Sculley on Apple and Intel

[Scottgfx]

Re: Re: Sour Grapes

Originally posted by bousozoku
Atari's 680x0 computers were quite popular, especially in the music industry, where they were number one. Many of those applications started out on the Atari ST line. This line was very popular in Europe and took the number one spot in several countries.

Ahhh Yes, The ST line. When I was 15, I really wanted one. One thing to keep in mind is that Atari at that time had little to do with the division of Warner Communications that built the 2600 (or VCS) The original author was alluding to the bottom dropping out of the home video game industry in 1982. (83?)

The Atari ST computer was a system that was quickly built from off-the-shelf parts, and used an operating system and GUI from Digital Research. (CP/M 68K & GEM) There was nothing really special about the ST except the MIDI ports that made them popular with the music industry. Atari actually was involved in quite a bit of FUD slinging against the Amiga. I have an article from a magazine that debunks quite a few myths of the era. The whole reason the ST was designed and built is a whole other story.

(And why exactly did the TT have to look like a cash register?)

 

[CreepCollector]

Scully, you wuss.

What a jerk. Starved for attention, the only way he can get any ink is by maligning the company that is rid of him (how original) Scully. You're gone. Get over yourself.

And if he thinks it was a mistake not to go with the Intel line of CISC junk, it's no wonder we're all sitting on the brink of a 64 bit revolution, and he's somewhere in northern california, waving a metal detector on a beach. Intel is trying to shape the processor market by restricting their 'consumer' processor line (no multiprocessing, no 64 bit processor), and more power to them, because that is just more business they'll lose to IBM, Apple and AMD. Scully, You're an idiot. We're glad you are no longer driving our magic bus.

 

[Genie]

I really enjoyed the Atari but now I wish it had been a Mac now.

 

[1macker1]

eh?

my tag comes from a song

Originally posted by daveL
Looking at your sig, I'd wager you're the person banned from MR yesterday based on your exchange with Rower_CPU.

 

[nalfein]

Re: Scully, you wuss.

Originally posted by CreepCollector
What a jerk. Starved for attention, the only way he can get any ink is by maligning the company that is rid of him (how original) Scully. You're gone. Get over yourself.

And if he thinks it was a mistake not to go with the Intel line of CISC junk, it's no wonder we're all sitting on the brink of a 64 bit revolution, and he's somewhere in northern california, waving a metal detector on a beach. Intel is trying to shape the processor market by restricting their 'consumer' processor line (no multiprocessing, no 64 bit processor), and more power to them, because that is just more business they'll lose to IBM, Apple and AMD. Scully, You're an idiot. We're glad you are no longer driving our magic
bus.

Thank you, driver, for getting me here (too much, magic bus)

I'm so happy my powerbook is not one of the crappy wintel computer i see around me. Making thing different is what apple do and this is what apple should continu to do for years. If apple has changed to intel, they would probably now just another common windoze capable laptop. This sculley fault was i think pretty good fault!!

 

[Kai]

TheReg on the subject:

definately an interesting read: "Sculley explains how he missed the chance to trash Apple"

 

[iPC]

Re: Re: What's wrong with Intel? Intel GOOD, Microsoft BAD

Originally posted by kevib
ever wonder why they call it the wintel hegemony? because there aren't very many corporate boundaries. both companies work very closely. they are currently redesigning the pc bios to suit their needs.

Oh no! They want to completely redo the 20 year cruft that is PC BIOS! We should string 'em up for such an idea!

And how is Windows only on x86 hardware any worse than what Apple tries to do with Mac OS only on PPC hardware? It's the same thing ya know. Block out anyone else from doing anyhting constructive on "my" hardware. I guess it is only wrong when you have a majority of the market???

 

[iPC]

Originally posted by solvs
:cough: palladium :cough:

A "Palladium"-enhanced computer must continue to run any existing applications and device drivers.

"Palladium" is not a separate operating system. It is based on architectural enhancements to the Windows kernel and to computer hardware, including the CPU, peripherals and chipsets, to create a new trusted execution subsystem (see Figure 1).

