or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Finally an interesting G5 story
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finally an interesting G5 story - Page 5

post #161 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by r-0X#Zapchud:
<strong>

The theoretical MFlops number Apple gives for the G4 in the iMac is also much higher than the numbers Algol stated. I don't remember exactly, but I believe it's at least double Algol's number.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, he clarified that it was from AltiVec Fractal. My bad.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #162 of 441
I've been reading this enormous thread and I have yet to see anyone approach this situation from a total business perspective.

The whole point about Apple and x86 isn't always about performance or technical considerations. (Yes, they are important, but let's talk business for a moment). x86 migration is about opportunity. Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance. Remember the "Burn baby burn" ads? I still have promo stickers that say "Snail Inside". (I can put those on my eMac now, BTW).

Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering.

From a business perspective, it doesn't matter that the 970 may be a superior technology. It doesn't matter that it will support the path Apple's technology is locked into right now. Apple needs to get off this path if it's going to compete with Wintel. The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs. They need a competitive OS to run these CPUs. And that OS is our OS X.
post #163 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I've been reading this enormous thread and I have yet to see anyone approach this situation from a total business perspective.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's because it's a thread about the 970, not a thread about the future of the entire platform. Although it is starting to fray now.

[quote]<strong>The whole point about Apple and x86 isn't always about performance or technical considerations.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, it isn't. And when this discussion comes up, as it has in threads dedicated to the subject, many other factors are considered, including cost, developer support and politics. And the general consensus seems to be that a wholesale switch to x86 is a bad choice all the way around. Opterons might pop up in Apple server solutions, but that would be the likely extent of it.

I won't rehash the reasons in this thread, because this thread is about the 970. Unfortunately, UBB's search function doesn't work.

If you decide to start another one, it would go in General Discussion, because the choice impacts not only hardware, but software, corporate politics and strategy.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #164 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I've been reading this enormous thread and I have yet to see anyone approach this situation from a total business perspective.

The whole point about Apple and x86 isn't always about performance or technical considerations. (Yes, they are important, but let's talk business for a moment). x86 migration is about opportunity. Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance. Remember the "Burn baby burn" ads? I still have promo stickers that say "Snail Inside". (I can put those on my eMac now, BTW).

Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering.

From a business perspective, it doesn't matter that the 970 may be a superior technology. It doesn't matter that it will support the path Apple's technology is locked into right now. Apple needs to get off this path if it's going to compete with Wintel. The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs. They need a competitive OS to run these CPUs. And that OS is our OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

MacLuv,

Good points. However, I keep coming back to OS/2. Back in the days of windows 3.X, OS/2 was a far superior OS than windows, it ran on Intel chips, it was backed by a much larger company (IBM vs Microsoft), and it ran windows apps with little or no problems. In addition, when OS/2 was competing with windows 3.x, it had no where near the market share it has now. And, I read somewhere that IBM spent almost 4 Billion on OS/2. So, I just cant see how putting an Intel chip inside a fancy Apple computer case running OS X is going to be any different than what IBM tried to do. OS X compared to Windows XP is not as big an improvement as was OS/2 to windows 3.x was. And keep in mind that Apple makes most of their profit on hardware. How are they going to justify selling an Apple X86 box for 20-40% more than a comparably configured Windows XP box?
post #165 of 441
MacLuv Posted:
"From a business perspective, it doesn't matter that the 970 may be a superior technology. It doesn't matter that it will support the path Apple's technology is locked into right now. Apple needs to get off this path if it's going to compete with Wintel. The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs. They need a competitive OS to run these CPUs. And that OS is our OS X."
-----------

Maybe a few years into the future this could turn up as a real possibility for Apple. For right now, though, apple can not afford another huge change. OS X was a big enough change that for apple to make another one so soon would cause wide spread panic among the developers. Etc., etc., etc. I'm afraid that there will not Be x86 for apple in the near future and for that matter I suspect never. X86 is old and befuddled and not something apple will base their future on.
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #166 of 441
<strong>Originally posted by MacLuv:
x86 migration is about opportunity. Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance. Remember the "Burn baby burn" ads? I still have promo stickers that say "Snail Inside". (I can put those on my eMac now, BTW).</strong>

If Apple moves to x86, they will die. They will not be able to compete on price with Dell and maintain a competitive operating system on their own. If Microsoft didn't have an office app monopoly, they may have chance. But the reality is that MS leverages its office monopoly and operating system monopoly far too well. Maybe if OpenOffice makes a dent, Apple can transition, but its death right now. They will not be able to compete on price for something that is not different from other box makers.

<strong>IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead.</strong>

Yet, AMD, a smaller company then Apple, will be able to compete with Intel?

<strong>The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs.</strong>

AMD hasn't been competing with Intel in the last 3 months, and that lag will only continue to grow in the future. AMD may be dead in year, let alone compete with Intel.
post #167 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

. . . Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. . .

. . . From a business perspective, it doesn't matter that the 970 may be a superior technology. It doesn't matter that it will support the path Apple's technology is locked into right now. Apple needs to get off this path if it's going to compete with Wintel. . .

</strong><hr></blockquote>

It sounds like you think the x86 has some special marketing appeal to it, and consumers will reject the IBM 970 because it isn't an x86 type processor. Can you tell us why you think Joe or Jane consumer will change his or her mind about the Macintosh just because it is running an x86? Really what they care about is whether it will run their software, and an x86 Mac will not do that either. People will usually switch to the Mac when it gives them something they cannot get from their present Windows PC. There is nothing magic about the brand name of the processor inside, as long as the computer does what they want.

Those who do care about technical things like the processor are interested in performance first, not so much brands and types. Consider whether this kind of discussion would even be taking place if the 970 initial clock speed was 6 GHz. You would be saying, "bye, bye x86," like everybody else. So, it is really a matter of performance, and we should pick the technology that will likely win the race, not just be ahead for the first few laps.
post #168 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>If you decide to start another one, it would go in General Discussion, because the choice impacts not only hardware, but software, corporate politics and strategy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Feel free to move this post where you feel it fits.

