That is Freescale Class B common stock. It represents the portion of Freescale that Motorola temporarily owned while completing the spinoff.Yvan256 said:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/90/90829/reports/MotorolaSpinOffQA.pdf
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
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/90/90829/reports/MotorolaSpinOffQA.pdf
Originally Posted by bryanc said:
The difference between this time and all those previous times the surpise was blown, is the timing. Anonymous source my ***. I'm willing to bet a paycheck that Apple leaked this. The timing is WAY too perfect. Think about it. Friday before the potential announcement. Just enough detail to create an ungodly buzz, and its not as if its a product like a Mac Mini that can be recreated by the competition.
Also you can bet that every media outlet, every computer mag, ever computer website will be focusing their attention on WWDC come monday. Apple isn't going to take the spotlight Monday. They are going to eclipse EVERYTHING even if they don't do the transition. Again look at the timestamp on the article: 5PM PST. They couldn't have timed it better. Right at the end of the day. I look at it this way. Apple handed news.com the bullet. New.com fired the bullet in just a way that the thing is bouncing around the net at lightspeed not exiting its carcass. If this was announced on a Monday or a Thursday something else would have taken the focus off of it in a day or two. Maybe even MS releasing another announcement about Longshot or something. This was timed. Seriously the more I think about it the more I'm getting that Spidy sense thing that this is going to happen.
Zion Grail said:
That is why I used the word MOCK-UP. Have you seen a computer lately sold with a PS/2 port? This is obviously a fake. And why does it look exactly as the mini? Take my cue, the intel mini pc does not exist, it is* the new mac mini.
* I really really REALLY hope I am wrong. If the rumor would be true, I pray it will still be based on the PPC architecture, NO WAY am I moving back to that ancient platform, even if it takes holding on to my 2005 PPC until the end of days
SiliconAddict said:
I agree. Steve never liked IBM and the fact they made him look bad when he promised us 3ghz years ago makes him mad. He is a man with goals and if its not up to his standards then he beheads the problem (IBM).
Actually, although I'd prefer AMD for desktop processors - I'd MUCH prefer Intel for mobile processors. AMD still does not have anything that's decent for mobility.
And if Apple does switch to Intel, it makes it VERY easy for them to also use AMD in the future. But Intel has far more capacity, and far more to offer than AMD overall.
Finally, its not just about the best technical solution. Its got to make business sense too. Intel is more business savvy.
And if Apple does switch to Intel, it makes it VERY easy for them to also use AMD in the future. But Intel has far more capacity, and far more to offer than AMD overall.
Finally, its not just about the best technical solution. Its got to make business sense too. Intel is more business savvy.
Happened before
CNET has been wrong about Apple rumors in the past. Long time a go CNET reported that Sun bought Apple, back when Apple was having trouble. Yes they posted this on their site (I read the story), so I don't think CNET is correct now. We will find out on Monday.
-Hugh
BWhaler said:
CNET has been wrong about Apple rumors in the past. Long time a go CNET reported that Sun bought Apple, back when Apple was having trouble. Yes they posted this on their site (I read the story), so I don't think CNET is correct now. We will find out on Monday.
-Hugh
Glad I read this before shelling out $1800 for an iMac - If they are truly going to migrate to Intel, I wonder how long developers will last before they get sick of compiling PPC and Intel versions of their programs?
I actually don't care whether or not Apple is going to Intel - I just care that the iMac I buy this year will be viable three years from now instead of 5-7 years from now. Given how long my B/W system has been chugging along, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't expect the same from a new iMac.
Dammit, this is disconcerting.
I actually don't care whether or not Apple is going to Intel - I just care that the iMac I buy this year will be viable three years from now instead of 5-7 years from now. Given how long my B/W system has been chugging along, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't expect the same from a new iMac.
Dammit, this is disconcerting.
Nemesis said:All this "Intel rubbish" started at "All Things Digital" conference, where Jobs demonstrated iTunes 4.9. Who was the source of that important information? Who else was there from Apple that might know such an information? No one! Steve Jobs only. It MUST have been his plot.
WSJ sent that info into cyberspace straight away, and Apple didn't complain about it at all. No subpoena ... nothing. Hmmm, how strange!
Then, during the last week, not a single speculation coming from world famous Mac rumor sites! Apple bought their loyalty this time, so no important stuff leaks out ...
All is prepared now.
I believe all this was a smoke screen to hide a mighty punch in a stomach to all of us -- Apple's gonna introduce quad machine (2 x dual-core processors) and a mobile G5 laptop!
Delivery date -- August/September.
And I bet quad machine will run at 3 GHz! Steve delivers his promise this time, and doubles it!
Reading this made me tingle.
DPazdanISU said:
Not to detract from your post but no company is going to ditch a platform because someone MAY have made their CEO look bad on stage.
Last I checked no one was on stage with a gun to his head forcing him to make such a claim. That was all Steve. He could have just as easily said we are working on 3Ghz which is just as valid. Its Steves over inflated ego that had him throwing out a timeframe but egos aside IF this happens its going to cost Apple a crap load of money. Its not going to be easy. They stand to lose some market share from this and alienate some hardcore mac users.
