Intel says Ultrabooks trump MacBook Air, iPad - Page 3

After this little episode, I feel about Intel exactly the way I feel about Samsung! I'll never buy an Intel computer ever again! Boycott Intel and everybody that buys from them!






/s

In other words, "We're copying the wheel, we're saying we're reinventing it, and we're putting a flat tire on it." And, "If we build it, they will come."


I would really love to see this done well. OS is probably going to suck. Maybe it could be hackintoshed with OSX and iOS.

Please. If it runs Windows we know what the end result is. I'm not being haughty, just FFS wake up and smell the lag.

As for tablet-transforming things, Apple will probably decimate it when they come out with a MacBook Air being made of purely two multitouch screens, one normal, one retina. Yes, kind of like two tablets clamshelled but though through properly.

Like this but better, of course, imagine it with an elegant hinge and better styling:
http://www.123rf.com/photo_9309003_g...ed-on-whi.html

You read too much tech site kool-aid. Everyone claims that you'll never notice the difference between intel's fastest and slowest. Macbook Pro is over the top in power. Apparently so is the imac, but AMD sucks because their cpus are weak? These irrational comments give me a headache at times. If anything AMD's designs are going in a better direction than Intel on the low power end. They just lack the resources of Intel.


I don't necessarily give Apple a free pass on everything, but the rule varies quite a bit. It depends on compared configurations. You can often get a good PC for less, but this doesn't mean that's always the case, and you are paying a premium for OSX.



Are you Steve Jobs? No... you're a random jerk. They're entitled to their opinion. It was presented as an opinion, not slander.


I have a feeling the hackintosh crowd would have trouble with drivers on that one. That's really more of a hobbyist thing. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.

Not really. In terms of units Macs are way behind iPad now. Apple could pull the plug on Intel anytime by EOL'ing several Mac products, and introduce a souped-up ARM MacBook Air with two multitouch LCDs in a laptop format.

They wouldn't because, well, there's no good reason to at this stage, but I'm sure the groundwork has been done.

Intel is not dependent on Apple and Apple is not dependent on Intel.

It's like friends with benefits.

Shiny knobs

Intel wouldn't even be developing 'mobile' chipsets if Apple hadn't pushed them to improve power/battery/storage/throughput functionality for the Airs - they'd be off in lala land somewhere.

Intel is blowing smoke as usual.

G

Intel's cheeks are chapped because Apple won't let them slap one of their damned "Intel Inside" stickers on the MBA chassis.

... behind the Message is: Intel is scared.

they can feel the future starting to slip away from them, to ARM/Apple.

Apple's poised to drop in anti-reflective screens with quadruple the pixel count into light-weight indestructible liquid metal cases... in other wards "ultra" will get a new meaning all too soon.

Nope. The secret is the interface, and there the Mac is superior. Much superior. As with the iPad, iPhone and iPod.

Put a glowing apple logo on the back and the thing will sell


Kidding




My windows pc died last week(haven't used it for months since I got my ipad)
Only use it maybe for iTunes synching.

I tried to fix it but to no avail.I'm tired of fixing windows already.



I might buy the Mac mini just so I can still have a desktop
This will be my first mac

The comparisons I have seen of ARM versus Intel indicates that Intel processors are an order of magnitude ahead of ARM processors.

Given the recent apparent rapid evolution of ARM processors, is ARM merely three generations from rivaling current Intel processors?

While Intel continues to advance their processors, are they doing so at a rate that will still exceed ARM processors five years from now?

Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.

If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.

You'll go through two or three of those PC notebooks before you re-sell your MacBook Pro. The end result is that you paid more to own crap.

In all the years I've enjoyed Mac Portables, I'm writing this on my second one; bought this MBP in 2006 and it's running strong. Previous to this I bought a small white MacBook, G3 and it was still running like new when I gave it away to a student to use.