"Palladium" will not eliminate any features of Windows that users have come to rely on; everything that runs today will continue to run with "Palladium."

In addition, "Palladium" does not change what can be programmed or run on the computing platform; it simply changes what can be believed about programs, and the durability of those beliefs. Moreover, "Palladium" will operate with any program the user specifies while maintaining security.

It is important to note that while today's applications and devices will continue to work in "Palladium," they will gain little to no benefit from "Palladium" services. To take advantage of "Palladium," existing applications must be adapted to utilize the "Palladium" environment or new applications must be written. This software - whether a component of a Microsoft Win32®-based application or a new application - is called a "Trusted Agent."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2002/jul02/0724palladiumwp.asp

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: What's wrong with Intel? Intel GOOD, Microsoft BAD

Originally posted by roy_dan
I hate to see guilt by association and that is what's happening to Intel nowadays. Yes, they have a strong partnership with Microsoft but that is only smart business. Trust me, they don't share the same philosophies as MS.

I worked at Intel for almost 5 years (blue collar) and can tell you first hand it’s a great company that takes care of the employees and customers. Much like another company we all appreciate, Apple. Intel and Apple have more in common than we may think.

Who says an Intel enabled Mac would be on IA32? I'm sure if Steve Jobs gave Intel the go-ahead they would have a PPC compliant product to manufacture in parallel to the P4's on their awesome manufacturing process. I have seen Itanium, PIII, P4, Celeron, Chipsets, and Strong ARMS all in the same factory in Chandler, AZ.

Whether by buying a license or inventing an ingenious workaround, making PPC's would give them one more edge on AMD and Sun and that's what Intel really cares about.

With Motorola soon to be out of the picture and IBM concentrating on G5's I can't think of a better company to fill in Apple's 32bit gap. Heck, I wouldn't mind Intel making both 32bit and 64bit CPU's for Apple.

Comparing a Mactel to a Wintel is still inconclusive. One of Apple's biggest strengths, IMO, is the fact it's one company engineering the whole system. Sun has it too and look at whom they are starting to buy CPU's from! I would even argue that a Mactel system would be cheaper than a Wintel system. Who’s around to over-charge for the operating system license? The smart buyers look past GHz vs. GHz and choose productivity. Ever wonder why Mac users seem smarter than Windows users? LOL That’s not always true.

Never fear, Wintel will forever be inferior because of all the corporate boundaries between making just one system. It's worse than government red tape.

Reevaluate Intel and think about what will carry Apple into the next 20 years. It’s not going to be a foundry fab at IBM.

being a user of apple products since the seventies, and a pc tech, i run into mac people all the time who get ms and intel mixed up...they really do equate the two as the same...those people are either ingnorant or zealots

many of them see steve jobs' legendary bad sense of business and management as creativity and genius...while steve jobs is the most amzing sideman to the true visionary steve wozniak, people who are mac biggots put all the emphasis on jobs because he can talk and motivate better than almost anybody in high tech

us engineers and techies cringe when jobs tries to get technical and when non techies make statement like sj invented the mac or sj invented the mac os, or sj invented...

i am afraid that many mac people will not ever give intel, the company, a chance and they will never admit that it may be a great place to work...many now can accept microsoft office for mac but that was such an uphill battle

...and i find it amazing that mac followers are hip with ibm due to the G5...i wonder what would have happened if intel did the ppc G5?

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: Re: What's wrong with Intel? Intel GOOD, Microsoft BAD

Originally posted by jefhatfield
many of them see steve jobs' legendary bad sense of business and management as creativity and genius...while steve jobs is the most amzing sideman to the true visionary steve wozniak, people who are mac biggots put all the emphasis on jobs because he can talk and motivate better than almost anybody in high tech

Jobs has always been the public man, and thus his name is known. Anyone who knows anything respects Wozniak as the brainchild behind many of Apple earlier projects. However, if I remember my history correctly, Wozniak was not on the Macintosh project initially, Jobs was.

us engineers and techies cringe when jobs tries to get technical and when non techies make statement like sj invented the mac or sj invented the mac os, or sj invented...

