or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › CNET News: Apple to drop PowerPC chips?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CNET News: Apple to drop PowerPC chips? - Page 2

post #41 of 319
Quote:
originally posted by chris v:
A relevant question would be-- could Apple survive two years without selling a single powermac?

Good companies exist to thrive, not merely survive, but your question is an essential one if Jobs really plans to make the jump.
post #42 of 319
Quote:
originally posted by unixguru:
Of course we are dealing with Jobs' ego here.

Exactly. Just when Apple is on top of the world, Steve may shoot for the heavens. You know the old proverb: "Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall."
post #43 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by chris v
A relevant question would be-- could Apple survive two years without selling a single powermac?

Yes because Powermacs sales have declined big time. Apple is a software company thats what has been saving their behinds for years while Moto/IBM have wittled away their marketshare with poor performance. Come on Folks there isnt a single G5 that can hang with a single AMD or Intel. Using 2 cpu's when others use one has to cost apple a lot in the manufactoring process plus IBM screwed steve with its 3.0 promise a year ago. Apples Cpu's have been in 3rd place for a very long time. Steve wants to be in first place folks. Motorola and IBM suck as cpu makers in my view as a long time Apple user. I think i would be happy to see them use better. The Liquid cooling to get to 2.5 was a joke and had to be expensive for Apple.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #44 of 319
In this scenario,Apple will surely die especially when facing Microsoft in it's own turf.
post #45 of 319
Apple has new vastly superior display technology that will allow them to sell laptops and beat the competition in any market.

They have patentable tech that is not likely to be duplicated by other strategies that will allow them to build a 3D gaming and laptop display tech that could be used with all sorts of consumer devices.

Because it will use much less battery power it will make their laptops superior to all others, especially laptops with multiple cores.


Its an idea I sent them a few months ago. There was a rumor shortly afterwards about Apple looking at chips from the UK that could do 3D display and other cell phone things with low power.


So Jobs being the Genius that he is, is using this opportunity to tighten the thumb screws on IBM and Intel at the same time.

It does not seem that way now but it will when they start to ship this new display tech that should be about a year from now -- its pretty easy to build !!!

post #46 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Sybaritic
If on Monday Apple announces that it is "scrapping" its partnership with IBM and switching to Intel, then Apple must be prepared to swallow a large short-term decline in hardware sales.

Not to mention a massive tank in current stock price because of that big hit in PowerMac sales. It's already down on the iPod battery settlement which could cost Apple $100 million. iPod sales may be flat, product inventory across the board is full.

Intel processors have a lot to offer, but getting there would be very painful and risky.

As long as I can still have my Mac OS "quality of life" I guess I don't care about the proc. But I can't have that if Apple is out of business can I?
post #47 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
its pretty easy to build !!!

If it's so easy, then why don't you do it?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #48 of 319
I'm stunned.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Yes the G5 hasn't scaled as well as hoped but I don't share the doom and gloom that is sometimes flaoting around here. The G5 towers are still competative-granted not killer-but in the game. Apple is selling Xserves for supercomputers-not a bad sign. So why go intel?

If the CNET story is true, then maybe they are just going for the low end. But at what price can Apple keep two versions of the OS going.

I do not beleive Apple is killing hardware. Remember they were making a profit when many others were not. It would be suicide to rely on software and iPods alone. They make the whole widget, and whatever they are planning must include a way to make sure they are the ones selling the whole widget.
post #49 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Wil
In this scenario,Apple will surely die especially when facing Microsoft in it's own turf.

Wrong, all they need to do is market OSX for Pc's. No more hardware to worry about,no more warranties, no more Moto or IBM plus there are lots of window folks who are fed up. Apple could grab back a lot of that market it threw away to Microstink years ago. G4s are Stagnate and even the G5 is Stagnate. Apple can do better then IBM and Motocrap.

