally would love to have a home media center created by Apple. Front Row is definitely a step in the right direction but something the size of the mini with access to DVR, my iTunes, my iPhoto and my Movies on my network computers(while supporting network access so my lazy as* doesn't have to get up) would definitely sell me!

I wouldn't even mind if it was a little larger than the mini, so long as it stays within the standard VCR/DVD player size...

 

[-hh]

G5 was a waste of time for Apple, It wont go mobile, needs a gigantic cooling solution, plus...

You might want to go back and look historically at how Intel was doing back 3-4 years ago when this CPU decision was effectively made: Pentiums were quite power hungry, hot running beasts, as this was really before the days of the Pentium M (and later, Centrino) less hot/hungry portable chips.

... they needed two CPU's to compete with one cpu from the otherside.

Mac's have had multiple CPU's in their genetic code for years. While sometimes it was necessary to "keep up with the Intels", it wasn't always necessary ... guess you don't remember the Quad 604 systems offered by DayStar or Totalimpact. In any event, having a MP system frequently in the product line provided both the marketing base as well as the high end hardware to mature the Application coding base for vendors to provide support.

This will be a very short lived processor as Apple history go's.

The G5's already been around for over 2 years and will likely make it to age 3.

I don't recall the specifics, but I'm sure someone can dig up the lifespans of other "shortlived" CPU's, IIRC, the 601, the 604 (not 604e), perhaps even the 68020 (IIRC) and the 65C02.

-hh

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

A MacMini entertainment center would do great, just give it a good enough video card and it will also compete with consoles for that living room space. It has to allow for Windows to run those PC games, then why bother with any other equipment? games,software,Tv,Music & vVdeo all in one little box brought to you by Apple & Intel. Its a match made in heaven. I told folks here couuple of years ago Steve played Golf with the Former Intel Top dog. Deals get done ,idea's talked about while playing golf. Way i see it the only thing holding Apple down all these years was oddball ppc. No more ports!

 

[amigabill]

it was obvious early on of IBM's shift towards consoles but for them to basically admit they couldn't be arsed making a laptop spec version of the G5 would just make me want to slap them, if i was apple..

Surely Apple ws in a position to know about the low-power G5 chips coming from PA Semi. They sound quite suitable for laptop applications and even have most of the northbridge type stuff built-in.

There must be more to the switch than just a laptop capable G5 chip.

 

[Soulstorm]

Surely Apple ws in a position to know about the low-power G5 chips coming from PA Semi. They sound quite suitable for laptop applications and even have most of the northbridge type stuff built-in.

There must be more to the switch than just a laptop capable G5 chip.

Indeed there is! Look at an article by arstechnica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050606-4974.html

It provides some very useful information.

 

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
And in 2008, if Jobs could go back in time he'd say:

"Why were we so stupid - we never should have done OSX on 32-bit x86 systems. If we'd waited a few more months for Merom, we could have done a true 64-bit port - so that all OSX on Intel would have been full 64-bit. Now we've got all this 32-bit baggage to carry around, and we're still working on the transition from OSx86 to OSx64 64-bit."

Hindsight is always perfect.​

Yeah right, a few more months...

This switch can't come soon enough. Jobs should have switched the first time.

Is it really that urgent? Sales were pretty good last quarter!

The silence about OSx64 is unsettling - you'd think that the roadmap would at least be out there, so that developers who are porting to OSx86 would be able to plan ahead.

Maybe Apple's planning a Windows-like 32-bit sandbox (like WOW on XP 64-bit), or even planning to use VT to run OSx86 in a virtual machine beside OSx64.

I would hope that they're not planning to duplicate the lame 64-bit implementation that's part of Tiger on OSx64.

 

[BenRoethig]

bad move on IBM.. 5 years from now.. game consoles would be stuck at 20million or whatever a year (or life cycle)... and apple would be shipping at parity with dell...

Apple getting 10% is the market is a long shot at best, let alone Dell's 30%. Their machines do not have universal appeal.