--------------

wow, a lot to answer... :eek:

[quote]sc_markt says:
<strong>And keep in mind that Apple makes most of their profit on hardware. How are they going to justify selling an Apple X86 box for 20-40% more than a comparably configured Windows XP box? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, Apple's profit design right now is based on perceived value rather than actual value. It is dependant upon people who do not yet realize PCs have become a commodoty market. It leeches off of what I call the Loyal Apple User Base (LAUB), locking us into a proprietary system that only Apple can control. Like you say, this means we pay extra for hardware that is outperformed by the competition--just because it looks pretty.

As far as selling an x86 box for 20% more... are you saying that we're paying more for the G4 processor itself? We're really paying for Apple's perceived value/goodwill. There is a great misconception that an x86 in the Apple PC would lower value, when it could actually raise it. How? That magic word Apple loves: perceived value.

As far as Apple restructuring its profit design--Apple already knows PCs are a commodity market, that's why they are setting up Apple stores. They just don't want anyone else to know the PC market is a commodity market. Steve Jobs is the man behind the curtain--and I think he's getting too comfortable back there.

For example, I don't know how much longer Apple can try and convince the public the G4 is a better choice over x86 in the consumer market, no matter how many "Genius Bars" they set up. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

-----------------------
[quote]From Algol <strong>
For right now, though, apple can not afford another huge change. OS X was a big enough change that for apple to make another one so soon would cause wide spread panic among the developers. Etc., etc., etc. I'm afraid that there will not Be x86 for apple in the near future and for that matter I suspect never. X86 is old and befuddled and not something apple will base their future on.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is another misconception I always see from the "developers" point of view--that somehow another transition from Apple would cause a worldwide panic and engineers everywhere would rise up in disgust and burn the house down.

Unlikely.

From a business point of view, what has to be done, has to be done...

"You can handle people more successfully by enlisting their feelings than by convincing their reason." -- Paul P. Parker

Even if the migration to x86 seems unlogical from a developers' perspective, it can still be done. Everybody has a price.

----------------------

[quote]From THT<strong>
If Apple moves to x86, they will die. They will not be able to compete on price with Dell and maintain a competitive operating system on their own. </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is just not true at all. In order to convince me otherwise, you'll have to go into greater detail of why you believe Apple will not be able to compete with Dell on price or maintain a "competitive" OS. This argument always implies that Apple has seen its own shadow and should hibernate for the next fifteen years.

[quote]<strong>
If Microsoft didn't have an office app monopoly, they may have chance. But the reality is that MS leverages its office monopoly and operating system monopoly far too well. Maybe if OpenOffice makes a dent, Apple can transition, but its death right now. They will not be able to compete on price for something that is not different from other box makers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Here I'm not clear on what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that MS Office provides the only differenciation between Dell and Apple? What about the "digital hub" Steve talks about all the time? What does this stuff have to do with the CPU inside the box?

[quote]<strong>
Yet, AMD, a smaller company then Apple, will be able to compete with Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, in fact, AMD has been competing with Intel for quite some time now.

As long as AMD produces CPUs, it will always compete with Intel within an oligopoly.

[quote]<strong>
AMD hasn't been competing with Intel in the last 3 months, and that lag will only continue to grow in the future. AMD may be dead in year, let alone compete with Intel. </strong><hr></blockquote>

What else do you pull out of that hat of yours? Rabbits? I'm not sure where you got this information from, but it is erroneous. As I've stated above, AMD, Intel, and any other company that produces CPUs are part of an oligopoly. As long as they all make CPUs, they are always in competition. I haven't seen any facts that AMD is pulling out of the CPU manufacturing business any time soon.

---------------
[quote] from snoopy <strong>
It sounds like you think the x86 has some special marketing appeal to it, and consumers will reject the IBM 970 because it isn't an x86 type processor. Can you tell us why you think Joe or Jane consumer will change his or her mind about the Macintosh just because it is running an x86?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Firstly, why does one assume that when the 970 comes to market, Intel won't have something to compete with it?

Secondly, right now, the x86 kicks the G4s ass. Do you think another "Burn baby burn" revival is in order here? How long will it be this time around before Intel takes the spotlight over IBM?

[quote]<strong>
Really what they care about is whether it will run their software, and an x86 Mac will not do that either. People will usually switch to the Mac when it gives them something they cannot get from their present Windows PC. There is nothing magic about the brand name of the processor inside, as long as the computer does what they want.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

If this is the case, why don't we just slap an AMD Athlon in the iMac and call it a day?

Consumers care about a lot of things when it comes to computers--not everyone is the same. Something you don't mention is how quickly people want to use their software, which is always an issue in a commodity market.

[quote]<strong>
So, it is really a matter of performance, and we should pick the technology that will likely win the race, not just be ahead for the first few laps.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. Now you're asking me to have faith and walk down the same alley where we all got our asses kicked.

Unlikely.

IBM is in no position, and never will be, to infiltrate the market created by Microsoft and Intel. Becuase AMD manufactures a CPU that can replace Intel's, it is in a better position to compete with Apple as a partner. It will position Apple's OS right next to Windows, rather than having it in a completely different mindspace. Of course, this appears to be Steve Jobs' strategy, but things must change if Apple is to truly survive the next fifteen years.

[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #169 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. Now you're asking me to have faith and walk down the same alley where we all got our asses kicked.

Unlikely.

IBM is in no position, and never will be, to infiltrate the market created by Microsoft and Intel. Becuase AMD manufactures a CPU that can replace Intel's, it is in a better position to compete with Apple as a partner. It will position Apple's OS right next to Windows, rather than having it in a completely different mindspace. Of course, this appears to be Steve Jobs' strategy, but things must change if Apple is to truly survive the next fifteen years.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not quite sure I understand the point of this very lengthy post. Put yourself in the consumer's role: you need a computer. You want to do this and that, whatever that may be, and you want a system that is going to be viable, cost-effective and do what you want. You can buy a Windows PC, a Mac, or whatever. The Mac accomplishes all the same tasks a PC does and vice versa. It's just a Mac does it in a more streamline fashion. Period. Listening to music, burning CDs, importing DV, burning DVDs, email, internet, and on and on. You don't have to worry that XP sp1 changes your drivers and now the task you did before doesn't work quite right, or hangs, or whatever. Seriously, I struggled with Windows or years, and had to reformat and rebuild my Windows PCs so many times, I just gave up on it. It is not worth my time and effort to go through all the nonsense with any Windows PC.