Blame Doom3 because those G5 scores were just pathetic.\
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #50 of 319
Thread Starter 
If the CNET story is true, the next item CNET reports on is Apple suing them.
post #51 of 319
I think that if Steve's ego was actually involved in this decision, he'd have to put it aside to announce an Intel switch. After talking how PowerPC was better for so many years, and bringing Phil up on stage to demo, swallowing a switch to Intel is not a pill any of them would take without considering what's best for Apple's hardware and sales, from every possible aspect. Not to mention, the current Apple website is loaded with bars and charts showing PowerPC processors outperforming Intel-based computers. The spin Steve delivers would have to be something along the lines of "while Today's G5's are faster than Intel chips, tomorrow's intel chips are going to be way, way faster", which would keep Joe consumer from scratching his head.

I think the most difficult thing will be migrating Final Cut Pro and the other Pro apps over while still supporting those who are running PowerPC hardware. Will the next version of Final Cut Pro be coded for both Intel and PowerPC chips, and automatically install the proper version? Will the next version of all the Pro apps only run on Intel based Macs? Apple will surely ease the migration of your day to day cocoa and carbon apps to the point of requiring little or no rewriting, but it's the ones who have lots of Altivec-based performance enhancements that I wonder about. The other thing I wonder is if it'll be easier for companies like Adobe to take their X86-optimized Windows versions of applications and convert them for the "new" X86-based Mac OS, or make their current Mac versions run it.
post #52 of 319
Quote:
originally posted by Aurora:
No more hardware to worry about,no more warranties, no more Moto or IBM

Yeah, it sounds wonderful. Instead Apple just has to worry about making its software run on s--t boxes made by everybody and his brother (the pesky issue that the behemoth at Redmond deals with every day). If you think Steve is angry now, just wait until he gets on the line with the folks at Acer ... Of course, Apple could set up exclusive agreements with hardware manufacturers, but Steve will still be dealing with third parties and multiple headaches. Remember that for a long time he has touted Apple's integration of hardware and software.
post #53 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If it's so easy, then why don't you do it?


THAT is pretty obvious.



You MUST be a laptop builder, its unique display hardware will make it proprietary, to really benefit from it.


Besides if I tried to patent it, it would take a year or two at least to get to the point where I had hardware to get real patents with ( I would just be guessing the details until I actually built one. ) -- on the other hand Apple could do that same work in a week or two.
post #54 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Wrong, all they need to do is market OSX for Pc's. No more hardware to worry about,no more warranties, no more Moto or IBM plus there are lots of window folks who are fed up. Apple could grab back a lot of that market it threw away to Microstink years ago. G4s are Stagnate and even the G5 is Stagnate. Apple can do better then IBM and Motocrap.

Blame Doom3 because those G5 scores were just pathetic.\

If they make their OS available for generic x86 they will have a sh*tload more hardware to worry about. How many different motherboards are out there? Processors? Chipsets? Northbridge, southbridge, USB controller, ethernet controller, IDE controller, etc, etc, etc... A driver nightmare that Microsoft can barely manage. The only reason it can is it is so big and flithy stinking rich. And you know what? When I go to re-install Windows on a computer, unless I am using one of those OEM recovery CDs, 90% of the time, it's missing drivers and stuff doesn't work.

IBM marketed OS/2 for PC's about 10 years ago and Microsoft ate them for lunch. Most people NEVER change the OS on their PC and many never use an app that didn't come pre-installed. Microsoft will do anything possible to keep OS X from being preloaded. Do you think the Bush administration will do anything to stop them!???

The poor Doom3 scores seem to be due in large part to Apple's OpenGL implementation and drivers, which supposedly they are now working on.
post #55 of 319
You also gotta remember that Apple has a board of directors, and if it was purely Steve Job's out-of-control ego making an irrational decision, then he could still find himself relieved of his duties as CEO. I suspect there's something going on here that we don't fully understand, like a new product or perhaps a fabbing partnership. Macs aren't exactly dying on the vine right now. The iMac G5 is a hot seller, and while the Powermacs don't look fast mhz-wise, they're still extremely capable machines. Moving to intel would be a desperation move, and Apple is just not desperate.

