Interesting Article at PBS ... Intel to buy Apple

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by amac4me, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. amac4me macrumors 65816


    Apr 26, 2005
    It asks these 5 questions

    Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

    Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

    Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?

    Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?

    Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

    Interesting quotes ...

    "Then what is the driving force? Microsoft."

    "So Intel buys Apple and works with their OEMs to get products out in the market. The OEMs would love to be able to offer a higher margin product with better reliability than Microsoft. Intel/Apple enters the market just as Microsoft announces yet another delay in their next generation OS. By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one)."

    "Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company."

    Check it out:
  2. shadowmoses macrumors 68000


    Mar 6, 2005
    That is a very interesting article and it worries me as it all seems to make sense....Hopefully it isnt all true...

    ShadOW :confused:
  3. andcraig macrumors regular

    May 28, 2005
    From everything else i've read everywhere else, this guy is incredibly wrong on most of the things he says.
    There's no "merger" for one...Apple is using Intel to supply their chips, nothing more.
    His knowledge of the industry seems to be lacking...
    IBM failed at providing a satisfactory roadmap, and obviously couldn't match intels as they hadn't and did not show to be.
    AMD could not be considered because they are significantly smaller than apple, i believe don't even own their own manufacturing plants, and have supply issues...a risk apple cannot take.
    The powerpc performance advantage has been mostly nullified with the fact that OSX is based on a system that performs very well on x86, Intel's new chips are dual core and clocked at near 4 ghz ..the difference between a single G5 overlcoked to 2.7 and a dual core P4 at 3.7 is substantially in favor of the P4...and in terms of mobile the pentium-m is one of the best performing chips on the market and probably shows up the G4 in most regards.

    They announced it a year early because its a substantial change, they needed to get developer's ready, its better to have confirmation on a fact that would have leaked out anyway and caused speculation, and such an important shift would need to be public to stockholders of both companies, so why not announce it to everyone.

    I doubt its about wants to maintain a technological edge over microsoft. With Windows running on much faster chips than OSX the performance advantage of a mac is diminishing. Steve needs to keep that up or risk losing a lot of business.

    and he seems to not realize that apple isn't just letting people run their OS on any machine they feel like...
    pretty shoddy editorial
  4. Toeside macrumors member

    Jun 2, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
  5. Willy S macrumors 6502

    May 8, 2005
    This is interesting and of course Mac fans believe what they want to believe. It makes a good sense for Intel to buy Apple...why not?

    MacOS X is so much superior than XP that it´s insane. Therefore it is rediculous from a business point of view that Mac is just a tiny player on the market. Therefore it is very temting for Mac to go mainstream and put M$ 6 feet under...
  6. kester macrumors newbie

    Jun 9, 2005
  7. andcraig macrumors regular

    May 28, 2005
    Intel would not buy Apple for many many reasons
    First off..even companies that do similar things merging is bad..integrating two large command structures and companies is incredibly complicated and creates power struggles, flawed products, resentment, and general badness on all sides.

    Also, Intel selling chips to Apple is one thing, Microsoft won't have a problem with it. Apple has its realm and Microsoft has its realm. Microsoft is probably smart enough to know that it needs a fairly strong competitor, but you never let that comptetitor get too strong. Assuming a merger could work well, and that Intel would throw its entire weight behind Apple in an attempt to take down Microsoft would cause the entire weight of microsoft to crush them both..and Microsoft weighs a lot more.
    Microsoft works mainly with Intel chips, but they could pull in AMD as their favorite instead and Microsoft could do a lot more with AMD than Intel could do with Apple.

    OSX may be the superior operating system, but if you remember Betamax was superior to VHS, minidisc was superior to CD, OGG is superior to MP3...
    The best doesn't always win, and were OSX to somehow turn the tables and take a huge portion of the market share i can guarantee you that you would hate it.
    One of the reasons Windows is as difficult as it is is because it must provide support for thousands of different, not always standard hardware. It has to try its damndest to provide backwards compatibility, and it has to be able to run on anything that technically meets system reqs while making everyone who uses it, not happy, but tolerable.
    With Apple and the Mac OS Steve Jobs can snap his fingers and declare the new operating system will not run on anything less than a machine two years ago and people accept it. Apple controls everything in the computers which allows for a much more streamlined OS.