Thus we have the switch campaign. A brilliant move. They are not touting RISC is better in any advertising I've seen. And I paid around $2100 for my Powerbook. There's not a Windows laptop around that offers me what it does. I think it's ambiguous to argue what processor is inside a Mac or a Dell, or any other PC. It's what you can do with the computer that should make a difference, but people are so out of touch with how to really use a PC that is boggles my mind. The general public, and I hear it in conversations everyday, that they can get a P4 3.0GHz processor and blah blah blah. Who cares?! AMD, Intel, Motorola, IBM, I could give a shit, as long as I can work. And I can do that with a Mac.

BTW, have you used a new dual PowerMac? It screams! More a function of video technology that CPU at this point anyway.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #170 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. Now you're asking me to have faith and walk down the same alley where we all got our asses kicked.

Unlikely.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can see that you truly appreciate and respect the performance that Intel and AMD have managed to get out of the x86 type processor, but your strong feelings may be affecting your willingness to use clear logic. I too am impressed with what they have done with the x86, and it is truly an outstanding technical accomplishment. I think it caught everyone by surprise. And I think, along with others, it may have begun with the performance wars, which Apple started. I can see the head honcho at Intel saying, "Get us the highest possible performance and MHz, and I don't care how much it costs." Now everyone is playing catch up. In the end, this challenge will benefit us computer users greatly.

You say Apple took a risk with RISC (good pun too) and it didn't pay off. Think about that. Is RISC the fault, or is it the company who was making processors for Apple? Really. What would have happened if it was the other way around? What if Motorola was making x86 chips for Apple and Intel had the PPC architecture? Do you think for a moment it means Apple would now have a 3 GHz chip and Intel would be struggling at 1.25 GHz? You know the outcome of that scenario. Intel would still be beating Apple in performance, but by a larger margin in my opinion.

So, nobody is saying 'walk down the same alley,' which would be sticking with Motorola. IBM will do much more with the PPC than Motorola ever could do. I'm not criticizing the talent at Motorola, as I am criticizing the commitment of management to the workstation and desktop market, or even to the semiconductor business itself. There is nothing magic about the x86 architecture, and as others have pointed out, it has a lot of shortcomings. There is a whole lot more potential in the PPC path that Apple and IBM are on, IMO.

[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
post #171 of 441
Right about here is when I stopped reading:
[quote]Firstly, why does one assume that when the 970 comes to market, Intel won't have something to compete with it?<hr></blockquote>

The PowerPC, whether from IBM or Motorola or Framistan Inc., is not, in any form, on Intel's radar. AMD is, period.

The G4 may be getting old and it's potential never came to its fullest bloom (yes, blame Motorola for quite a bit of that, but also blame IBM for being block-headed about Altivec). However, the G4 was a "good enough" step up from the G3 for Apple to keep its head above water and build OS X and all those iApps. Apple isn't a Dell (And me having to point that out is ridiculous). Unlike Dell or any other box assembler, the UI & software are closely tied to the hardware and vice versa. Do you think Shake was purchased with only the G4 in mind? I don't believe so.

And lastly, don't assume Intel is pulling its punches. They decided to win the war (over AMD) with gigahertz first, performance second and sacrifice power consumption and heat. This may come back to haunt Intel in the next few years.

But again, what Intel does is not relevant to Apple.

This is about what Apple is planning.

Screed

[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #172 of 441
Why is everybody assuming that Intel will have a 4,5-5Ghz P4 when the PPC970 is out (let's say fall/late 2003)?

Intel's own roadmaps says 3,4Ghz - 3,6GHz by then.

Will this be too much to beat for dual 970's? I doubt it, but single 970? It wouldn't surprise me if the 970 could teach the P4 a lesson in some cases
post #173 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

From THT
If Apple moves to x86, they will die. They will not be able to compete on price with Dell and maintain a competitive operating system on their own. </strong><hr></blockquote>


[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
This is just not true at all. In order to convince me otherwise, you'll have to go into greater detail of why you believe Apple will not be able to compete with Dell on price or maintain a "competitive" OS. This argument always implies that Apple has seen its own shadow and should hibernate for the next fifteen years. </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is amazingly simple.
Thought experiment: Assume Apple has successfully done all of the other steps they would need to do to make an x86 Mac. Answer a couple of simple questions:
Who is going to get a cheaper price on x86 chips? (Choose one: Apple, Dell) Note history of Intel disliking (for good reason) Apple.
Who is going to get a cheaper price on motherboard chipsets? (Choose one: Apple, Dell).
Repeat for all other components. The 86Mac would be cheaper (since all the components would now get mass produced at a larger scale), but they would NOT be cheaper _than_Dell_.

Dell has a 2% R&D burden, Apple has about an 8% R&D burden. On hardware. IGNORE the 'Dell doesn't make their OS' issue(s).

So Apple makes a sweet little $500 x86 Mac. Either (a) Dell can do the _exact_ same box for less, or (b) Apple puts flourishes into the design -&gt; "perceived value" higher than "actual value" (your words).

_IF_ Apple switched, and I were Dell, I would want them DEAD. Wanting them dead is a sound business decision - a couple of years of mild hardship is a very small price to pay for a monopoly. I'll grant you that the $500 x86-Mac might be a nice box. But if I were Dell, I would sell a box no more than a couple of months after the intro of that 86Mac with precisely the same hardware - for at least $100 less. For _every_ product that Apple made that Dell could compete head-to-head on.

Apple has to either profit on the sales of these 86Macs, or gain lots of marketshare. Dell can cut the margin to 0 (there are lots of other product lines to pick up the slack). Dell can sell at a slight loss even - plenty of money stored up, and a clear advantage to killing off a competitor like Apple.

So assuming all of the other issues in the conversion to x86 cost $0, and 0 time... Apple would be making a box that is, you guessed it, costing more than the Dell. For people that enjoy using MacOSX, the extra price might be worth it, but it won't have the 'other 95%' saying "Wow, 86Macs! $500!" There wouldn't be any programs (of _any_ sort) that run faster on a 86Mac than on a Dell. When you eliminate product differentiation to compete in a DIRECT head to head competition you had better be selling more product and have a lower overhead. Neither of those will be the case for Apple in the next two years. Period.