IBM might be behind the curve, but it's not like they've just closed up shop and stopped designing processors, and Intel's roadmap has taken the same curve pretty much, due to the same set of barriers as IBM in getting 90nm under control. The benefits of a move to Intel do not outweigh the risks at all, and the board and stockholders will see that and reign him in if he's just off the deep end.

Do what you will, but harm none.

Reply

Do what you will, but harm none.

Reply
post #56 of 319
People!

Intel does NOT equal X86.

intel is very good at fabbing processors and they are very very efficient at it.

Apple will not be using a P4. It will more likely be something along the lines of Itanium (which, contrary to uneducated opinion, is a VERY good CPU, but with very litte software support).

In fact, I would say that it would be an all-new chip.

Either that, or intel is merely a sub-contractor who fabs for IBM. Whoa! that would be weird.

Anyway, If this is true, then it will probably not be an architecture switch. and you can fully trust that it will certainly NOT be a switch to X86.
post #57 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by 9secondko
People!

Intel does NOT equal X86.

intel is very good at fabbing processors and they are very very efficient at it.

Apple will not be using a P4. It will more likely be something along the lines of Itanium (which, contrary to uneducated opinion, is a VERY god CPU, but with very litte software support).

In fact, I would say that it would be an all-new chip.

Either that, or intel is merely a sub-contractor who fabs for IBM. Whoa! that would be weird.

Anyway, If this is true, then it will probably not be an architecture switch. and you can fully trust that it will certainly NOT be a switch to X86.

Exactly, if there's any truth to the rumor at all, and I have my doubts.

Do what you will, but harm none.

Reply

Do what you will, but harm none.

Reply
post #58 of 319
Quote:
I do not beleive Apple is killing hardware.

They will not want to, certainly.

But they will inadvertedly. That's exactly what happend with NeXT. NeXT had brilliant hardware. But they were just a tad bit more expensive. If given a choice, people will go for cheaper.

Intel builds reference designs for motherboards. Anyone who uses them, like e.g. DELL, will always be able to offer hardware boxes for cheaper.

If Apple designs their own, then they will not be price-competitive - and lose most of their hardware sales in the end. Up to an amount where they will no longer make any profits. Faced with continued hardware losses they will have to shut down their hardware business eventually.

Yet if Apple were to use Intel's reference design, then they're not much better off either. Dell will always be cheaper as they have a much larger economy of scales. Same for any Taiwanese or Chinese manufacturer.

Apple can try to play the design card and hope that more people are willing to pay a premium price for better hardware. But Apple barely makes profits on hardware sales today (excluding the iPod). And that is with people being forced to buy Apple hardware to use OS X. Without those people, hardware losses are guaranteed.

The only solution would be a 'proprietary Intel' box. One that is so special that it won't run Windows and Mac OS X won't run on any normal Windows box either as it needs those special components.

But it will only be a matter of time until that can be cracked. PC users are modders! A lot of them. I trust that they _will_ find a way to mod their Intel box to run OS X - as long as OS X is compiled for Intel.
And that will likely even be a pirated copy of OS X where Apple will not even make a software sale...
post #59 of 319
If, and I mean a very big if, Apple makes some kind of announcement regarding working with Intel for future CPU needs I don't think we would be seeing any mention of x86.

X86 is not the only technology Intel has, don't forget XScale and IA64. Either of these technologies might make its way into the Apple systems and both of these chips are not compatible with your everyday versions of Windows. Maybe something new based around the EPIC system used in the Itanium 2 will be used.

Right now Intel isn't even the leading technology maker when it comes to X86, that crown goes to AMD.

I don't personally see X86 in Apple's future, maybe Intel but not X86.

More than likely any news concerning Apple and Intel may in fact center around PCI Express technology since Intel was the leading company behind this new format.

Who knows?

take care
post #60 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by mediajediHD
If, and I mean a very big if, Apple makes some kind of announcement regarding working with Intel for future CPU needs I don't think we would be seeing any mention of x86.

