Intel forms internal 'Apple group'
In the wake of Apple Computer's decision to base its next generation of Macintosh computers on Intel processors, Intel Corp. has created an internal 'Apple group' comprised of both engineers and sales staff, eWeek is reporting.
The report notes that Intel has similar groups for other large clients such as Lenovo and Hewlett-Packard. However, specifics on the Apple group are sparse and an Intel representative quoted in the report said the inner workings of the group are considered "confidential internal information."
Gartner research analyst Mark Margevicius told eWeek that Intel sets up groups "to work with as many unique suppliers as possible." While the official Apple group is new, the analyst said Intel has had "skunkwork" operations over the years to demonstrate technologies to potential customer Apple.
Margevicius also noted that Intel makes not only processors, but entire motherboards, including modules for wireless networking. He said that if Apple decides to pass-off the design of its motherboards to Intel, it could lead to economies of scale, which could reduce Apple's costs to manufacturer Macs and result in lower prices for the consumer.
"If Apple is looking to grow the platform, they have to be cost-competitive," Margevicius said.
Additional analyst comments are available in the full eWeek report.
The report notes that Intel has similar groups for other large clients such as Lenovo and Hewlett-Packard. However, specifics on the Apple group are sparse and an Intel representative quoted in the report said the inner workings of the group are considered "confidential internal information."
Gartner research analyst Mark Margevicius told eWeek that Intel sets up groups "to work with as many unique suppliers as possible." While the official Apple group is new, the analyst said Intel has had "skunkwork" operations over the years to demonstrate technologies to potential customer Apple.
Margevicius also noted that Intel makes not only processors, but entire motherboards, including modules for wireless networking. He said that if Apple decides to pass-off the design of its motherboards to Intel, it could lead to economies of scale, which could reduce Apple's costs to manufacturer Macs and result in lower prices for the consumer.
"If Apple is looking to grow the platform, they have to be cost-competitive," Margevicius said.
Additional analyst comments are available in the full eWeek report.
Comments
How about working with Apple on developing a cross between SSE and VMX? Apple had a lot of input on the original spec of VMX. Another possibility.
It could also be something as mundane as working on getting some fast compilers for Xcode.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
The report notes that Intel has similar groups for other large clients such as Lenovo and Hewlett-Packard.
In other words, don't get your hopes up. Sure, we'd love to see Apple first out of the gate with break-through Intel kit ... and the odds are that they will be among the first, a deal Jobs probably secured in the talks knowing his ambition. But the work will come mainly from Apple. Anyway, the products Apple will make will cause shockwaves in the Wintel world regardless, now that like can be compared with like.
Hell, if Darwine or other forms of application emulation ship with or are widely available for Mac OSX86 (emulating only windows calls, not the cpu) then there will be a rough reception for Vista and maybe something approaching a second 1984 after all!
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
...there will be a rough reception for Vista and maybe something approaching a second 1984 after all!
I dunno... 2006 just doesn't have the same ring to it.
It's a shame that Intel stopped their CMOS High definition TV set on a chip work. I'd have loved to see them part of an Apple home theatre set up.
Oh well maybe Apple can hook up with Canon or Toshiba and get a SED HDTV in the lineup. Those screens look to be hot and it's something Apple would do.
Originally posted by Bmaier
Hard to imagine Apple ever turning over its motherboard or peripheral production to Intel, but anything is possible. Just like Microsoft has an internal group, this makes sense. Direct support, both sales and technical, encourage Apple's transition and make the switch much more sensible. Intel is definitely working to secure the percieved care that I'm sure it wants from the established Macintosh community.
One thing is for sure (well...it isn't but I'd imagine there'd be a public outcry if it didn't happen), Macs will become cheaper. Moving the entire line to Intel should mean significant savings on processor purchases compared to when Apple was buying from Motorola and IBM. Also, the latest build of 10.4.3 for Intel apparently contains drivers for PC ATI cards. Again, if Mac users can just plop any PC ATI graphics card (and nVidia eventually I suppose) into their Mac...or if Apple can ship Macs with a card that doesn't have the Mac-card R&D and support premium baggage...instant savings of 100-300 dollars on all Macs.
If the motherboard isn't designed by Apple and if what I said is true and high-end Macs didn't drop at the very least by 200 or even 300 dollars, I'd be very skeptical of Apple's motives.
I suppose they could play the "but you get a PC and a Mac all in one box"-card but that still wouldn't justify no drop in prices. People (except perhaps shareholders) would point accusing fingers at Apple.