That isn't where we were at the start of this year. There do exist real programs that have historically run faster on Macs - but those programs rely on the ppc or altivec! There are a couple of places full of dedicated PC lovers who repeatedly denounce the speed of the mac, and accumulate benchmarks to "prove" it. Fine. But some of those same sites _STILL_ have the top of the line Macs beating dual top-of-the-line Athalons in _some_ aspects of the benchmarks! Admittedly, it is in a short (and shortening) list of benchmarks that this is true, but there are places where a Mac is (or at least has recently been) the fastest machine for the job. But the 970 will at least reclaim dominance _in_the_places_Apple_needs. It might not be an overall faster processor when debuted, but things like photoshop benchmark tables are going to be re-written(even when run by PC guys). Just because the ppc970 doesn't (or won't) dominate _all_ benchmarks doesn't mean "That's a useless dead-end chip for Apple to adopt".

What I'm saying is, if I as a desktop computer purchaser needed a boatload of double precision floating point _today_, a dual athalon is the tool of choice. If I need parallelizable single precision floating point, the G4 is still up there. There are clear, objective reasons to purchase alternatives to Intel. If Apple did switch, we'd first be bombarded by a year of whining about 'Jeeze Apple's overpriced and gouging folk!', then another year of 'Why bother paying the Apple tax, this box is identical & XP is close enough'. -&gt; spiral of doom.

Name a boxmaker or OS vending company that switched to x86 (LOTS of choices mind you) that can be considered a raging success story because of that switch.
post #174 of 441
<strong>Originally posted by MacLuv:
This is just not true at all. In order to convince me otherwise, you'll have to go into greater detail of why you believe Apple will not be able to compete with Dell on price or maintain a "competitive" OS.</strong>

Dell is the largest and most agile PC manufacturer in the world, has the most inroads to consumer, business and enterprise markets, and has very good deals for all of its parts. It is well on its well to becoming a monopoly PC manufacturer. (Yes, I think HP will lose.) Now, Apple is essentially Gateway but for the fact that it has expend it's own resources for an "incompatible" operating system.

<strong>This argument always implies that Apple has seen its own shadow and should hibernate for the next fifteen years.</strong>

There may some truth in the statement. It also could be that Apple doesn't have enough business to truly innovate. It doesn't seem to have much foresight either.

<strong>Here I'm not clear on what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that MS Office provides the only differenciation between Dell and Apple? What about the "digital hub" Steve talks about all the time? What does this stuff have to do with the CPU inside the box?</strong>

MS Office is the gateway for any operating system that doesn't want to be a niche operating system. Without it, no operating system will make any inroads into the markets. Every single business uses it. Every single school uses it. The information in MS Office documents is the most valuable things we have. No one will migrate without being able to take their data with them.

The digital hub is just new marketing to sell computers. Dell can do it just as any other PC manufacturer can.

<strong>Yes, in fact, AMD has been competing with Intel for quite some time now.</strong>

The only win was the Athlon in 2001 with their 0.18 micron fab. Since Intel got to 0.13 micron first, AMD has been losing.

<strong>As long as AMD produces CPUs, it will always compete with Intel within an oligopoly.</strong>

When one manufacturer has 80% of the market, if not more, it isn't an oligopoly. Intel has all the advantages right now since they'll get to 0.09 micron and 0.065 micron first.

<strong>What else do you pull out of that hat of yours? Rabbits?</strong>

News articles:


<a href="http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/11/19/rtr799607.html" target="_blank">AMD to move beyond PC, faster chips no longer key</a>

Reuters, 11.19.02, 4:04 PM ET

By Reed Stevenson

LAS VEGAS, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (nyse: AMD - news - people) said on Tuesday that it would embrace a strategy of developing processors for a wider range of products outside computers and called on the industry to focus on user needs rather than creating "technology for technology's sake."
...
AMD, which has fought a losing battle in recent quarters against Intel Corp. (nasdaq: INTC - news - people) for the top spot in processor speed and performance, said that making semiconductors smaller, cheaper and faster was no longer the key for an effective strategy.
...
AMD's strategy shift came on the same day that Standard & Poor's downgraded the chip maker on concerns about its ability to boost profits and weather soft demand, only hours after AMD said it would raise $300 million in a convertible note issuance.


<a href="http://www.theworkcircuit.com/news/OEG20021114S0026" target="_blank">Troubled AMD cuts 2,000 jobs amid mounting loses</a>

By Mark LaPedus, Semiconductor Business News
November 15, 2002 (6:35 a.m. EST)

SUNNYVALE, Calif.--Reeling from the IC downturn and competitive pressures from Intel Corp., troubled Advanced Micro Devices Inc. today announced its much-anticipated move to reduce its headcount by 15%, or approximately 2,000 positions, by the end of the second quarter of 2003.
...
Hit hard by a slowdown in its core processor business, AMD recently reported sales of $508.2 million for the third quarter of 2002, down 34% from $765.9 million in the third quarter of 2001 and by 15% from $600.3 million in the previous period.

The Sunnyvale-based company also reported a net loss of $254.2 million, or minus $0.74 a share, compared to a loss of $97.4 million, or minus $0.28, a year ago. In the previous quarter, it reported a loss of $184.9 million, or minus $0.54 a share.


<a href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,563068,00.asp" target="_blank">Update: AMD "Paper Launches" 2700+, 2800+ Athlon XP</a>

AMD "Sampling" 2700+ For PCs Available In November; 2800+ Only Available To "Enthusiast" OEMs
By Mark Hachman

While Advanced Micro Devices announced its 2700+ and 2800+ Athlon XP microprocessors today, customers may be asking when they can buy the chips the company announced in August.

AMD, Sunnyvale, Calif., will launch the 2800+ Athlon XP today in "limited quantities", a phrase that analysts say hearkens back to the race to 1-GHzwhen AMD, not Intel Corp., was the company that broke the tape with volume quantities of 1-GHz chips.
...
McCarron said it's possible that AMD's development of the 0.13-micron silion-on-insulator process, combined with the larger cache sizes of the delayed "Barton" processor, as well as the need to develop working samples of the Opteron and 64-bit Athlon processors, may be hindering the company. "They have a lot of balls in the air," he said.
...
"Ultimately if they can't deliver it will show up in their revenue results," Brookwood said. "One has to assume there's a method to their madness. In the case of the 2800+ the goal is cachet, exclusivity. They're only there for serious gamers." AMD's "enthusiast" OEMs will include ABS, Alienware, Falcon NW, MicronPC and Voodoo PC.