That is the only hope.

But it would still mean a very painful transition:
- 'Legacy OS X software' running in terribly slow emulation on the new boxes.
- Users holding out their hardware purchases on a 'wait and see' attitude
- Developers holding out with their software because of a 'wait and see' attitude.
- Users dropping the Mac platform because they are faced with having to upgrade all their software to avoid sluggish speeds (if that software is even available). Likely not. And if not, why would I switch to a slower Mac? As it would be with all the emulated code.
- Developers dropping the Mac platform because the transitional costs are too expensive. After all they would have to purchase all new hardware, recompile their software and start from square one with bug testing. It will especially be a problem for hardware driver developers.

Let's face it, it will be a long dry spell. And likely kill all the momentum the Apple platform has going for itself at the moment.

Even the 'best case scenario' is not really that great.
post #61 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by 9secondko
People!

Intel does NOT equal X86.

intel is very good at fabbing processors and they are very very efficient at it.

Apple will not be using a P4. It will more likely be something along the lines of Itanium (which, contrary to uneducated opinion, is a VERY god CPU, but with very litte software support).

In fact, I would say that it would be an all-new chip.

Either that, or intel is merely a sub-contractor who fabs for IBM. Whoa! that would be weird.

Anyway, If this is true, then it will probably not be an architecture switch. and you can fully trust that it will certainly NOT be a switch to X86.

KEEP RELIGION OUT OF THIS !!!
post #62 of 319
Quote:
originally posted by chris v:
IBM might be behind the curve, but it's not like they've just closed up shop and stopped designing processors, and Intel's roadmap has taken the same curve pretty much, due to the same set of barriers as IBM in getting 90nm under control. The benefits of a move to Intel do not outweigh the risks at all, and the board and stockholders will see that and reign him in if he's just off the deep end.

I couldn't agree more, unless Steve has used some major RDF on Al "I Created The Internet" Gore and company.
post #63 of 319
Haven't read all the posts but as Carson said, I'm stunned. I know, there was the WSJ article but then the analysts jumped in and said it wasn't likely. All kinds of stuff here about cell chips, 970MP chips, yadda, yadda. Still, we're faced with the fact that the portables aren't in the same league as the others and no good way to shoehorn a G5 into a PB.

We should have seen the writing on the wall when the cell news broke with Sony, Toshiba and IBM and no Apple. And MS is making Windows work on the PPC, starting with Longhorn? What's the world coming to? Instead of Wintel, we have PMS? Mactel?

If you buy a PM now, not only will it be obsolete in 2 years, it won't run new software in 2007 and won't be worth anything. Switching to Intel makes the Mac PPC a dead platform, even with the transition that starts in a year and takes a year.

As for the pain of switching, maybe that won't be as much of an issue as some think:

MacRumors, page 2
post #64 of 319
Hmm, and then we have this.
post #65 of 319
Here is the thing Aurora,IBM did that in 1995,remember IBM's O/S2 ,from what I understand,it was much better than Windows 95,but because both of them run on Intel and the majority of users are using Windows,guess who won,Microsoft.
If we are living in 1985,then Apple has good chance surviving the use of Intel.But we are in 2005,realistically speaking,they will be dead in three years as a computer company if they go choose this route.Honestly,I think this is just smokescreen,we will see on Monday.
Jobs maybe a egomaniac,but he should of all people should had learn the lesson of migrating to Intel with a hardware/OS combination.He saw his NeXTstep company dwindle into irrelevance until it was bought by Apple.
Hardware is the lifeblood of Apple,no hardware,bye-bye Apple.
post #66 of 319
Wow, crazy things. To stay true to their word, a lot of people on these and other boards are going to have to eat some strange things!

Truthfully though, AIM has been like a bad relationship for a long time now. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any forward looking strategy for portables. It is starting to look like the decision to dump Moto in favor of IBM was like moving to starboard on the Titanic.