It's an interesting era we are moving into. Like the PC makers who release a new computer when Intel releases a new chip, Apple will probably be releasing computers with new chips on the same day - not the usual wait for a Keynote from Steve J. It will probably mean that computers are refreshed far faster than we are used to seeing in the past, making a buying decision (buy now or wait?) more difficult.
While Apple will start with the generic processors that Dell and IBM use there is also a chance for Intel to let Apple lead with the more exotic chips that the others don't want to move to, which could be interesting in 2 - 3 years.
As far as initial pricing of the initial Mactels go, I see the potential for some cuts, but I also see the opportunity for Apple to recover the R&D, design and administrative investments that have been needed to get the Mactel to market. Look for the lower end to remain about the same in terms of pricing and the upper end to get improvements that will justify a $2,999 price tag on the top PM.
As for chip pricing, I would find it hard to believe that the current G4/G5 pricing is more expensive than Intel processors. Intel makes processors in bulk and has been doing so for a long, long time.
Sure, Apple may be able to drop the prices a tad. But Apple will always protect its high margins.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Moving the entire line to Intel should mean significant savings on processor purchases compared to when Apple was buying from Motorola and IBM.
Actually, my understanding is that processor prices will be similar, if not a little more. The reason is that Intel processors tend to be high performing at any given time. While Apple is probably paying a pretty penny for their dual-core 2.5GHz G5's, the G4's in the PowerBooks are probably dirt-cheap and are scheduled to be replaced by much more expensive (and much better performing) next-generation Pentium M processors.
Where Apple will see the savings is, if not outsourcing the entire motherboard, at least outsourcing the chipset. Buying an entire CPU/northbridge/southbridge from a third party for their low/mid-range models makes a lot of sense. Intel chipset have usually been ahead of Apple's in performance anyway. At the very high end, Apple seems to have special needs, as evidenced by the new G5's insanely extensive expansion options (1 16x, 1 8x, and 2 4x PCIe slots is more than you'll find anywhere else, by far. To put these slots in perspective, a 1x slot can offer 5Gbps and a 4x slot 20Gbps.) So it may make sense for Apple to put their own southbridge on some machines, but those will cost corresponsingly more.
Originally posted by kenaustus
The skunk works project is the interesting part here. We know that APple has been running OS X on Mactels since Day One - has the skunk works team been with them the entire time?
It's an interesting era we are moving into. Like the PC makers who release a new computer when Intel releases a new chip, Apple will probably be releasing computers with new chips on the same day - not the usual wait for a Keynote from Steve J. It will probably mean that computers are refreshed far faster than we are used to seeing in the past, making a buying decision (buy now or wait?) more difficult.
While Apple will start with the generic processors that Dell and IBM use there is also a chance for Intel to let Apple lead with the more exotic chips that the others don't want to move to, which could be interesting in 2 - 3 years.
As far as initial pricing of the initial Mactels go, I see the potential for some cuts, but I also see the opportunity for Apple to recover the R&D, design and administrative investments that have been needed to get the Mactel to market. Look for the lower end to remain about the same in terms of pricing and the upper end to get improvements that will justify a $2,999 price tag on the top PM.
Apparently Intel has at least been showing them R&D that they were doing over the years. Intel has been pursuing Apple since the IIE.
I still say that Intel wants to release technologies that MS won't support. That happened before when Intel introduced MX=like technology, and MS refused to support it. The technology that did result was mostly to MS's specs.
My feeling is that Intel won't release chips with Mac only technology. But what they may do is to release technology that only Apple supports. There is a difference. with the first, only Apple would have the chips, a semi-custom design. The second, everyone would get the chips, but only Apple would be using the new tech. This would give Apple an advantage. Other computer companies would then have to turn to MS and demand that they support it as well.
This would make Intel happy. They would be controlling their tech rather than MS. As they would be offering it to everyone, on one could complain that they would be giving Apple special handling. The cost would be spread out because Intel could put this on all the chips in that line instead of just those sold to Apple. Therefore the excuse that both Freescale and IBM used, which was that Apple didn't buy enough chips for customization wouldn't hold.
It's like EFI. Intel has been trying to get other companies to use it for years now. The only thing that does is the Itanium. If Apple uses it, then others will follow.
Insofar as boards and chipsets go, I don't think that Apple really wants to continue designing them. Apple is what's known as a conglomerator. That is, a company that takes different technologies and parts to someone and has them built it.
