The REAL reason behind the switch? I dont think so

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by d_saum, Jul 11, 2005.

  1. d_saum macrumors 6502


    Jun 14, 2005
    This guy is an idiot

    From what I got out of it, he doesnt think IBM isn't delivering as promised and that apple is only after money. Like they aren't concerned about shortages, performance, and actually delivering what they promise. I dunno, could be just me I guess, but I think its the whole package behind the reason for the switch.
  2. applerocks macrumors regular

    Jun 7, 2005
  3. iLikeMyiMac macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2004
    St. Louis
    As a corporation I think money is one of Apple's main goals.
  4. jope76 macrumors member

    Mar 12, 2005
    Being concerned with shortages, performance and being able to deliver is the same as being concerned about money.... Lacking any of those will hurt sales -> less money.
  5. Mood macrumors regular


    Jun 29, 2005

    this guy is not an idiot, and in fact is on the right track.
  6. ozone macrumors 6502


    Feb 18, 2004
    Ontario, Canada
    And just WHY is the columnist an idiot? He brings up a lot of a valid arguments. Sure, he might not be right on all of them, but in the end, it's often about the money, and the strategy to get more money. Sounds like Apple might have asked a lot of questions they ALREADY knew the answer - which is exactly how you have behave if you want to hold all the cards. My opinion of Apple is not any higher or lower if they were trying to play 'tough' with IBM.
  7. rockdog macrumors member


    Jul 11, 2005
    N Idaho
    The article didn't seem to me that it was that far out of the realm of possibility.
  8. Tahko macrumors regular

    Jun 11, 2005
    As a share owner they sure as hell better be after money..
  9. stcanard macrumors 65816


    Oct 19, 2003
    Hannibal is far from an idiot.

    Time and again he offers some of the most reasoned, insightful, and well researched opinions on tech issues that I see on the "popular" sites.

    Now, if you want to go through a point-by-point rebutal, be my guest. What specifically in those opinions do you disagree with? Your main point appears to be worries about shortages, and that is covered quite nicely in the first half, and fits well with the oft-made observation that a company's chip shortage problems always seem to disappear when it's not Apple they are dealing with.
  10. Lacero macrumors 604


    Jan 20, 2005
    I tend to agree with Hannibal.

    Apple has a penchant for shooting themselves in the foot time and time again. Obviously Steve Jobs couldn't say the real reason why they switched to Intel, but being motivated by profit is certainly right up there. IBM was hedging that Apple could grow marketshare for their processors, but I think IBM became disillusioned, plus the fact Apple was the only customer.
  11. d_saum thread starter macrumors 6502


    Jun 14, 2005
    The reason I called him an idiot is simply because he discards everything else, and says that apple went with intel simply for the volume discount. So do you mean to tell me that Steve Jobs didn't HATE having to say "Sorry... no 3Ghz G5"...."Sorry.. no G5 powerbook" ..... "Sorry.... No dual core 970MP yet".... "Sorry...that hot new processor from IBM? You want it? Sorry.... its back ordered".

    You actually think that the reason for the switch had nothing to do with manufacturing processes, performance, "the future roadmap", efficiency for portables, and not having to backorder new chips? I think that the switch to intel is for all those reasons AND the volume discount they MAY get, but not for the discount alone. Thats just ridiculous.
  12. stcanard macrumors 65816


    Oct 19, 2003
    First question is, did you actually read the article? In order to take the argument that you are (which is a valid one to take), you first have to explain why you seem to completely discount the idea that the chip shortages were Apple's fault, because of it's ordering behaviour.

    Second thing you have to do is explain why you think this is an exclusive argument, as opposed to just being one of the (major) factors in the switch.

    Once you do that, there is basis for an argument. As it stands right now, you're not providing any basis with which to argue.
  13. Kelson macrumors member

    Nov 19, 2002
    Dallas, TX
    It's ridiculous when you aren't the one who has to go in front of wall street every 3 months for the earnings call.

    Hannibal explained quite clearly issues surrounding the shortages in chips, based on Apples method of handling inventory. Also, w/ Apple being the only one shipping PPC970's in any quantity, that's alot of R&D that needs to be financed....

    Jobs is overly impressed w/ the iPod. The XScale will allow him to expand the capabilities. Intel in Mac's lets them keep the price point where the market will bear due to the discounts. It doesn't matter if the IBM or Intel roadmaps are better, as long as the Intel one is "good enough", because Apple will be on par w/ PC's for performance, even if IBM has better chips, it doesn't create competition.

    - Kelson
  14. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus


    Mar 10, 2004
    Bergen, Norway
  15. joeconvert macrumors 6502

    Nov 18, 2003
    Not as far off as many of you claim. I can easily see Apple switching the ipod to Intel. For those of you up on your Apple supplier realtionships, you'd know that Apple still buys chips and components from PortalPlayer ona purchase order basis.
  16. RedTomato macrumors 68040


    Mar 4, 2005
    .. London ..
    My take on it is that there are 2 elements to Apple's decision.