The gap between ARM and Intel is still wide enough to be an issue. I don't expect Apple to switch their MacBooks over to ARM/iOS and lose the programs for the Mac and lose some horse power as well. ARM brings better power management to the table, but the tradeoffs are too great at the moment.

What Apple has done with iOS is interesting. They have optimized the OS to match the hardware CPU/GPU. This is one reason Apple doesn't need the hardware specs that Android needs. This optimization will continue to give Apple an edge in the ultra-portable device arena.

What will happen in the MBA type of laptop is still a bit of a mystery. My expectation is that Apple will stay with OSX and raise the bar for what people will want by improving the user experience; i.e. retina screens, friendlier touchpads, lighter weight, more indestructible liquid metal cases, etc.

To paraphrase Steve Jobs: If we can't make it better, we won't make it.

This is more crap. In fact the situation is the opposite of what you describe. Macs go out of date faster. XP is still supported for a huge range of software. Nothing from the PowerPC era is supported by anything current, and Apple is dropping quite a few older intel machines with Mountain Lion. If this is a PCs break more often thing, that applies if you're buying a bad one. I've owned mostly Macs. I've dealt with both quite a lot, and you're not even close to correct.

Now you can use a Mac past its supported life, but you can do that with a PC too. It's just really tiring to read the same ridiculous lies. If you're comparing remotely comparable price points, you have solid choices on either side. If you're going to compare a $300 netbook to a $1300 Mac, that's a poor point of reference.


It would be more a matter of other software. Many third party applications recently transitioned to 64 bit versions under OSX. By recently I mean 2010 to 2011. If there's a lack of software support, it would be from third party developers, and once again, their influence is under estimated.


Well they'd lose a bigger portion of their market than you might think if they did this today, and the cost reduction would be much less given that the way a soc would be designed for a macbook would be completely different from what is currently designed for the iphone and ipad. It would also have a lag period in terms of software. At the highly demanding end that could be a year or two. Now the short sighted opinion is that they could ditch this, but it closes a lot of doors for mass adoption that were opened by the success of the ipad and iphone.

Edit: I'm trying to figure out the point of this. Are you suggesting they do this for better hardware control or to control costs? Here's my opinion. I don't think they'd do such a thing until relatively uninhibited applications are developed for IOS. Many of the software developers have been busy with IOS development, but given ram and cpu limitations, these aren't anywhere near as robust as their OSX counterparts. When that changes or is within a generation away, it "could" make more sense. Right now I think the catching up period would be too great. Right now the desire for this seems to be driven by ARM marketing kool-aid. It works exceptionally well on the low power end, but it's really pretty untested beyond that.

This is priceless:

"and with an operating system that people have come to love over the years" - I think this is the same kind of "love" that sparks between a rape victim and her rapist, who tortured her over the years. She's locked in the basement, she can't run, so she gives up fighting. Looks like the kind of relationship between Windows and it's users.

1. Make it like an Apple.
2. Make it like an Apple.
3. Make it like an Apple.
4. Make it like an Apple.

The downside is Windows, obviously, but anyone who "loves" Windows deserves to be lumbered with it, frankly.

Now wait a minute... the PC manufacturers have to answer to shareholders too. They are all in business to make money.

But that's starting to become an issue. Remember when both HP and Dell were toying around with the idea about getting out of the PC business?

That's because "cheap and plentiful" doesn't pay the bills. Well... it does... but just barely.

The PC manufactuers all make basically the same product... Windows PCs. And they are all in competition with each other...

They're slashing prices left and right... trying to make their "Windows PC" more attractive than the other guy's "Windows PC"

It's a bloodbath. They're all selling commodity items... and that's why their margins are so thin. I wouldn't say "cheap and plentiful" is any kind of business goal... and it's precisely the market Apple avoids.


There's no doubt that you can get some amazing hardware for sometimes cheaper than a Mac. But since you're on a Mac-friendly website... you should know what Apple is all about.