The bottom line, analysts say, is that AMD is still wagering the company on Hammerthe latest Athlons are just a side bet. Still, AMD's newfound reputation for quality may be showing signs of wear, and the fickle hearts of enthusiasts may be shifting.

"They're clearly not sustaining the level of volume (at) introduction they did a year ago," McCarron said.


Lets see, the K7 is teetering out or their 0.13 micron fab has Moto-itis, they are bleeding money like no tomorrow with 6 consecutive quarters of losses with profitability predicted 9 months away, they are showing classic signs of a company in trouble with paper launches and "strategy diversification" in the face of competition and their savior product delayed.

AMD is not in good shape right now. And if they stay this small, they aren't going to get to 0.09 and 0.065 micron fabs quick enough to compete with Intel.
post #175 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM is almost four times bigger than Intel.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #176 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I've been reading this enormous thread and I have yet to see anyone approach this situation from a total business perspective.

The whole point about Apple and x86 isn't always about performance or technical considerations. (Yes, they are important, but let's talk business for a moment). x86 migration is about opportunity. Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance. Remember the "Burn baby burn" ads? I still have promo stickers that say "Snail Inside". (I can put those on my eMac now, BTW).

Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering.

From a business perspective, it doesn't matter that the 970 may be a superior technology. It doesn't matter that it will support the path Apple's technology is locked into right now. Apple needs to get off this path if it's going to compete with Wintel. The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs. They need a competitive OS to run these CPUs. And that OS is our OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
post #177 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>I've been reading this enormous thread and I have yet to see anyone approach this situation from a total business perspective.

The whole point about Apple and x86 isn't always about performance or technical considerations. (Yes, they are important, but let's talk business for a moment). x86 migration is about opportunity. Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance. Remember the "Burn baby burn" ads? I still have promo stickers that say "Snail Inside". (I can put those on my eMac now, BTW).

Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering.

From a business perspective, it doesn't matter that the 970 may be a superior technology. It doesn't matter that it will support the path Apple's technology is locked into right now. Apple needs to get off this path if it's going to compete with Wintel. The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs. They need a competitive OS to run these CPUs. And that OS is our OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry my first post. Although it may sound reasonable to switch to intel or AMD for many reasons I dont too many Mac users will support it. I'd be willing to bet that less than 50% will. As illogical as that may be it will be the biggest gamble in Apple's history. Anyone want to vote on this?
post #178 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

IBM is almost four times bigger than Intel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Quite true. IBM also makes some very good chips, has good manufacturing, R&D, and has a built in customer for their chips. They offer network solution in the corperate market where they can sell linex running on their mother board designs. They have a potential customer in Apple as well, and if they update their PowerPC-Open-Platform to include the new chips, and can interest a few third party linex boxe suppliers in these motherboards, then they might have more customers. Yes there are a few if's there, but the point is that if IBM wants to open the market up for the Power PC platform they can put quite a few resources behind the project. It will also be a bit easier than it was 2-3 years ago, since the open-source community and linex community are better established, and there seams to be a dislike for Microsofts licensing practices right now that if properly capitalized on by Apple and IBM could help as well. I think that the main quesiton is how expensive the computers from Apple and IBM will be for consumers and buisnesses when they are released. The way that IBM anounced the 970 poits to a direct push back into the desktop arena for the PowerPC platform backed up by IBM, and their investment in Linex, and (dreaming) possibly a closer alliance with Apple.

One point, when you are the leader in a market, it is easy to loose market share. Just look at palm.
post #179 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

IBM is almost four times bigger than Intel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, how does this make IBM financially stronger to compete?
post #180 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by JCG:
<strong>
{snipped for space, read original post}
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now that you've explained the prerequisite for any company wishing to compete in a marketplace, how does this explain IBMs possible strategy for competing with Intel?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
post #181 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Now that you've explained the prerequisite for any company wishing to compete in a marketplace, how does this explain IBMs possible strategy for competing with Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>

To what extent does it make sense for IBM to compete with Intel? IBM is so vast that they have had identically named divisions selling different solutions to the same market, none of which were aware of the others' existence. They make several complete platforms, some of which compete with platforms that are powered by Intel CPUs, and some of which are powered by Intel CPUs. Most of the market they serve is heterogenous with respect to CPUs: There are (among others) Alphas, SPARCs, MIPS, the odd HP-PA, and Itaniums competing with IBM's POWER and PPC lines. Further down, IBM will cheerfully sell you workgroup servers and PCs running on Intel chips, because in this space they're (sort of) competing with HPaq and Dell, but not really - these machines are as much there to offer customers an all-IBM solution from desktops to mainframes, with whole huge suites of software thrown in for good measure. IBM also competes with Moto in the embedded space, and of course for Apple sales as well. This is the context in which IBM addresses Intel.

In other words, JCG (and others) are describing business models because those are what matter in the end. Your "industry standard platform" is an illusion, and the only chip companies competing with Intel are the ones offering compatible CPUs. Microsoft has settled on an x86-based platform. Linux and BSD run on just about anything. Apple has consolidated on PPCs. After a disastrous flirting with x86, SGI has run back to MIPS. IBM runs on its own chips. All of these work to varying degrees because what matters in the end is whether the CPU fits the needs of the platform running atop it. Needs refer to both present needs, anticipated needs, and legacy needs (which is, I believe, a big reason that Windows has stuck with x86, and also a significant reason for Apple to stick with PPC).

Intel have not proved invincible, especially when their weaknesses are attacked. Already the news from NASA is that big, hot super-CPUs are undesirable for high-performance computing. Consumers are lackadaisical about upgrading, because they don't see what an otherwise identical 3GHz PC gets them over their current 2GHz PC, except for even more obnoxiously fast scrolling. Intel has hit snags before, and AIM has offered faster processors than Intel has before, but that's not even half of the whole story. You can't consider a CPU without considering the whole platform. And you have to consider that there are a whole raftload of advantages to a platform aside from the speed with which it crunches integers. In fact, this raftload is exactly what Apple has dedicated itself to since its inception. The occasional speed lead is certainly welcome, but it's never been necessary to the success of the platform.