From the few times I've seen him talk tech, it's been almost as an aside or a joke to him. I would consider it self parody when he talks tech - he seems to realize that he doesn't know the tech but then, he doesn't have to. It's always been one of the strong points of the Macintosh, you don't have to know crap about computers to make it work.

i am afraid that many mac people will not ever give intel, the company, a chance and they will never admit that it may be a great place to work...many now can accept microsoft office for mac but that was such an uphill battle

...and i find it amazing that mac followers are hip with ibm due to the G5...i wonder what would have happened if intel did the ppc G5?

Hmm. Intel doing PPC would mean that they would have to license all the technology behind it and admit that Mhz isn't everything (the primary marketing behind their flagship desktop CPUs). It's either that or they cripple it's design so much that it might as well be a P4 running a different instruction set.

Ok, maybe that was unfair to Intel, but what possible business reason could they have to want to invest money in a platform they don't own only to make their flagship product look bad? And you couldn't expect Apple to accept terms that would keep them from comparing their new cpu to Intel's other offerings. And finally, you can't expect that after Apple has finally completed the transition to Mac OS X that they now ask developers to rework their apps to run on a new platform, it would simply be too soon.

Even without considering any policies Intel may or may not have (as posted by another poster) it makes little business sense for Intel to take up the PPC mantle. And at this time, it makes little sense for Apple to leave the PPC platform, even before the 970 was announced, when there was a strong PPC partner/supplier in IBM.

Now if for some reason IBM went under (suuuuuuure) then there at that time may be reason for Apple to leave PPC, or maybe for Apple to buy their remaining PPC assets and do it themselves. But as long as their is reason to stay with PowerPC, I can't see Apple leaving it.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Re: Re: What's wrong with Intel? Intel GOOD, Microsoft BAD

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Jobs has always been the public man, and thus his name is known. Anyone who knows anything respects Wozniak as the brainchild behind many of Apple earlier projects. However, if I remember my history correctly, Wozniak was not on the Macintosh project initially, Jobs was.



From the few times I've seen him talk tech, it's been almost as an aside or a joke to him. I would consider it self parody when he talks tech - he seems to realize that he doesn't know the tech but then, he doesn't have to. It's always been one of the strong points of the Macintosh, you don't have to know crap about computers to make it work.



Hmm. Intel doing PPC would mean that they would have to license all the technology behind it and admit that Mhz isn't everything (the primary marketing behind their flagship desktop CPUs). It's either that or they cripple it's design so much that it might as well be a P4 running a different instruction set.

Ok, maybe that was unfair to Intel, but what possible business reason could they have to want to invest money in a platform they don't own only to make their flagship product look bad? And you couldn't expect Apple to accept terms that would keep them from comparing their new cpu to Intel's other offerings. And finally, you can't expect that after Apple has finally completed the transition to Mac OS X that they now ask developers to rework their apps to run on a new platform, it would simply be too soon.

Even without considering any policies Intel may or may not have (as posted by another poster) it makes little business sense for Intel to take up the PPC mantle. And at this time, it makes little sense for Apple to leave the PPC platform, even before the 970 was announced, when there was a strong PPC partner/supplier in IBM.

Now if for some reason IBM went under (suuuuuuure) then there at that time may be reason for Apple to leave PPC, or maybe for Apple to buy their remaining PPC assets and do it themselves. But as long as their is reason to stay with PowerPC, I can't see Apple leaving it.