    What Apple should do with this is take the lowpower pentium-m chip, build small easy to use machines and make an even more streamlined OS. The "internet appliance" has always failed thus far, but if any company could pull off an incredibly cheap, easy to use machine designed for basic word processing and internet with an intuitive UI that you wouldn't be ashamed of'd be apple.
  8. jrv3034 macrumors 6502a

    Oct 23, 2002
    Very interesting, indeed...

    Doubt it's true, but I do agree that we're in for a MAJOR war of the OSs. :eek:
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    Cringely knows as much about the industry as anybody, and much more than most. It's always worthwhile thinking about what says.

    That being said, my first reaction while I was reading this article was that he'd finally gone completely off his nut. Then as I finished it, I realized that his theory makes awfully good business sense and also in terms of the politics of the industry. The biggest fly in the ointment is that an Apple-Intel alliance (especially if it did sweetheart OEM deals with HP, as suggested) might well alienate Intel's other OEM customers, driving them straight into the arms of AMD. That's a significant downside risk for Intel. Microsoft might also well retaliate, in ways we can only begin to imagine. Bill is good at getting even.

    Stepping back for a moment from the emotional feelings of having my "beloved Apple" swallowed up by godless Intel, I realize it's potentially the industry's earthquake of the century, possibly the only way we'll ever see Microsoft's role diminished. Which we need, desperately, if it's to breath freely again.

    It's a fascinating theory, and if it does come to pass, I certainly will remember where I read it first.
  10. atari1356 macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2004
    Not going to happen. I doubt very much that Apple's major shareholders would be interested in selling Apple to anybody.
  11. Mr Maui macrumors 65816

    Mr Maui

    Jul 19, 2002
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    It may not happen, but if not, this isn't the reason why. Apple's current market cap is around $30b; Intel is worth around $170b. Add in Apple's cash hoard (around $7b) and they become a takeover target in the range $50b, a 60-70% premium over the current share price, which can then be discounted for Apple's cash and is not burdened by any debt. Trust me, if Intel offered in the neighborhood of $60 a share for AAPL, just every stock holder, large and small, would be lined up to take it. I sure would.
  13. MacRohde macrumors regular


    Jun 1, 2004
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Now, don't underestimate Cringley's knowledge and "feelings" about what stirs in the computer 'bizz.

    But yes, it's a very very wild, out-there theory. But in some ways it does make sense. I just don't see Jobs selling Apple, and that goes for the shareholders as well.
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    If Steve could do a deal like this, I have no doubt that he would. It's not like he's sentimental, and surely the board of directors isn't sentimental either -- except maybe about money.
  15. daveL macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2003
    You're joking, right? Steve Jobs is not sentimental about Apple? It represents damn near his entire adult life. It represents his ego against his arch enemy. It represents his primary point of control in the universe, along with Pixar.

    This will not happen, IMO. Steve is not motivated by money.

    Ask Ted Turner if he would do it again.
  16. mac-er macrumors 65816

    Apr 9, 2003
    Sony would buy Apple long before Intel would.

    Intel would lose all of their PC business.

    Technically, the deal is only being announced to developers.
  17. stcanard macrumors 65816


    Oct 19, 2003
    Generally Cringley's pretty spot on, but he either missed the boat on this one or it was an attempt at humour that was subtle enough that I missed it.

    Most of the argument seems to be predicated on the idea that AMD would have made more sense, and there is not good reason to choose Intel instead of them, and in that assumption he is 100% wrong. After a decade of chip supply problems, why would Apple choose the supplier that has the highest risk or repeating the exact same supply problems? That alone would shove them to Intel, especially since AMD can still be held as a backup plan.

    As for the "abandoning 64 bit" part, I gather he hasn't looked at Intel's roadmap which, by an amazing coincidence, pushes desktop 64 bit chips at the exact same time Apple is planning on switching the high end line.

    And on the "why didn't they use the cell" part, I gather he missed the litany of architectural analysises that came to the conclusion that the cell would not fare well as a desktop computer.

    No, the more I think about it, with the style of writing (much looser than usual), and the off-the-cuff remark at the end, I think this is Cringley pulling our leg.
  18. sbb155 macrumors 6502

    Jan 15, 2005
    Anybody who even comes close to buying this is crazy...
    If you want to see the end of apple, all MSFT has to do is stop making office for the mac.

