Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Really switching to Intel!!??
- Thread starter dodonutter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One mac to rule them all
Here's how I see it:
Intel will not make PPC for the same reason IBM is slacking: apple's volume isn't large enough to warrant a specific chip (which is a more profitable market? 2 million ibook/pbook vs 20 million xbox/nintendo/playstations?). Thus, Apple will use x86.
So the real question is if Apple will port OSX for other Intel boxes or simply put Intel chips in mac hardware?
If OSX for third party boxes, then the hardware side of the business will either become, 1, open Macs (able to run Windows) or, 2, exclusive OSX/Intel machines.
If 1, then Apple simply as hardware manufacturer will compete with Dell, Sony, etc and, most likely, do pretty well - Apple's reliability, design and cool-factor are definitely profitable. Besides, there's another company out there who has done pretty well selling simply operating software. So going toe to toe with both Microsoft and the beige-boxers wouldn't be suicide as I see it.
If 2, Apple will use OSX as a method to try and bring people to their exclusive platform, the way iPod/iTunes currently tries to bring people over to the Mac side. Potentially successful...
But either way, getting people to shell out 130 for a new operating system is only going to appeal to people who aren't bound by the Microsoft-only programs - ie, the Linux/unix bunch. They may jump, but for anyone still using Windows and not a mac mini, the reasons aren't the price of hardware but simply the exclusive software (or lack of education).
Now, the other option is no OSX port to Windows and everything stays the same, except with Intels inside, which is ultimately pretty boring and won't change Apple's 2% market share.
The last option is, if it can be done, a potential Microsoft killer. Here's how it works:
=Apple builds x86 boxes that can run Windows.
=Seamlessly transition of OSX to intel macs (without support for 3rd party boxes, which is what will most likely happen anyway)
=Then, the mac double-boots both Windows and OSX and allows an Expose-like switch between the GUIs.
=Finally, a program like Synergy http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ allows easy file-swapping between the two - hit a button, both windows shrink, drag and drop files between.
=$$$ profit.
One possible downside of said scheme is programs written only for Windows (see os/2). However, Mac already has a solid, profitable user-base - no reason to abandon support when money is to be made.
The upside is, of course, getting the best of both worlds. The hardware can easily handle both OSes (though, lord knows what Longhorn will require). People would spend 90% of their time on OSX and use Windows for business, scientific and other niche programs.
And, of course, there are games and those early-adopters who dictate hardware progression. With Apple's resources, their machines will equal, if not smote, anything from Alienware, Falcon, Voodoo, etc.
This way, Apple retains the lucrative hardware market and allows those speciality users (of which big businesses are easily the largest group with speciality software) who dictate major buying trends to make the jump. And as Apple's market share crests, say, 20%, (much the same way Firefox is heading) then the speciality programs will become profitable on OSX. And the mass-migration will ensue.
Any thoughts?
I, for one, welcome our black-turtlenecked overlord.
Here's how I see it:
Intel will not make PPC for the same reason IBM is slacking: apple's volume isn't large enough to warrant a specific chip (which is a more profitable market? 2 million ibook/pbook vs 20 million xbox/nintendo/playstations?). Thus, Apple will use x86.
So the real question is if Apple will port OSX for other Intel boxes or simply put Intel chips in mac hardware?
If OSX for third party boxes, then the hardware side of the business will either become, 1, open Macs (able to run Windows) or, 2, exclusive OSX/Intel machines.
If 1, then Apple simply as hardware manufacturer will compete with Dell, Sony, etc and, most likely, do pretty well - Apple's reliability, design and cool-factor are definitely profitable. Besides, there's another company out there who has done pretty well selling simply operating software. So going toe to toe with both Microsoft and the beige-boxers wouldn't be suicide as I see it.
If 2, Apple will use OSX as a method to try and bring people to their exclusive platform, the way iPod/iTunes currently tries to bring people over to the Mac side. Potentially successful...
But either way, getting people to shell out 130 for a new operating system is only going to appeal to people who aren't bound by the Microsoft-only programs - ie, the Linux/unix bunch. They may jump, but for anyone still using Windows and not a mac mini, the reasons aren't the price of hardware but simply the exclusive software (or lack of education).
Now, the other option is no OSX port to Windows and everything stays the same, except with Intels inside, which is ultimately pretty boring and won't change Apple's 2% market share.
The last option is, if it can be done, a potential Microsoft killer. Here's how it works:
=Apple builds x86 boxes that can run Windows.
=Seamlessly transition of OSX to intel macs (without support for 3rd party boxes, which is what will most likely happen anyway)
=Then, the mac double-boots both Windows and OSX and allows an Expose-like switch between the GUIs.