great points

but i think amd did well with x86 technology licensed from intel

intel is such a big and powerful company and if they wanted to, they can buy the rights to ppc and make it themselves but right now, apple is doing ok with ibm

as for woz, there's a lot of great and interesting information at www.woz.org and i wish a lot of the newer users of apple gear could go there and realize that there is more to apple than steve jobs...steve jobs worked on everything but he was not a techie, but the business leader (but history shows he didn't do that very well, but as a motivator at macworld, there is nobody better to be the "face" of apple inc

i could not imagine different people showcasing different mac hardware and software every time something came out...steve jobs pulls it all together so brilliantly and explains the products and really makes you want to buy it as soon as you hear him speak

in the field of politics, his similar counterpart is mayor jerry brown of oakland , who used to be california's governor...not a good budget and organization management man, but an amazing speaker and motivator...when brown ran for president, he was able to generate tremendous funds through his motivational speeches, but was unable to manage those funds and the increasing amount of staff, day to day, to take it to the next level

steve jobs can maintain apple and perhaps increase its market share some, but he can never make apple inc a giant nor do i think he would want to...johnny come lately high tech gurus like yahoo, mike dell, and others may not have the charisma, but they have the business smarts to come in, even late, and make serious money

on all accounts, apple had such a head start in the personal computer revolution that it was inconceivable that they let their command lead slip...i grew up here watching them start, expand, and then get outmanuevered by everybody else...jobs knew that he is not a CEO type so that's why he got scully...but we now know that he may have not been any better than jobs

 

[yamabushi]

Who would have been a better choice than Sculley?

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Who would have been a better choice than Sculley?

that's a good question, but maybe someone in the computer business with more experience

but a lot of us are not happy he fired steve jobs who founded apple inc, but that was, in hindsight, necessary for apple at the time and steve jobs' time outside the company made him grow...if steve jobs had stayed we would not have had the same apple inc we have today

overall, it has all worked out for the best since apple is still around and we have great computers to choose from (imac, emac, powerbook, ibook, x-serve, and the G5) and a very nice operating system as well as some great apps

anyone can speculate what could have been if sj had stayed or if apple inc didn't bring sj back in the late 90s...i think if things were done differently than it had in those two cases, we would not have an apple inc

 

[iPC]

Re: Re: Re: What's wrong with Intel? Intel GOOD, Microsoft BAD

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Hmm. Intel doing PPC would mean that they would have to license all the technology behind it and admit that Mhz isn't everything (the primary marketing behind their flagship desktop CPUs). It's either that or they cripple it's design so much that it might as well be a P4 running a different instruction set.

You mean like the Centrino labeled P4 mobile procs?

 

[RBR2]

It's about the OS...

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
I'm not a CEO but moving to Intel would have been disasterous.

Imagine it folks.

Mactel- P4 3.2Ghz Computer $2999

Wintel P4 3.2Ghz Computer $2499

How would Apple differentiate it's product from wintel. Same processor. I know they don't think people would actually pay more for design knowing they innards where the same.

Sculley. You may rest knowing NOT moving to Intel was a good thing!

it always has been. Apple's costs would have been much, much less had they gone this way. There has been much more R&D money spent on the X86 chips over time. (Now that IBM is involved this is probably less true, but still the case in raw numbers.) Intel is wedded to MS because MS's OS runs their chips. Had Apple made the move this would not have been quite so true. Even now Intel is rumored to be considering creating an OS of their own to change this situation.

Apple has missed several opportunities to become the dominant OS in PCs. This was one of them.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: It's about the OS...

Originally posted by RBR2
it always has been. Apple's costs would have been much, much less had they gone this way. There has been much more R&D money spent on the X86 chips over time. (Now that IBM is involved this is probably less true, but still the case in raw numbers.) Intel is wedded to MS because MS's OS runs their chips. Had Apple made the move this would not have been quite so true. Even now Intel is rumored to be considering creating an OS of their own to change this situation.

Apple has missed several opportunities to become the dominant OS in PCs. This was one of them.

apple is like charlie brown when he tries to kick the football

it took apple a long time to realize the real name of the game in the valley of the chips is to have the dominant operating system

in an interview, steve jobs confessed that he realized too late that apple was a software company, not a hardware company

in the book "macintosh, the naked truth", the author states what makes the mac experience is the os, not the hardware...now all hardware is about the same with the macs having a slight edge...but os x and os9 rock all over xp