 

[kirk26]

I'm not sure about "compete"... My dual 1.8 at home kicks the crap out of my 2.8 Ghz P4 at work. My P4 hangs and slows like crazy. My PM gets used for some pretty heavy processing at home with no slow downs. I'm very picky about speed and I hope that the new Pentium based Macs will perform at the level of the current PPC guys.

Sounds like someone doesn't know how to use Windows. Dual 1.8 (mac)=Intel (year 2001 PC's).

 

[pgwalsh]

One more thing to back Jobs decision of moving to Intel... Don't know if they knew at the time that IBM was shifting priorities, but it was the right move to do after all...

Daschund

I couldn't agree with you more. I just wish they did it during the initial switch, so I wont have to upgrade all my applications again. That's the bummer part of the switch to Intel.

 

[shawnce]

Surely Apple ws in a position to know about the low-power G5 chips coming from PA Semi. They sound quite suitable for laptop applications and even have most of the northbridge type stuff built-in.

...and what is PA Semi track record? What volume can they supply? At what prices? etc.

Likely far to much risk for Apple taste (and mine having invested in Apple).

There must be more to the switch than just a laptop capable G5 chip.

Yeah... like never really meeting performance/power rations or clock rates with the G5 (as I programmer I do love the G5 and PPC ISA but...). Also this implies that IBM is generally walking away from consumer grade general processors to console cpu and cell processors.

In other words many reasons exist that when summed pushed them to make the switch.

 

[shawnce]

The silence about OSx64 is unsettling - you'd think that the roadmap would at least be out there, so that developers who are porting to OSx86 would be able to plan ahead.

Yeah as a developer this is the main unsettling and unanswered aspect of the transition plan and documentation that Apple has outlined to date. I would love to know more about what the road map looks like.

Given this it seems sure that our only 64b addressing systems will remain G5/PPC based into 2007 (as Apple generally implied).

 

[woolfgang]

Why are people talking s##t about the G5? I do video editing and graphics. I had to work in an office for two months with both a dual Xeon 3G and a dual 2.5 G5 with 2GB each. When I worked on cross platform programs, the G5 was obviously faster. The G5 is not the future, but it still kicks ass. I also have a Dual G4 1.25 at home I used for video editing and it's still fast.

 

[~Shard~]

Why are people talking s##t about the G5? I do video editing and graphics. I had to work in an office for two months with both a dual Xeon 3G and a dual 2.5 G5 with 2GB each. When I worked on cross platform programs, the G5 was obviously faster. The G5 is not the future, but it still kicks ass. I also have a Dual G4 1.25 at home I used for video editing and it's still fast.

Agreed. PPC is the past, and Intel is the future for Apple, however that doesn't automatically make the PPC a crappy processor. I know I wouldn't complain if I had a quad PowerMac right now...

 

[bousozoku]

well said. ibm makes more money on their joke of a consulting service, which only really trys to sell their IT equipment. ibm got out of computing (lenova or whatever that company in china is called) it makes sense they would not be interested in Apple's computers. and the article clearly states Freescales position, selling products to the automakers (which is a HUGE business for them). way to go apple for looking for a new supplier.

IBM didn't get out of computing, but stopped trying to keep their x86 PC business going by selling it to Lenovo of China.

IBM has 2 midrange lines and a mainframe line that do quite well in the industry plus the fault-tolerant Sequent subsidiary. IBM's database business is quite vital, also. With their Informix group (the original UNIX database people) and the DB2 group (the original relational database people), they have the majority of sales in the market.

Apple's management didn't care past the launch of PowerPC machines because someone else was eating their lunch--Power Computing. They waited too long, trusted Motorola, made IBM wait for leftover sales and, in general, hurt themselves.

Motorola decided that it knew better than IBM and created the G4 on its own, which stalled Apple almost immediately and certainly embarrassed the hell out of them. "We're going to charge you the same amount for your machines, but we're going to decrease performance...because a supercomputer is too much for mere users to handle." Perhaps, saying that, they would have looked less stupid.

I'm glad Freescale isn't completely gone. The world needs a prime example of arrogance and stupidity and brilliance and ineptitude to continue. (Yes, AltiVec was brilliant. The fact that the G4 was little more than a host to the AltiVec unit was really inept, especially when they couldn't produce a 50 MHz clock speed enhancement for over a year.)