    1. It's not about what chips is IBM releasing or just about to release. It's all about what will IBM have in TWO YEARS' time. Obviously Jobs has IBM's road map, and he seems to think there is no future past the G5. To equal the Intel stuff, IBM will have to spend billions on the G6, and work on that should already be well advanced for a release in 2006/7. Not much seems to be happening on G6 research. The Cell stuff is for games etc, and people have said it's hard to program on. Apple's sales of a hypothetical G6 processors obviously won't be enough to finance research on the scale of Intel.

    2. People seem to be dissing the Pentuim 4. Apple aren't interested in the Pentium 4. It's all about the Pentium M. Just the Pentium M. I seem to recall that over half of Apple's computer sales are laptops. Probably far more in terms of motherboards now that both the iMac and the Mini are based on laptop motherboards. The Pentium M is the world' best laptop chip, and it works so well that Intel's future desktop chips are gonna be based on it. Guess when these are coming out? 2006/7. Starting to see something here?

    The Pentium M is available right now, so we will probaby see a deritative go into mac Minis and iMacs, and laptops. Meanwhile, G5 Powermacs are still the best at what they do, so they will stick around a bit longer, especially in their new dual core version, but eventually Intel will create somthing Pentium M-based that will overtake them. That's when the PowerMacs will switch over to Intel.

    I fully understand why Apple is making this move. It's planning for two years down the line, not for this summer. Jobs has been running os X on intel for the last 5 years, so obviously he has felt for the last 5 years that the road map for the G4 and the G5 was taking him somewhere good. Now that road has come to an end for him.

    I brought my PB because of os X, not what chip is in it.

    xoxo Tomato - who is waiting for the first Jobs moan about Intel :)
  17. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    The article puts forth interesting theories... but I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into them. Specially as the author noted, the quoted sections are coming from people with their own bias.

    For example, at one point it was said that "Apple, not exactly rolling in cash..." Well, this is an odd statement. Apple has had a strong cash reserve on hand for many years. Cash would seem to be the least of Apple's problems.

    And the fact that it seemed to be over looked that Apple has been conservative on their inventory since it almost drowned in it's own overstock in the mid 90's being glossed over was a little odd.

    Or how was the clone business such a big thing for Motorola? Most of the clones were using 604/604e processors from IBM. Motorola didn't have anything tempting for anyone until they introduced the G4.

    And on the topic of the G4... when Motorola wasn't able to meet demand or meet the promised clock speeds (remember that Apple was forced to drop 50 MHz off of each of the PowerMac G4 lines at their introduction), IBM stepped in to help make G4s. It was widely reported that not only were the IBM G4s able to clock at 500 MHz successfully, they were able to be rated as high as 650 MHz.

    How did that have anything to do with Apple? The same chip made at two different factories, one can't produce 500 MHz versions while the other can easily exceed 500 MHz. That is a quality control problem that has nothing to do with Apple Computer what so ever. It was totally Motorola.

    The author and his sources also seem to avoid the fact that the PowerPC 970 line was originally designed as a transitional processor to move IBM's AIX clients from their 32 bit environments (running on PowerPC 604e and POWER3 series processors) to the 64 bit POWER4 and beyond. IBM added Altivec to the design to bring Apple onboard with the new processor. And when IBM was forced to make a rapid transition to Linux due to the SCO case, their need for the 970 evaporated.

    Apple had gotten into the 970 deal based on the fact that IBM had a vested interest in the processor. IBM's interests in it are now gone and they have no self interest in putting R&D into the line.

    I didn't think Apple should have used Motorola because they didn't have a vested interest in the G4 and I see no problem in Apple dropping the G5 now that IBM no longer has a vested interest in it. They should not tie themselves to processor lines where they are the only party with a stake in them.

    Motivations are a murky business to be playing in... historical facts are far more reliable, and this story misses to many times on the facts for me to take it too seriously.

    Of course I have bias too... I like IBM and their technology. I was an out spoken proponent of IBM during the years Apple had tied themselves to Motorola. I wasn't happy that Apple was not using IBM G3 processors faster than 500 MHz because Motorola's G4 line was stuck at that clock speed (IBM had gotten the G3 up past 700 MHz by that point). And I thought that it was risky to tie everyone in the community to Altivec (which was a Motorola technology that IBM had steered away from).

    But in the end, business is business, I have been using an Intel processor daily for 8 years now. I don't dislike Intel just because I'm an IBM fan.

    And even given that I'm not about to subscribe to this stuff. It is too riddled with inflammatory statements and glosses to lightly over well documented facts. And seems to want to play the Jobs ego card way too much.


    It was an interesting read as far as conspiracy theories go. I have to give it that much.

Share This Page