They haven't built mobo's in years. They just design them. The same thing with chipsets, except that they never built them.
If Intel can comeup with boards for Apple , then that would be a good thing.
What we might see on the other hand is the Mac mini being more affordable.
Apple has a very strong engineering team and they are likely to want to have as much control as possible with regards to motherboard design. This is based on the premise that Apple plays around a lot with form factors that traditional PC boards would not fit into. Remember delegation comes at the price of losing a certain amount of control.
Originally posted by ajmas
Don't forget Apple wants to be as cutting edge as reasonably possible. For this reason I don't necessarily see lower priced Macs in general and I find it difficult to imagine Apple having Intel design its boards.
What we might see on the other hand is the Mac mini being more affordable.
Apple has a very strong engineering team and they are likely to want to have as much control as possible with regards to motherboard design. This is based on the premise that Apple plays around a lot with form factors that traditional PC boards would not fit into. Remember delegation comes at the price of losing a certain amount of control.
Intel is the worlds largest mobo maker. They make about 50% of all the boards going into PC's. They make numerous different designs, and form factors.
It's not impossible to think that Apple would have some engineers over at Intel working on these designs. I'm sure that Dell and Hp do as well.
Controlling board shape is trivial. If Intel has the chipsets for Apple, there is very little that Apple would have to do other than to spec the board to Intel, and let them do it. Intel has the best facilities in the world for that.
Originally posted by Benton
To pay for the switch Apple may choose to increase margins as the recording industry did when dvds were priced higher than cassettes. Who doesn't want the best? 8)
Don't get me into that argument. Did CDs every come down to the price of cassettes, even once they had paid off their new manufacturing facilities?
In the end what the customer pays doesn't always correspond to the price of the materials going into the product.
Originally posted by ajmas
Don't get me into that argument. Did CDs every come down to the price of cassettes, even once they had paid off their new manufacturing facilities?
In the end what the customer pays doesn't always correspond to the price of the materials going into the product.
Quite true, quite true.
Cd's do carry about $1.50 more royalty costs than Lp's or cassettes. It doesn't make up for the increase in price though.
Originally posted by melgross
Quite true, quite true.
Cd's do carry about $1.50 more royalty costs than Lp's or cassettes. It doesn't make up for the increase in price though.
Which is why the argument that Blu-Ray may cost more to the consumer is pretty comical, but we're starting to digress...
Apple doesn't yet hit the really cheap market and I think we'll see a move from Apple into that area using as much Intel standard stuff as they can get away with. Maybe not the Celeron D £149 Dell econo-boxes but as close as they can get.
I'm sure Apple doesn't want to outsource all it's R&D as they then lose a lot of their IP. We've recently seen them take back control of their trackpad from Synaptics. I'm sure they'll want to retain as much IP as possible. What they invent next, I don't know, but that's why we like Apple for being Apple.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Cool. Go Intel. I would hope that this means that, somehow, we'll get some of the newer developments that will take much longer to hit PC mainstream given the much more cautious business model of that industry/market.
Where did this belief come from that Apple embraces new tech sooner or something. Apple is always so far behind the curve lately its ridiculous. Sure, everyone brings up "Hey, they brought USB to the mainstream!" like no other PC manufacturer carried it before Apple (they did). But for every USB there's a PCI, PCI-Express, CD-RW, USB 2.0, DDR RAM, etc, etc, etc that shows they're very slow to incorporate new tech into their computers.
Meanwhile, the 'mainstream' PC manufacturers are almost always swallowing whatever Intel feeds them, and usually they're releasing something as soon as Intel announces.
As for cost, why anyone would think that moving to Intel would make things cheaper is beyond me. Apple likes their high prices and their high margins. Its what they like. Its their business model. They like being considered the Mercedes of the computer world. They don't want to sell things cheaply, no matter what it does to their marketshare.
For example, how about a cheap G5, you know, one without an attached monitor that would cost less then a $1000? Oh, right, can't do that. Got to give everyone a built-in screen.
And when component prices drop, does Apple drop the prices of their products? Generally, no. They raise the specs. So rather than charge $500 less for a dual 1.8GHz G5, they drop it complete and move the low-end to 2GHZ. Or they add-in some extra memory or better DVD drive. But dare sell a dual-G5 tower at less than $2000? Nope, won't hear of it. (Oh, they did sell that piss-ant single 1.8 for $1500, but it was so underspecced - or overpriced - compared to the $2000 model you'd have to be really cheap or unable to afford the dual to spend the money on it).