Apple sells you a product with great hardware and software. OSX is their baby... as is iLife. They've also got iCloud and the Mac App Store... stuff you can't easily get anywhere else.

They want to sell you a total package... and they price it accordingly.

Everybody sells Windows laptops... while Apple is the only company who sells Macs. But they only charge what the market can bear.

We don't need to get into a line-item comparison between Windows laptops and MacBooks. But you're right... you can get some killer hardware for cheaper than a Mac.

Lol if Intel are dismissing MacBook Air and iPad why are they trying to make products that look identical to them. The four things they stated as key points are exactly what Apple delivered when they first released the Macboom Air.

Huge premium?

Your PC you can't even give it away and put the MBP in eAy you get back at least a few hundred $s and the user experience is priceless.

Btw it takes a geek to troubleshoot a downed PC and now who would want to do that. Yes, the Apple Store will take away most of the headache a Manuser face.

The PC resale value is you can't even give it away whereas the MBP will get you back at least a few hundred dollars and the user experience is priceless.

Btw if you get into trouble with the PC who will troubleshoot for you?b

You're confusing the processor with the OS. iOS software won't run on an ARM Macintosh any more than Windows software will run on an Intel Mac.

It would make it easier/faster to virtualize iOS on Mac OS if Mac OS was running ARM (in the same way that the switch to Intel made it possible to run Windows much faster under VMWare), but is anybody actually crying out to use iOS apps on Mac? It might be fun in a few cases, but it would be a novelty at best. iOS apps are designed for a touchscreen, not a mouse and keyboard.

If Apple did switch to ARM, it would be much quicker and easier for developers to recompile their existing Mac software for ARM than it would be to port over iOS applications. iOS apps rely on a completely different set of APIs (okay, not completely different, but different enough) to Mac apps, and would require a total UI redesign for the desktop.

Fortunately, after the Intel switch, most Mac software is now written in pure C/Objective-C without any assembly. That means that converting it for an ARM Mac would be a simple case of recompiling it in Xcode and making a FAT binary (like the old Universal apps for PPC/Intel, but for Intel/ARM instead). By adding a rosetta-style x86 emulation layer Apple could probably make the switch to ARM as painlessly as they managed the switch to Intel.

I still don't see a very strong business case for it though. The disadvantage is that they lose Windows interoperability (still a big safety net for switchers and business users, even if they never end up using it in practice) and all Mac software needs to be re-compiled and re-released by the developers. The advantage is... sticking it to Intel?

I hope (for Intel that) this is a misquote.
If true its incredible. It makes clear that Intel has no clue at all.

J.

I thought Johnny Ive said that this is Apple's philosophy. Are you sure Steve said this?

Or a pear logo like they do on the kids' TV shows. "We're not copying. See-a pear is nothing like an Apple."


True, but the difference is that Apple is actually doing it.


Bad example. Windows software DOES run on an Intel Mac.


That's what confuses me about the whole thing. Not only is Apple one of Intel's top 5 customers, but Intel is struggling to put out an Atom chip that will replace ARM in tablets and phones - and Apple would clearly be a huge target for such a chip. It just doesn't make sense for Intel to be so obvious about going after Apple.

The only logical thing would be if (as someone said above), Intel expected to lose Apple's business, anyway, but that just doesn't seem likely.

Comical - even Intel wants to copy Apple! Their strategy however is a failed one - a duplication of why PC makers don't make any money.... Intel is pushing them to continue their race to the bottom by pushing them to make them cheaper! Idiots all!!!!!

Go for it! Should have done it a long time ago! Congrats and welcome if you do!

All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.

IMO Apple devices do not need as much power in their chip as Intel does in their chip designs simply because Apple moves beyond legacy tasks while Intel's chips must still support a bloated legacy x86 codebase. I'm sure you remember Jobs' debate on not needing higher clock speeds. Apple is merging their iOS with most of the desktop Mac's productivity tasks that most people use every day, and OSX will eventually be cross platform with iOS. I'm betting that Apple's OS engineers are working very close with PA Semi to achieve this goal.