All of this based on a personal dislike of IBM? I'd bet that Jobs hates Moto more then IBM and they are working with them on a phone. Personal feelings have NO place in business. I think Steve lets those personal feeling in too much but a architecture jump is a hell of a long way from something like chastising ATI because they let the cat out of the bag for your iMac. If Apple does this its going to be because there is a systemic problem at work here that they are trying to fix.
Here's how it sits with the PPC.
Anyone who thinks that Apple is going to get intel to make PPC chip is hitting the pipe. THe only three companies that can produce a PPC chip right Now, are Apple, IBM, and Motorola (Freescale). Apple isn't going to start fabbing their own chips, and unless Intel drops every free dollar they've got, they won't have the rights to make a PPC chip. End of story, if Apple sqitches to Intel, which they won't soon if ever, it won't be a PPC chip made by intel.
Anyone who thinks that Apple is going to get intel to make PPC chip is hitting the pipe. THe only three companies that can produce a PPC chip right Now, are Apple, IBM, and Motorola (Freescale). Apple isn't going to start fabbing their own chips, and unless Intel drops every free dollar they've got, they won't have the rights to make a PPC chip. End of story, if Apple sqitches to Intel, which they won't soon if ever, it won't be a PPC chip made by intel.
I dunno guys an Intel-powered dual, dual-core Power Mac sounds mighty tempting.
Or a dual-core ultra-slim PowerBook running OS X.
*drools*
Or a dual-core ultra-slim PowerBook running OS X.
*drools*
I have been in the industry for 25 years and have had many years with IBM/Sun/Wintel. I never became overly attached to any of them. None were perfect, but all have been workable and allowed me to make a living. But, 18 months ago, my company wanted me to develop a workable knowledge of video production. Gave me a blank check. Enter a PM dual 2.0 G5, 17" 1.5 PB (portability) FCP, Adobe Creative Suite, dual 23" monitors, and on and on.
I love everything Apple! I still develop SW in Wintel, but for everything else it's Mac. This thread is over using x86 (or other) Intel Processors in Macs. I could not care less (if the performance is there). What is important to me is that Apple stays healthy and keeps the products coming. If it can be done with a different processor, so be it. It is the OS, the Apps, the attitude and the craftsmanship I look at, not the processor inside.
My company just spent a fortune upgrading our entire enterprise. I was appalled to see where Microsoft enterprise SW licenses have gone! It is out of hand. I would love to move my company to Apple. But, there are issues with legacy apps. Anything that can help bring Macs to the business market is also a plus in my book.
I love everything Apple! I still develop SW in Wintel, but for everything else it's Mac. This thread is over using x86 (or other) Intel Processors in Macs. I could not care less (if the performance is there). What is important to me is that Apple stays healthy and keeps the products coming. If it can be done with a different processor, so be it. It is the OS, the Apps, the attitude and the craftsmanship I look at, not the processor inside.
My company just spent a fortune upgrading our entire enterprise. I was appalled to see where Microsoft enterprise SW licenses have gone! It is out of hand. I would love to move my company to Apple. But, there are issues with legacy apps. Anything that can help bring Macs to the business market is also a plus in my book.
akac said:
Why don't you read what the hell I was replying to?!
I was replying to someone who was wondering if it would be easier to port Windows apps to MacOS if it was on x86 and I was saying that it's not the arch that matters -- it's the API, which draws the menus, buttons etc.
dual-core Pentium M in PowerBook could be actually really good and fast. Faster that PPC could prabobly ever be. If this is true, then maybe in the end after all this maddness over the switch is over, we will learn that Intel was the way to go. If there is no switch, then at least we can hope that PPC will Beat Intel in the future in portables and desktops 
VanNess said:
or it could be why now's the time. Little, if anything, that's an advance in Tiger is depenent on the fact that there's a PowerPC underneath. It'll all port, includine graphics acceleration like Core Image, to x86 based hardware. Given that OS X is so far advanced, isn't now the time to make a bold move to make it easy for windows users to try it out?
tromboneaholic said:
Probably. Jobs doesn't like it when he looks like a fool. Sure, maybe it was his fault for making a bold promise that didn't pan out like that, and he should have considered the risk involved - and sure, it was IBM's fault for promising it to him without being able to deliver - but in the end, Jobs made a claim he can't back up, he sees it as IBM's fault, and he may not want to put up with that kind of crap.
Intel is/has been courting Apple
I don't know if anyone has pointed out this article in any of the 800+ previous posts, but it is interesting in the context of this discussion.
In essence, vice president and general manager of Intel's Mobile Platforms Group, Anand Chandrasekher was asked about Apple and Intel, and he responded in very general terms, saying that Intel has always wanted Apple, and continues to pursue them. Nothing more firm, but I get a sense there is something he was not saying (NDA?).
See for yourselves:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/03/HNchandrasekher_1.html
I don't know if anyone has pointed out this article in any of the 800+ previous posts, but it is interesting in the context of this discussion.