Hopefully Intel will be providing a PPC-like chip so that the transition is a little smoother. Hey, maybe Intel see this a proving ground to get back into the console market?

I hope the ipod will provide the sustainable revenue so that Apple can survive this gamble. Anyway, you gotta love Apple for daring to do crazy sh!t like this.
post #67 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Wil
Here is the thing Aurora,IBM did that in 1995,remember IBM's O/S2 ,from what I understand,it was much better than Windows 95,but because both of them run on Intel and the majority of users are using Windows,guess who won,Microsoft.
If we are living in 1985,then Apple has good chance surviving the use of Intel.But we are in 2005,realistically speaking,they will be dead in three years as a computer company if they go choose this route.Honestly,I think this is just smokescreen,we will see on Monday.
Jobs maybe a egomaniac,but he should of all people should had learn the lesson of migrating to Intel with a hardware/OS combination.He saw his NeXTstep company dwindle into irrelevance until it was bought by Apple.
Hardware is the lifeblood of Apple,no hardware,bye-bye Apple.


YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
post #68 of 319
Quote:
quote:
I do not beleive Apple is killing hardware.

They will not want to, certainly.

But they will inadvertedly. That's exactly what happend with NeXT. NeXT hat brilliant hardware. But they were just a tad bit more expensive. If given a choice, people will go for cheaper.

Intel builds reference designs for motherboards. Anyone who uses them, like e.g. DELL, will always be able to offer hardware boxes for cheaper.

If Apple goes to x86 CPUs but still restricts OS X to Apple hardware, Apple is still competing with Dell the same was they are now. If enough developers got behing it and if the transition was gradual enough people would choose Apple because of OSX and the software.

In light of the recent articles about people being unhappy wiith windows, if given the choice between OSX on Apple hardware with an Intel CPU vs. Wintel, I think people would be happy to go withh Apple.

If anything, a SUCCESSFUL transition to Intel levels the playing field even more and makes people decide 0based on OS and software.

Of course this would all be based on a successful transition x86. Do I think it would be successful? I think it's possible but will be a huge challange.

If Apple is to sell any hardware it MUST keep total control over the hardware (even with the x86 CPUs).

If OS X was released like Windows, Apple would have to sell only software.
post #69 of 319
Hmm, the more I think of it the more I think this may be a rumor based on some kernel of truth (last bullet point).
  • The transition would be painful. Current PowerMacs, iMacs, etc. would sell even more poorly.
  • IBM almost certainly is working on a dual core version of the G5.
  • They are almost certainly working on a POWER5 dirivative.
  • Cell will be very compelling in the coming years.
  • What can substitute Altivec?
  • Apple may have plans for Xscale line of CPU's for some other non Macintosh project.
post #70 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by iPeon
The hardware isn't what makes a Mac a Mac, it's the software.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I switched back in early May. I used PCs for the past 18 years. I have been a software developer on the PC for 16 of those last 18 years.

I think that what makes the Mac the Mac is the entire package; hardware, software, etc. If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
post #71 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by kwsanders
I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I switched back in early May. I used PCs for the past 18 years. I have been a software developer on the PC for 16 of those last 18 years.

I think that what makes the Mac the Mac is the entire package; hardware, software, etc. If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.


Interesting comparison and point since Linux on Intel is by-far the fastest growing platform !!!

AND HAS BEEN EATING MICROSOFT'S LUNCH SINCE DINNER TIME LAST WEEK.
post #72 of 319
Quote:
If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.

I respectfully disagree. If Apple keeps total control over hardware as they do now and could port everything to x86 it's still a Mac. Buying an x86 Mac still would be an experience you couldn't get if you buy a Dell.

If I could type on an iMac like I am now with the same user experience except a dual-core Pentium M was crunching the numbers.......well, I would still be getting the Mac experience.

To me the Mac experience is a mixture of OS, software, and hardware. Of these I personally break it down to 80% of my experience is based on the OS and software with 20% based on the hardware with HW design making up 90% of that.