=Finally, a program like Synergy http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ allows easy file-swapping between the two - hit a button, both windows shrink, drag and drop files between.
=$$$ profit.
One possible downside of said scheme is programs written only for Windows (see os/2). However, Mac already has a solid, profitable user-base - no reason to abandon support when money is to be made.
The upside is, of course, getting the best of both worlds. The hardware can easily handle both OSes (though, lord knows what Longhorn will require). People would spend 90% of their time on OSX and use Windows for business, scientific and other niche programs.
And, of course, there are games and those early-adopters who dictate hardware progression. With Apple's resources, their machines will equal, if not smote, anything from Alienware, Falcon, Voodoo, etc.
This way, Apple retains the lucrative hardware market and allows those speciality users (of which big businesses are easily the largest group with speciality software) who dictate major buying trends to make the jump. And as Apple's market share crests, say, 20%, (much the same way Firefox is heading) then the speciality programs will become profitable on OSX. And the mass-migration will ensue.
Any thoughts?
I, for one, welcome our black-turtlenecked overlord.
Mr Maui said:
There is a substantial difference between knowing an architecture and fabing a chip. Of course Intel has the plants to build the hardware. What do they know about POWER and its PPC offspring? What? You think IBM pulled the design of the G5 out of their butt?
Frobozz said:
Plus, the Xbox 360 runs on an operating system contained on a little tiny flash chip that is less than five hundred and twelve thousand bytes long. The Macintosh Operating System runs on a hard drive and is about five thousand million bytes long.
So, that's a general assumption. But OS X is a helluva of a lot larger than the Xbox 360's stripped-down-port-of-the-original-Xbox's-stripped-down-sripped-down-and-shrunken-port-of-Windows 2000.
Well, maybe this is the "missing link" so to speak in the PowerBook/iBook upgrade dilemma. Everyone says the iBooks need to be updated, and that the PowerBooks need to see a significant update, not just another marginal speed increase. Yet the problem has always been justifying the unlikelihood that dual-core G4s or G5s are coming for the PowerBooks any time soon. Maybe an Intel chip (a la a Pentium M) will be the answer...
Like someone already said: Is this really happening???? 
This is so surreal. I feel like when the G5 was finally released:
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030623171845.shtml
"It almost feels like a dream..."
This is so surreal. I feel like when the G5 was finally released:
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030623171845.shtml
"It almost feels like a dream..."
sord said:
Apple's stock will go up if this Intel news is true. Actually, it will go up just from the rumors alone. It went above $40 the last time these rumors came out, and will be just enough to reverse the recent $2 drop that happened because of the iPod settlement.
Toyota plants can build Fords if they lay them out to do so whether they know anything about the design behind the Ford product or not. Intel has the capacity and ability to fab large volumes of chips. You don't have to understand something to produce it. You only need to be able to mirror, copy, match, or reproduce what is already in existence. I think that was my point. And I believe Intel knows a whole lot more about PowerPC than anyone gives them credit for. They just are unable to utilize the patented technologies and designs in their own chips and are forced to try to create their own things to compete.SiliconAddict said:
Another point of contention I've got is where would this whole thing leave potential switchers?
I've got friends and co-workers saving up for their first macs (mostly iBook/iMac/Powerbook) who are all msging me asking: "is it worth it to buy anything in the next year?" I just don't have an answer for them.
As has been mentioned before, some hardware sales (Pro-line in particular) aren't exactly incredible. What would this story coming to fruition mean for those sales? If Steve drops the Intel-bomb on the 6th, there's going to be a whole lot of confused ppl.
I've got friends and co-workers saving up for their first macs (mostly iBook/iMac/Powerbook) who are all msging me asking: "is it worth it to buy anything in the next year?" I just don't have an answer for them.
As has been mentioned before, some hardware sales (Pro-line in particular) aren't exactly incredible. What would this story coming to fruition mean for those sales? If Steve drops the Intel-bomb on the 6th, there's going to be a whole lot of confused ppl.
Can I get an RSS feed to this thread? I don't want to keep refreshing it... my hands are getting tired.... whine whine wine whine bitch moan whine bitch moan cry moan whine cham-pag-en....
But seriously, the bandwidth this thread is gonna cause is like, big. Bigger than big. Oh, hell. Just read this to see just how much bandwidth we're gonna suck up:
But seriously, the bandwidth this thread is gonna cause is like, big. Bigger than big. Oh, hell. Just read this to see just how much bandwidth we're gonna suck up:
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy said:
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy said:
iMeowbot said:
BLAST! Reds everywhere. Its Red Dawn for Real. Going to wal-mart now to stock up on ammunition. Callin Swayze and Sheen to see if they are coming.