In essence, vice president and general manager of Intel's Mobile Platforms Group, Anand Chandrasekher was asked about Apple and Intel, and he responded in very general terms, saying that Intel has always wanted Apple, and continues to pursue them. Nothing more firm, but I get a sense there is something he was not saying (NDA?).
See for yourselves:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/03/HNchandrasekher_1.html
Yes, those are still standard on most PCs.minimax said:
The machine was on display at Computex, running, out on the open where people could put their hands on it. At the very least the prototype is quite real. Acer (AOpen's parent company) are among the top 5 PC builders, they do have the resources to do something like that.
Disagree. The main reason I'd say is for Intel's mobile processors. That's where the action is these days. Apple already sells more laptops than desktops. And if you add the eMac and Mac Mini, Apple basically does 60-70% of its business on a mobile platform. Intel's mobile offerings are leaps and bounds better than the G4. Not with the desktop processors; the G5 can more than hold its own in workstation uses.Xtreme said:
The G5 should've made it into the PowerBooks a while ago. The fact that it didn't means there are some serious, fundamental problems with getting it in there. Most likely, IBM just isn't willing to develop two lines of processors for Apple (a dekstop line and a laptop line). Apple sells 3.5 million Macs a year. That's not nearly enough volume for IBM to develop multiple processors and keep updating them every year or so. All the talk about the Cell and XBox is irrelevant. Even if they use Cell technology, IBM would still have to develop a custom processor for Apple and run a separate line of manufacturing just for Apple. It probably doesn't make sense for IBM to devote such resources to Apple anymore, now that it has bigger fish to fry.
Five or so years ago, Apple was in a similar crossroads. The G4 platform was going nowhere and Motorola just said a f-you to Apple regarding future development. Apple, at that point, considered going x86. But IBM came along and made all these promises about how far the GP-UL and GR-UL would go. 3 ghz in a year--easy. Mobile G5--in two years tops. Obviously, things haven't worked out and we're looking at the worse-case scenario (stuck at 0.7 ghz increase in two years; no mobile G5). If there was still viable future with IBM and the G5, I think Apple would stay. But I don't know if there is anymore.
So x86 is basically our only option. It'll be painful for a lot of people (mostly developers), but what choice does Apple have. No one cares about developing a custom line of processor for such a niche player. Not Motorola. Not IBM.
Bad Karma for Apple
It may indeed be the correct business/industrial/technical choice to switch to Intel. But I would urge Jobs not to do it. Intel is too associated with Microsoft Windows. It'll leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths knowing that their beloved Macs have chips made from the supplier of Windows PCs. If Apple is so into imageand we know they arehave they considered the negative consequences to their image of a switch to Intel?
I know it's only hardware; the individual parts don't really matter; they already have used Big Blue (their former nemesis) and it didn't tarnish their image with the Mac faithful, etc. But this is Intel. They make CISC chips that overheat. How are they going to fit into the Mac motherboards? Distressing and depressing news.
It may indeed be the correct business/industrial/technical choice to switch to Intel. But I would urge Jobs not to do it. Intel is too associated with Microsoft Windows. It'll leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths knowing that their beloved Macs have chips made from the supplier of Windows PCs. If Apple is so into imageand we know they arehave they considered the negative consequences to their image of a switch to Intel?
I know it's only hardware; the individual parts don't really matter; they already have used Big Blue (their former nemesis) and it didn't tarnish their image with the Mac faithful, etc. But this is Intel. They make CISC chips that overheat. How are they going to fit into the Mac motherboards? Distressing and depressing news.
First. You're wrong. I've stated before - I DO have experience compiling the same program for 4 wildly different architectures. It DOES work. Big Endian and little endian hardly factor in 90% of the software out there. And for where it does, a couple macros do the job nicely. In my code I've got a few that just handle the input in correctly that way. As for optimization - they've got a freakin year.Eric5h5 said:
Really. Most developers have apps that work on both x86 and PPC already. Sure a lot don't. But most do. Photoshop. Office. Databases. Dreamweaver. iTunes. Mail. Safari. Quicken. Accountedge. I can list them.
Again, developers have a year. 90% can probably get their code working on x86 in a few hours. Then they have the rest of the year to optimize it.
Desktop wise - you are right. Mobile wise - Intel is the leader. By far. 2.1 Ghz Centrino runs at 5+ hours. Later this year dual code 8+ hour mobile chips. And I think that's where the real power play by Intel comes in. Sure there is not much benefit to moving to x86 for the desktop, but Apple sells 50% of their units in the mobile market and that's growing.
I truly hope its not a rumor. I love my Macs. I love my PowerMacs, PowerBooks, iBooks, and iMac. But frankly, I use a Centrino laptop because my PowerBooks just don't have the runtime my Centrino does. The iBook does, but is woefully underpowered for my work.
Moto.............................................................IBM...................Havent shown squat when you see Intel or AMD. Thats what it boils down to. Apple doesnt have a single chip it can say can match what either one has. Athlons rule in my book buts thats just me. I have been dissapointed in the Cpu's Apple has been using for years. Thats the Black & White. Maybe Steve is also.
Maybe Steve is also.