As far as I can tell, there are no other advantages to adopting the x86 ISA. It's ugly and unwieldy, the vector unit is mediocre, the sheer heat of the processors severely limits design options (remember that industrial design is concerned with usability and ergonomics more than with looks, so this hurts), the processors are more expensive, Apple would have to deal with the full complexity of a commodity motherboard architecture, which would raise their R&D costs precipitously, slow them down significantly, and negatively impact the platform's stability, predictability, and reliability. Apple would be a small fry customer locked into adapting Microsoft's design choices to their own uses, Classic would break, and above all, the consumer would have this choice: All else being equal, do I buy the operating system that looks cool but which I'm not familiar with, and which isn't the one that everyone I know uses, or do I buy the operating system that I know, and that I know will be compatible with work, and with all my friends' machines?

[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #182 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Now that you've explained the prerequisite for any company wishing to compete in a marketplace, how does this explain IBMs possible strategy for competing with Intel?

:confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM makes a chip, they sell it to:
  • Themselves for desktop computers, reducing the expendature for intel chips in their desktop units. This allows them to keep the mark-up on the chip rather than give it to Intel, thus hitting Intels pocket book.
  • Apple, who has been buying G4's from Motorolla, and who has decreased the number of G3 chips to a bear minimum, and potentially to 0 within 12 months
  • Any other company who wishes to build a Linex computer without ties to Microsoft and their licensing requirements.

The last item depends on the price performance ratio of the least expensive computer that can effectively be marketed, or a reasonably priced system that offers something that Intel mother board designs do not, such as an easy upgrade path to MP systems, or the potential to upgrade to a dual core chip, better yet both. I think that the 970 could fit very well in this market, particularly with the people who like to build their computers and are not threatened by Linex. This gives IBM the opportunty to "brand market" the Power PC just as Intel does the Pentium, at wich time they do start competing with Intel.

I mention this last item only becouse I think it would be a good fit, Apple and IBM might decide strategic alliance, where by IBM licenses Mac OS X for their Power PC computers. This would bring OS X into a market that they have been historically weak in, yet IBM has been strong in. This helps Apple in many ways, possibly one of the best is that a lot of people buy computers for the home that match the ones at work so that they can take work home. The problems with it is in the product overlap of the two companies. However, there prices are close to each others now, and due to design they are marketed to 2 different demographics, one more conservative than the other.

P.S. Excellent post Amorph

[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: @homenow ]</p>
post #183 of 441
Wow this thread has taken off!!! Great responses guys!!!!

\tAlthough even after reading all the posts supporting x86 processors for apple I still don't believe it will happen.

\tApple knows they could not compete directly with Intel and Microsoft by switching to x86. Microsoft makes many programs for apple that only help Apple's position. Apple didn't compete directly with Microsoft for the longest time. Until recently with the advent of the Apple Stores and the Switch Campaign. Apple is now showing an alternative solution for computer buyers. They are competing with Windows, Dell, and Intel but not face to face. The PPC allows Apple to remain separated from their competition. Apple is not just offering a different wintel computer or a different OS, but a whole different Computing solution. If Apple switches to the x86 platform they can no longer compete with hardware but will have compete with prices. Mac OS X will be seen as an OS with no software (since none of the PPC software will run on it and none of the x86 software will either).

\t Apple is in the best position they could be right now. Sure apple needs a new PPC chip but besides that they are doing fine. The coming months will bring Apple hardware up to speed. This will allow the switch campaign and the apple stores to blossom. If apple does not screw up they could have a revolution in their hands come the next few years.

\tNow you may ask, "why would apple release OS X, open all the Apple Stores, and start the switch campaign before their great new chip was out?". (Beyond the obvious fact that apple had little choice but to release OS X when they did.) Apple needed to have the stores open to create an image of what they were in the average PC buyer,(picture rooms full of beautiful computers running a beautiful OS that is solid and easy to use) otherwise their great feat would be wasted on blind eyes. Most people because of the TV adds and the Apple stores have now seen and heard about what apple is all about. Most people are sick of windows and Microsoft's "security measures" but have yet to find the money or reason to make a huge switch to apple. The PPC970 may very well be the missing factor, and when released may cause many people to make that final choice to switch.

\tOnly time will tell. But I have always believed that Steve must have some goal beyond silent colorful G4's. I think there is enough evidence that a big change is coming. Apple has been buying software that is obviously supposed to be run on a faster PPC, the switch campaign and apple stores must have more of a purpose, and all the recent news about the IBM PPC970. The lack of new iMacs, Woz and MWSF, Mac OS X, Steve saying that 2003 would be the biggest year for apple ever...And the fact that we have all waited long enough to pull out of this PPC recession!
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #184 of 441
One potential area for concern is that IBM has languished as badly as Motorola, worse even, in the area of PPC's. Yes they have the POWER chips, but what have they done in terms of desktop and notebook chips? Their chips are, thus far, inferior to Motorola's. IBM's own PPC workstations are languishing with insane prices and very tired 604 based CPU's. WTF? IBM did tire of the PPC workstation once before, and they may do so again if they don't get the kind of reception they want for the 970. Remember IBM is still selling 400Mhz 604 systems today, and doing it at insane prices. Look forward 4-5 years. Can you imagine what would happen if IBM were still selling 2Ghz 970's at that time? It'd be a disaster worse than the Moto fiasco. And, when you think about it, there really isn't a good track record to reassure that such a development wouldn't happen. IBM can always turn its focus back to hocking Intel/AMD based boxes, any switching would be far more painful for Apple.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #185 of 441
Perhaps IBM sees an opportunity that was not there a few years ago. At that time Microsoft and Intel seemed like the unstoppable juggernaut. Today, MS is less influential and the future of the x86/IA64 is unclear: Itanium or x86-64?

IBM's heavy investment in Linux needs somewhere to go. If they can start putting Linux on the desktop then they can start selling boxes of their own design and competing more directly with Intel and Microsoft. Some of the older hands at IBM have probably been waiting for years to get their's back.