It won't happen tomorrow but it might not be years away either. My point is I don't believe Apple's version of ARM is in competition with Intel designs. Apple will leave Intel. It's only a matter of time, and Intel knows it. Apple's proprietary chips makes perfect sense from the POV of security, piracy, optimization, economy of scale, profit, integration, and the list goes on. I can see a Apple firmware way of upgrading your iOS or OSX system that is on a A(x) SoC before the end of this decade.

Not only that, just imagine what a 2GHz quad core ARM chip can do, or even higher, though they might need to rework the core designs to scale. The handheld device world has been sticking near 1GHz for power consumption reasons. ARM works very well in those constraints, if you give it more resources it could do pretty well, a lot of things short of pro media and engineering applications.

I'm not advocating it, but I don't think it's unrealistic for it to happen and still be successful.

So do you think that a Hackintosh is the best bet?

Good points.
And CPU performance isn't that important any more.
iOS (Mac OS X) really shines (even literally) because of the GPU cores.
And GPUs for ARM SOCS are exceptionally good (think of PowerVR).
Intel on the other hand isn't that good at integrated GPUs, so they do have something to worry about.
The current iPad has the GPU performance desktop systems had a few years ago, think of it.

J.

So then you expect Intel to sit by and watch their other customers disappear into obscurity because just one of their customers just happens to be Apple. I agree that these Ultrabooks are a desperate attempt to stop the leak of PC customers moving to OSX but it doesn't mean some aren't at least decent. I quite like the Asus Zen and HP Folio. Did you know the Asus includes a bag and all of accessories that you have to pay for if you bought a MacBook Air. I hate Windows to but it might make a good Linux machine, I'll wait till the prices get down to the 800 mark.

I only tried doing it once with my Lenovo X61, it ran surprisingly well with OSX 10.4. The pointing stick that's common on Thinkpad's was a bitch to get working but I prevailed. It's possible and you could make one heck of a machine for under 600 bucks. I'm not recommending it but for those one a budget and need higher specs then a Mini can give it is a possibility.

It's a fun weekend project even if you don't plan on using it, just to say that you've done it.

It might be faster, cheaper and have a better battery but that's not the whole story and that's the problem with other company's products. It's how it works, the feel of the device and how it ties in with other things.

The Ultrabook will run Windows and therefore it'll never trump the air or iPad.

Why would Intel have a problem with "customers" moving to OS X? They're still customers. OS X runs on Intel silicon, remember?

Like others I'm left to wonder if this kind of public announcement doesn't signal something Intel knows that we don't. Otherwise, why go out of your way to piss off a customer?

What's happened is this: Apple goes Intel, Intel praises Apple and Apple's innovative designs, sort of suggesting PC parts assemblers might try to be innovative as well (Intel has a long history of mostly goofy "reference platforms" that attempt to goose just that). PC business goes to hell. In a desperate effort to rekindle the old fire, Intel very openly uses the briskly selling MacBook Air as a template for their stupid marketing category "Ultrabook" (actually offering discounts to PC parts assemblers in an effort to hit Apple's price points), which means they are in the very bizarre position of paying a bounty in an effort to get the larger share of their market to copy the design of their minority share. Then they go on record as claiming the fruits of those efforts will eclipse the Air because Windows is so awesome and "choice."

So if they weren't going out of their way to enrage Apple and all but guarantee that they'll lose them as a customer at the first opportunity, then they're either very stupid or insane. I have no idea if or when alternates to Intel will become viable, but does anyone doubt that Apple will jump ship the instant they do? Or that Apple will pour money into making that possible? And who can blame them? This isn't run of the mill hurly burly of doing business, it's a very deliberate, astonishingly brazen slap in the face to your own customer.

I mean, too bad you didn't have any chipsets that would word for mobile, Intel, are you going to punish Apple for that? Because I don't see any other phones or tablets on the market using your stuff (least not any that get decent battery life and aren't built like a tank).