Reuters has picked up the story, cites Cnet as source.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050604...gm573QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050604...gm573QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Freg3000 said:Like someone already said: Is this really happening????
This is so surreal. I feel like when the G5 was finally released:
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030623171845.shtml
"It almost feels like a dream..."
I know what you mean, I was living on MacRumors 2 years ago for all that fun as well! It just seems unlikely that Apple would change processors so quickly from Moto to IBM, now a mere 2 years later, to Intel. But I guess we'll see on Monday. If there is truth to this rumor then there is no better venue to announce it than WWDC.
~Shard~ said:
This has been brought up before and the question I keep asking is would Apple really upgrade just their laptop line to the x86. *shakes his magic 8 ball...all sighs point to nope*
~Shard~ said:I know what you mean, I was living on MacRumors 2 years ago for all that fun as well! It just seems unlikely that Apple would change processors so quickly from Moto to IBM, now a mere 2 years later, to Intel. But I guess we'll see on Monday. If there is truth to this rumor then there is no better venue to announce it than WWDC.
That's the dang scary part of all of this....the timing is too perfect. If this happened at Paris or at MW....I'd be shrugging it off but at a developers conf?
HAHAHA...God , I was having a real crappy day but this just made my weekend. Now i can't wait till Monday.
You know , now this whole Intel Mini thing now all makes sense , as Cenet has stated that the Mini will be the 1st to make the transistion as it will offer consumers an entry level taste in what OSX offers with out worrying about stuff like (but it dosen't use a pentium).
The Mini wanna be was said to be the design of Intel , not Aopen. Intel must have had Apple's Permission as they would have been hit with all types of patent lawsuits. I remember when some chinese company made that shuffle look alike and apple had them take it off the market in like 2 weeks.
A Pentium M mini is a perfect entry level PC , beter then some Dell celeron box or bulky P4 2.8ghz with a crippled 533mhz bus.
I can see them makeing a
1.4 model / 1.6ghz model
Intel P915x Chipset PCIe 533mhz FSB
512MB DDR2 (they are getting aot cheaper now)
40-80GB 2.5in HD
DVD+-RW 8X
$599
They should intergrate an ATI x300. but that prob asking 4 too much
You know , now this whole Intel Mini thing now all makes sense , as Cenet has stated that the Mini will be the 1st to make the transistion as it will offer consumers an entry level taste in what OSX offers with out worrying about stuff like (but it dosen't use a pentium).
The Mini wanna be was said to be the design of Intel , not Aopen. Intel must have had Apple's Permission as they would have been hit with all types of patent lawsuits. I remember when some chinese company made that shuffle look alike and apple had them take it off the market in like 2 weeks.
A Pentium M mini is a perfect entry level PC , beter then some Dell celeron box or bulky P4 2.8ghz with a crippled 533mhz bus.
I can see them makeing a
1.4 model / 1.6ghz model
Intel P915x Chipset PCIe 533mhz FSB
512MB DDR2 (they are getting aot cheaper now)
40-80GB 2.5in HD
DVD+-RW 8X
$599
They should intergrate an ATI x300. but that prob asking 4 too much
kingjr3 said:
Excellent point. Boys I would be buying Apple stock right now. In two years when we have the same speed as Intel Windows machines but have a kick ass software delivering faster processing in video, pictures, sound and DVD burning, who do you think will double its market share.
Mr Maui said:
Well of course the vast majority don't care about what's running inside, but are people going to rush to buy a PPC based system when they know for a fact there's something entirely different in the pipeline?
Sirus The Virus said:
Now THIS is a very interesting idea. Since IBM can't deliver G5 suitable for Powerbooks, if Apple went to Intel for the Mobile PPC chip it would really put some pressure on IBM to innovate and develop the platform. It's not at all crazy to have another chip manufacturer on board (Apple's still using the G4 from Moto/Freescale).
An outright move to x86, without extreme modifications, would be death for Mac hardware. I just can't imagine that Steve would throw such a big wrench in the system without a BIG rabbit up his sleeve. If Steve makes this announcement, he'll need to have all the questions answered and problems solved IN THE NEXT BREATH.
rendezvouscp said:
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This could be the opening salvo from Apple in the battle to take over the living room. It's all about convergence whether you like it or not. Why do you think MSFT is pushing the wide-ranging capabilities of the XBox 360 so hard, to say nothing of the home media PC. The line between computer, television, DVD player, cable/satellite box, and gaming console is going to completely blur over the next decade.
Perhaps this new partnership with Intel is a move towards a new consumer electronics device, it's not as if Apple doesn't already have an excellent track record introducing revolutionary new consumer electronics devices. This certainly is the direction that many of Apple's competitors are heading so it wouldn't be unheard of.