One of the good things about Linux is that is is relatively hardware agnostic. All the major distributions and the BSDs are on multiple platforms. Most of the software people use with Linux can be downloaded and compiled as necessary with few or any changes. Sure, it's still a bit rough now but where will it be in 5 years? People will expect that the OS and common apps will be free and only hardware, service and specialized applications will cost money. It's an environment that plays well to IBM's strengths, is neutral for Intel, and could hurt Microsoft badly. It is likely one of the reasons that MS is working so hard towards lock-in now (the only software MS makes any money on are in the very areas open source folks seek to excel--'scuse the pun).
post #186 of 441
IBM is different in one respect: they want to compete with Intel and have the ability to do so. Motorola is only interested in the embedded market.
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #187 of 441
My 2 cents


I agree that Apple should make a version of OS X for X86, but I also believe that they need to stick with PPC.

IMO, apple is suffering now because they choose Motorola instead of IBM during the break-up. During the cooperation, IBM was the one who always had the best fabing technology. You can always count on IBM to push fabing technology to get more bang for their buck. This is a major deal for Motorola, because this is something they can't,wont, don't consider it important enought to do. Performance from the 970 will be as important to IBM as it is to Apple, because they'll be using the same processors in their hardware offering. Remember the reason Motorola and IBM signed on to do PPC was the lure that they could build hardware that would use the PPC processor as well as allower other to do the same(CHRP). After Apple killed the clones, the only remaining major customers for PPC(not talking embedded)is Apple and IBM.

At the moment, Apple have a brand new OS(new to us) that everyone is raving about but they current lack the hardware to kick ass. Hopefully with the 970, Apple can return back to the old Beige days when the PPC was the king on the block(Mhz vs Mhz). If the 970 is a barn-burner, all Apple has to do is make sure each offering is equal to X86 counterparts and cost effective for their customers. Once Apple can get it hardware and Software together, they will get people to realize that their offering is better compare to the other guys.

Building a shrinkwrap version OS X for X86 will open up a new market for Apple, one thet can grow slowly. They should start with OS X Server, because it doesn't required an immediate amount of application to do its job. The majority of application thats needed to complete the task can be written by Apple. As the X86 version gets a little market share, they can encourage developers to develope FAT binaries to run on both X86 and PPC servers. This will eventually lead to a client version of OS X on X86.

One of the reason for alot of people are not trying OS X is because they have to buy Apple's hardware to run it. Just like we have people writing front end for UNIX apps to be used on OS X, the same will happen for OS X x86. This will not be an instant success story, it will take time. However it will require Apple to wait for a return on their investment.

In closing, remember that Apple doesn't need to have 50% of the market to be a successful company. They also need to make an important decision, do they want marketshare or profit? They can have both eventually, but for now they will have to choose one. I say cut price and go for marketshare.
"Life is a tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think, and Complete Hell for those who do both!"
Reply
"Life is a tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think, and Complete Hell for those who do both!"
Reply
post #188 of 441
Very well put, Matsu. It seems like in anticipation of the PPC970 and the resulting overwhelming enthusiasm towards IBM, people seem to conveniently ignore that.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #189 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by David M:
<strong>Perhaps IBM sees an opportunity that was not there a few years ago. At that time Microsoft and Intel seemed like the unstoppable juggernaut. Today, MS is less influential and the future of the x86/IA64 is unclear: Itanium or x86-64?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nonetheless, at that time they seemed to think the opportunity was be good enough to develop the PPC, form AIM, develop PReP, CHRP and POP and whatnot. And still they later on decided to more or less abandon those and concentrate on other stuff.


[quote]<strong>IBM's heavy investment in Linux needs somewhere to go. If they can start putting Linux on the desktop then they can start selling boxes of their own design and competing more directly with Intel and Microsoft.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And why would they want to do that? Why would they rather try to compete with Wintel in Linux' weakest area rather than concentrate on the server market, which incidentally happens to be both Linux' and their own stronghold?


[quote]<strong>the only software MS makes any money on are in the very areas open source folks seek to excel--'scuse the pun).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Huh? Did I miss something? Star Office might have become a good enough alternative to MS Office for some, but I don't think it's even close to being the main focus of open source developers right now.

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #190 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. Now you're asking me to have faith and walk down the same alley where we all got our asses kicked.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now you're just starting to sound really stupid.

Edit:

Besides, the x86 platform is such a piece of cheap shit that I doubt for Apple doing the Indet/AMD route would be more than suicide. There are many people who do real work who care about systems that work, not speed. I know people who use 300 mhz Sun workstations for their work - because it works. It doesn't crash, they have no XP licencing problems or the fear that Sun will go out of business because of x86 competition. It might go niche, like SGI, but it will keep it's market.

The same is true for the PowerPC platform and if the 970 can help Apple provide a robust PowerMac it will make people who want to get work done happy enough. If it's too expensive for you, get an iMac, but companies are prepared to spend huge amounts to get stuff they can work with. MacOS X is it, and something with a phat bus to boot would certainly make enough people happy to keep Apple and the PPC afloat.

x86 is bad, badly designed, struggles with crappy standards and la wintella that is not friendly to competing products, especially not superior ones.

Apple shouldn't have tried to compete with x86 in the first place.

[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: xype ]</p>
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #191 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

Huh? Did I miss something? Star Office might have become a good enough alternative to MS Office for some, but I don't think it's even close to being the main focus of open source developers right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Seek to excel not are excelling. I agree things are not there yet but Linux seems to have much more momentum than MS these days. Also, don't ignore the moves to open source by many governments around the world. This is being done to foster local expertise while lowering costs. Linux could do very well internationally even if MS keeps a lock on the US market.

IBM would want more influence on the desktop because they have a culture of cradle to grave support, service, and sales. Also, there is a lot of money to be made.
post #192 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by David M:
<strong>Seek to excel not are excelling. I agree things are not there yet but Linux seems to have much more momentum than MS these days.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yet the moment MS will stop releasing new products the open source movement will run out of ideas of what to do. Maybe they will make another aqua skin for KDE, but that's it.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #193 of 441
Instead of Apple switching to gas-guzzling x86 engines (and taking us all with them), why deosn't MacLuv just switch?
post #194 of 441
The Pentium 4 looks more and more like Word 6.
post #195 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>The Pentium 4 looks more and more like Word 6.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cool - did word also use 100 watt to run?
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #196 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance.

IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel.

The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The argument doesn't hold. IF IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel - how can you expect AMD to be able to?

IBM has the resources and the technological knowhow to go eyeball to eyeball with Intel any day of the week - and for the foreseeable future. Their continued investment in fundamental research is second to none in the private business sector - something that Intel lacks. They come from the high-level sector of the market, bringing rather more advanced knowhow and technology to the desktop sector than Intel.