No doubt MS/parts assemblers have signed up for some Intel based tablets, hence Intel is hoping/betting that they can return to the halcyon days of Wintel hegemony, but if they're wrong-- if Windows 8 tablets fail to take the market by storm, if "Ultrabooks" just cannibalize the existing PC market instead of propelling sales, if Apple decides that ARM has something with enough power to run an Air...... then they've made a really terrible wager.

On that last point, for those that point out the steep performance delta between x86 and ARM silicon-- consider that the whole rise of tablet (i.e. iPad) computing can in part be explained by the fact that desktop hardware has long since outpaced the vast majority of use cases. What, exactly, are Intel's tick-tock releases of ever more powerful chips actually doing for the average consumer? Is your email opening faster? Faster web pages? Office getting that much needed boost?

What if a new ARM based Air were the new MacBook, intended for light to moderate consumer use, with thinner and lighter MacBook Pros retaining Intel for now? And the Air got 15 hours of battery life and instant on and a month of standby? And cost $700.

What Intel is now realizing is that the new battleground isn't in basic CPU grunt, because for most people and most tasks we've had plenty of that for a while. It's battery life, weight, size, temperature, and fast booting. Same things as is driving mobile, in other words. And they still don't have an answer on the market.

Apple engineers were involved in designing and miniaturising the CPU used in the MBA, which forms the basis for Ultra Books. IIRC, Apple was ready to go elsewhere for CPUs if Intel was unwilling to deliver.

When the MBA motherboard and CPU were shown, Intel enjoyed a lot of the credit and publicity. Without Apple and MBA, there would be no Ultra Books.

Intel had designed the SFF CULV earlier but they had not put it into production because there was no market for it. Apple reportedly contacted Apple knowing about this chip or requesting something like it which started the ball rolling so they do get credit for making this a reality for Intel, but Apple appears to have had no influence on the design.

These two idiots didn't provide one plausible reason why so-called Ultrabooks will be better than any Apple offering. They said that Intel will provide volume pricing on components that will translate to the aggressive pricing of future Ultrabooks making them more desirable to "mainstream" consumers. But won't Apple have access to those same components at those same prices (not to mention huge cash reserves to buy in volume) thus making their future notebook offerings equally price competitive?

They also mention "an OS that people have come to love over the years". So now people hate iOS and OS X? News to me. Is that why the iPhone and iPad are the best selling mobile devices on the planet? Is that also why Macs have been on steady incline in direct opposition to the entire personal computer industry which has been on steady decline (ironically due in some part to the popularity of Apple's mobile devices) for the past five years?

And of course iOS and OS X don't have very many Apps available to the platform. Guess they never heard of the "App Store". Have no idea what they mean by "Legacy Apps". Seems like a term they made up to try to sound like they were actually saying something viable.

They also mentioned things like battery life blah, blah, blah, and we all know how hard Apple works at maintaining battery life on all of their products. Apple engineers go above and beyond any other company with regards to things like battery life, green technology etc... so those are all non issues. For all we know, Apple may be working on a solar powered notebook. If any company was going to do it, it would be Apple.

These two idiots need to crawl back into their lab and not be allowed out again to ever speak to the press because they obviously live in a vacuum.

Actually, Apple was named one of the least green companies in America partially do to them using coal burning plants to power their data centers and their none use of recycled materials. Though they do have a recycling program for old Macs so that is defiantly a move in the right direction.

I'm still only getting 4.5 hours on my MacBook Air plus they had to double the size of the battery in my iPad to keep their 10 hour time thus waisting more energy then the previous iPad not to mention making it heaver and thicker.

Now these are the prices we have to pay for either having the thinnest MacBook or the fastest tablet and I don't mind paying a little penalty if it means I get the best possible solution for me. Apple though is not always the best at everything and all this energy kissing their ass or defending their honour can be better used in discussing how we can use our machines better.