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Is it really that urgent? Sales were pretty good last quarter!

The silence about OSx64 is unsettling - you'd think that the roadmap would at least be out there, so that developers who are porting to OSx86 would be able to plan ahead.

Maybe Apple's planning a Windows-like 32-bit sandbox (like WOW on XP 64-bit), or even planning to use VT to run OSx86 in a virtual machine beside OSx64.

I would hope that they're not planning to duplicate the lame 64-bit implementation that's part of Tiger on OSx64.

Umm... I think the main reason the switch is happening is because the old 32-bit G4 (and its crappy FSB) simply cannot deliver the goods in today's laptop world. And anyways, the G5 can't go much faster in an iMac due to heat issues and Jobs said the transition would be complete in 2007 (Hint hint Power Macs). The pros outweigh the cons by a mile.

 

[the_ki]

I'm not sure about "compete"... My dual 1.8 at home kicks the crap out of my 2.8 Ghz P4 at work. My P4 hangs and slows like crazy. My PM gets used for some pretty heavy processing at home with no slow downs. I'm very picky about speed and I hope that the new Pentium based Macs will perform at the level of the current PPC guys.

You still are comparing a two cpu machine with a single cpu machine, The new Intels will outperform their current ppc counteparts be assured of that. Toms Hardware has a nice look at whats coming. Low power and high performance is the key for Apples future. Yonah looks very good but it successors look even better. Jobs knows this.

You're also (I think) comparing Mac OS X to Windows, which, on completely equal machines, will be a huge difference.

 

[nagromme]

Don't make the common mistake

Of thinking Apple's decision NOW is based on factors from years ago that Apple just didn't see. Intel's future (Pentium M and beyond) really IS different from its past (Netburst.) PowerPCs have done VERY well, but they're not going any further. Intel is.

What Apple did do is keep their options open--which took no small effort! Very good planning.

For people who think Apple should have finished a fully 64-bit version of OS X (Leopard?) and THEN told developers to start getting ready for the transition... I fear that would have delayed things far more than a few months. And I'm an Apple consumer who is NOT willing to wait for a next-gen laptop. I AM willing to wait for certain apps to get faster (Photoshop). In addition, assuming that Apple can't pull off a 32-bit to 64-bit transition well is to deny Apple's proven talent for big transitions! Compromises are needed sometimes--but "wait 6-12 months" sounds like the wrong compromise to me.

(Also I think the article author may be going a little far to say that no innovation is left with computers, but of course he now runs a non-computer company.)

Anyway, the PowerPC had great potential, as some G5 quad owners can attest! I hope it goes on in other forms--Cell, etc.--even if it can't have a future in computers.

(Meanwhile some tech writers are saying IBM already HAS a laptop G5 they can deliver in quantity, and that Intel has failed with Yonah and does NOT have the ability to deliver in quantity. Sounds questionable to me. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/165437/ )

The PowerPC never really outshined Intel's processors.

Actually it clearly DID at times--and for some important tasks, it still does. The Intel change is, once again, about the future as much as the present. (The PRESENT need is for laptops--the G4 needs a successor.)

 

[p0intblank]

They decided to forget about the G5 notebook and shift their focus into the console world? Smells like some bad cover-up to me. I hate it when companies make poor excuses like this one.

 

[FFTT]

I think SJ needed the fastest available processor at the time to prove
OSX after too much negative PR about OS9, the security hassles and conflicts.

IBM fit the bill and the rest is history.

Now that OSX is proven SJ can take his business anywhere he wants to.

 

[phraktyl]

Flashbacks to OS/2

One of these days I'm going to stop getting attached to IBM products, as I have a history of being shafted...

 

[shamino]

ibm got out of computing (lenova or whatever that company in china is called) it makes sense they would not be interested in Apple's computers. ...

Computing is a lot more than PC's. Please don't confuse the two.

IBM still sells quite a lot of "big iron", based on POWER and z/Architecture (The successor to the s/360/370/390 line.)

You're right that they decided to get out of the PC business, and Apple was right to not try and remain attached. But don't confuse this with the much broader field of "computing".