And look at IBM's capitalisation - it'll take a good deal of time and an intense effort to fritter away THAT kind of money, even if Intel is bigger.

engpjp
<a href="http://macbloqs.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">MacBloQs</a> - like Apples with Teeth
Reply
<a href="http://macbloqs.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">MacBloQs</a> - like Apples with Teeth
Reply
post #197 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by David M:
<strong>

Seek to excel not are excelling. I agree things are not there yet but Linux seems to have much more momentum than MS these days.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I still don't see a lot of OS momentum specifically in the Office area.


[quote]<strong>Also, don't ignore the moves to open source by many governments around the world. This is being done to foster local expertise while lowering costs. Linux could do very well internationally even if MS keeps a lock on the US market.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't disagree with that, I was just pointing out that I see the Office focus in the OS movement.


[quote]<strong>IBM would want more influence on the desktop because they have a culture of cradle to grave support, service, and sales. Also, there is a lot of money to be made.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'd imagine there's a lot more money to be made with big iron than with trying to be another competitor in the desktop space. But then again, that's just what I think...

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #198 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>Edit:

Besides, the x86 platform is such a piece of cheap shit that I doubt for Apple doing the Indet/AMD route would be more than suicide. There are many people who do real work who care about systems that work, not speed. I know people who use 300 mhz Sun workstations for their work - because it works. It doesn't crash, they have no XP licencing problems or the fear that Sun will go out of business because of x86 competition. It might go niche, like SGI, but it will keep it's market.

The same is true for the PowerPC platform and if the 970 can help Apple provide a robust PowerMac it will make people who want to get work done happy enough. If it's too expensive for you, get an iMac, but companies are prepared to spend huge amounts to get stuff they can work with. MacOS X is it, and something with a phat bus to boot would certainly make enough people happy to keep Apple and the PPC afloat.

x86 is bad, badly designed, struggles with crappy standards and la wintella that is not friendly to competing products, especially not superior ones.

Apple shouldn't have tried to compete with x86 in the first place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is your point about speed, cost, happy people... what?

:confused:

[quote]<strong>
Now you're just starting to sound really stupid.

</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering your argument a) has no point and b)has no point, I would spend less time insulting other people's intelligence and more time learning how to get your point across--that is if you can find it.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

PS. Thanks for the comic relief, though.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #199 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Even if IBM has initial success with the 970--there's no market for it. We've already been down this road before with the AIM alliance.

IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel.

The whole concept of using AMD is that AMD is already competing with Intel. Even though AMD has told investors it's going to follow the technology and not the market, AMD will continue to make CPUs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The argument doesn't hold. IF IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel - how can you expect AMD to be able to?

IBM has the resources and the technological knowhow to go eyeball to eyeball with Intel any day of the week - and for the foreseeable future. Their continued investment in fundamental research is second to none in the private business sector - something that Intel lacks. They come from the high-level sector of the market, bringing rather more advanced knowhow and technology to the desktop sector than Intel.

And look at IBM's capitalisation - it'll take a good deal of time and an intense effort to fritter away THAT kind of money.

[Edit: Algol and others have already argued better and more exhaustively for this than I can]

As for PPC970: while it isn't the saviour everyone imply, it WILL permit the Mac to get close enough to the x86s available in October/November '03 to negate the present cries of Apple obsolescence. Also, the performance/MHz ratio of the 970 family is so different from Intel's argumentation that it will be obvious to the buyer that performance comparisons needs to be based on other data. It will be a great gain in the PR war. Finally, the scalability of 970 is expected to enable it to overtake the x86 family around the late Spring of '04, and the Itanium will be grossly handicapped by its inherent power consumption/heat issues. In the 64bit field, Hammer will be the closest competitor but will be considerably weakened economically by then.

The two most important advantages to come from PPC970 are the actual and potential bus improvements, and the above mentioned power/heat ratio - not so much the CPU's inherent performance aspects...

Later PPC9xx family members are expected to sustain these advantages, not least due to cross-polination from development work on the POWERx and other CPU families.

Okay, so perhaps the "Finally..." was a little premature! :-)

engpjp
<a href="http://macbloqs.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">MacBloQs</a> - like Apples with Teeth
Reply
<a href="http://macbloqs.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">MacBloQs</a> - like Apples with Teeth
Reply
post #200 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by engpjp:
<strong>

The argument doesn't hold. IF IBM doesn't have the resources to compete with Intel - how can you expect AMD to be able to?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, in case you haven't noticed, AMD is already competing with Intel. :eek:

There is general speculation on this and other boards that Microsoft somehow would be able to fault XP on an AMD CPU if AMD supported Apple. Since AMD recently announced it is pursuing the technology rather than the market they are in a better position to support Apple. Big Blue has its own agenda, and if one recalls, the whole reason Motorola was brought into the AIM alliance is because Apple did not trust IBM. IBM, at any given time, presents so many conflicts of interest to Apple that it's not worth the risk, especially if Apple is counting on OS X to see Apple through the next 15 years.

[quote]<strong>
IBM has the resources and the technological knowhow to go eyeball to eyeball with Intel any day of the week - and for the foreseeable future.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you're just speculating.

It's funny--IBM used to be the *evil empire*, now everyone thinks it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If IBM is so special, how do you explain the fact that the chip inside my eMac isn't fast enough for OS X? Why has Intel done what couldn't be done? Are you going to blame this on MOTU? IBM is part of the AIM alliance as well. They're not innocents in this.

[quote]<strong>
Their continued investment in fundamental research is second to none in the private business sector - something that Intel lacks. They come from the high-level sector of the market, bringing rather more advanced knowhow and technology to the desktop sector than Intel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Convince me that IBM is a better choice with facts, not hyperbole. I've seen enough conflicting information around the Net to convince me not to agree with that statement--however, I refuse to gather evidence to refute opinion. I will find it rude if you expect me to.

[quote]<strong>
And look at IBM's capitalisation - it'll take a good deal of time and an intense effort to fritter away THAT kind of money, even if Intel is bigger.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you're saying: Becuase IBM has a lot of money it will divert all its funds into making Apple's PCs the fastest it can, no matter how big Intel is. Is that correct?

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Finally an interesting G5 story