Point is, if Apple is still controlling the OS, software and hardware then you get a completely different experience than that of a standard Wintel box or a Linux box.
post #73 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.

Who said anything about viruses? OS/2 was a much better product than Windows 3.1 or 95. I used it for a while, but you couldn't get any apps for it because of the Microsoft juggernaut. Microsoft realized that preloads and hype would determine the winner, and they executed perfectly on both of those. Hell it was hard to get *IBM* to preload OS/2 for you. Oh, and I found your caps lock key. Let me know if you want to drop by and pick it up.
post #74 of 319
This is not really worth replying to...

Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
Who said anything about viruses? OS/2 was a much better product than Windows 3.1 or 95. I used it for a while, but you couldn't get any apps for it because of the Microsoft juggernaut. Microsoft realized that preloads and hype would determine the winner, and they executed perfectly on both of those. Hell it was hard to get *IBM* to preload OS/2 for you. Oh, and I found your caps lock key. Let me know if you want to drop by and pick it up.

I stold it back thieF !!!

YOU SHOULD HAVE said something about virus, viruses and spam are driving the switch to Macs -- DUUU !
post #75 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.

And where is OS2 now,btw?Oh I forgot,it was EOL by IBM a few years back because it did not stop the Windows juggernaut.
In regards to Linux,Microsoft cannot beat it because for one thing,how can you beat an OS that has a lot of derivatives due to the work of not only by companies like Mandrake or REdHat,but by thousands of anonymous programmers and most important of all,a lot of Linux are free.
post #76 of 319
Wouldn't Tiger running on any PC hardware be worse for MS, not Apple?

The fact that Tiger has no copy protection or activation scheme would allow it to spread like "digital crabgrass"(TM) and choke out everything in it's path.

Once it's done kicking some major a$$, Apple just adds activation to the next version.

This thought should have MS scared sh1tless.

Everyone I know personally - from friends to relatives would switch their PCs to Tiger. Small businesses everywhere would make the switch. In less than a month, Apple's installed base of Tiger would be staggering.

Regardless of whether this would be good for Apple, it sure would be fun to witness.
post #77 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
[*]What can substitute Altivec?[/list]

That is the scary bit right there. All the effort put into Altivec, including convincing IBM to put it in their chips, wasted? Thrown out with the bath water. Seems unlikley.

Quote:
\t Apple may have plans for Xscale line of CPU's for some other non Macintosh project.

And that is the exciting bit.
post #78 of 319
One question for those who wanted this news to be true,did you ever consider on how Apple will be able to persuade potential upgraders as well as new buyers to buy their machines now when everybody knows that those machines with IBM processors will be replaced with a new one that has Intel on it in the next year or so.Even Steve Jobs RDF won't save Apple stock from going down like a brick because of low to no sales of it's Mac computers.
post #79 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by inslider
Wouldn't Tiger running on any PC hardware be worse for MS, not Apple?

This thought should have MS scared sh1tless.

Everyone I know personally - from friends to relatives would switch their PCs to Tiger. Small businesses everywhere would make the switch. In less than a month, Apple's installed base of Tiger would be staggering.

That's a nice dream, but as Jobs recently said, it's applications stupid! If those people put Tiger on their machines and there's no word and excel and powerpoint, what the hell are they going to do with it? The fact is that most businesses use M$ office. If it can't run that, they'll just switch back to windows. I doubt most of those people you talked to realize what's involved installing a new OS or the fact that there won't be many apps available. If you want to see how this works, look at the history of the computer industry.
post #80 of 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Wil
One question for those who wanted this news to be true,did you ever consider on how Apple will be able to persuade potential upgraders as well as new buyers to buy their machines now when everybody knows that those machines with IBM processors will be replaced with a new one that has Intel on it in the next year or so.Even Steve Jobs RDF won't save Apple stock from going down like a brick because of low to no sales of it's Mac computers.

Maybe the hope to sell a million subscriptions to dot-Mac!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › CNET News: Apple to drop PowerPC chips?