    MS Office is the de facto standard for the educational and corporate workplace. Yes, you guys are all going to say that there are alternatives. No corporate or educational client can deal with those alternatives since they are not compatible "enough". I work in the corporate and college educational markets... office is on every mac I have ever seen. And when one of my mac documents doesnt translate into PC office, it is embarrassing, and costs $$.

    MS Office is the "ace in the hole". If you want to see the end of apple, all MSFT has to do is stop making office for the mac. The corporate and higher education markets will be dead...

    Of course, outlook is getting to be a standard, although notes and novell still have footholds. That is the second "ace".

    Despite all the innovation at apple, unless the corporate world and educational markets have compatibility with office, apples would not sell much at all. Forget the small market share of Pages and appleworks. Users need cross platform compatibility with excel, powerpoint and word.

    MSFT has the power over mac. Open your eyes Steve jobs. Jobs will have to suck up to gates... indirectly.

    Move to intel is just the beginning.
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    Right, joking. Ha-ha.

    Speaking of that sentimental guy, when Steve was fired by Scully in 1985, he sold all but one share of his Apple holdings -- at a time when the price was particularly low besides. Then he went on to found NeXT, which, when the price was right, he sold in a flash. Quite tearfully, too, I'm sure.

    You're right about the ego part though. If Steve could give Bill a nasty wedgie, you know he'd do it -- which is why this theory makes sense to me. Fits right into the personal politics of the industry. And you can bet, if this did come to pass, that Steve wouldn't just ride off into the Pixar sunset (this part of the prediction I don't agree with). He'd retain some sort of role in the merged companies, at the very least, a seat on the board.

    Remember, Steve was just treated for cancer. He's slowing down. How long can he continue to be the CEO of two, growing companies? Something has to give.

    And besides, it's not Steve's company to sell or not to sell. That decision belongs to the stockholders.
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    Oh look, I'm drooling all over myself. Thanks for pointing it out!

    You are right to mention the potential for Microsoft retaliation. I've suggested this as a factor on the other side of the ledger also. But keep in mind that Microsoft can retaliate against Apple in the ways you mention at any time and for any reason. Steve has to know this, and in fact has been building a firewall against it for several years. The final measure could just be an alliance of this kind.
  21. nrd macrumors member

    Mar 8, 2005
    New Jersey
    Cringley comments on the Apple-Intel merger

    I think Cringley might be on to something. It may not be about a switch to better technology. I think the deal will help Intel "regain control of the desktop" but also expand its rights to other technology found in the PowerPC line.

    [Note from moderator: threads merged]
  22. Manzana macrumors 6502a


    Jul 19, 2004
    Orange County, CA
    a lot of conspiracy theories and much speculation i.e. wild-eyed guesses!

    I do agree with him on one point though, why talk about macintel when you're one year away from shipping the first product and then talk about how easy it will be to make the universal binary by just checking a box :confused: interesting...
  23. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    I agree with many of the sentiments, but I do have a beef with the headline. Intel never had control of the desktop. It is in the chip business, not the operating system business. Most computer users--whether they are running Windows, OS/2, most distros of Linux, or many flavors of Unix/BSD/workalikes--use Intel-based computers. I do believe that Intel's corporate pride is bruised by having its chips so closely associated with a POS like Windows. So many people seem to ignore the fact that several OEMs (Intel customers) have strongly lobbied Apple for licenses for MacOS X. Apple hardware has no immediate prospects of restoring Intel's pride. However, MacOS X does.
  24. aloofman macrumors 68020


    Dec 17, 2002
    What I like about Cringely is that he is pretty observant about what trends are going on. But he also can be really off-the-wall about how he connects the dots. He's not always right, and I think he kind of assumes that companies/people are smarter than they really are. Despite all that, I think he's worth reading, if only for the mental gymnastics.

    As for his Apple-Intel merger theory, that's going a little too far. He does bring up good questions though. Why announce the move so far ahead of time, even though it will hurt current sales? And why not AMD? I do think that Intel has good reasons to hook up with Apple because of the OS factor. It gives them potential ways of reducing Microsoft's leverage over them. THAT part Cringely didn't just pull out of his ass.
  25. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    Well, some of it makes sense, but there's one thing that I think is missed here. Its speculation, and for some reason predicting the future for Apple and Jobs never seems to work.

    So who knows....I'm not sure I'd like to see Intel get their hands on Apple. There is something about Apple would no doubt suffer and hurt us all in some way.


Share This Page