AMD's entire market cap is $6.5B. Apple could buy them lock, stock, and barrel with cash on hand. Then they'd have fabs for their A5/6/7/8 chip line and a competitive core if they wanted to play carrot and stick with Intel. They'd get former AMD engineers to enhance the iPad/iPhone chip series' GPU options.
Might be interesting. And it seems at least as likely as Apple going to AMD despite not even using Intel's latest chip offerings when they come out. What's the point of changing suppliers if you're not even taking full advantage of your current one?
I understand that Apple wants to get great deals on chips, but no way they should be satisfied with possibly getting 80% performance at 60% cost. They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible. If AMD can deliver, more power to them. I personally wouldn't buy an AMD-based Mac. I've had minor stability issues with them on the Windows side.
Even if AMD could deliver 110% performance at 60% of the cost I would not go there. If we were talking about manufacturing of a licensed design I might (as in Apple A4 for the iPad) but that is not what AMD produces. AMD does there own thing their own way.
With the sort of tweaking that is being done in software these days to try and wring out the max hp from every engine I do not think it is the time to try to add a diesel or rotary to the bunch just to insure supply. It would require a fair amount of engineering effort to optimize two different architectures for speed ups and then they would not be 'across the board' but possibly only for one family (remember the 601, 603, 604 PPC optimizations?).
AMD delivers Intel "compatible" processors. They are very different processors. Where do you usually see these on the Windows side - in the lower tier price conscious lower end. Apple seems to be able to do fine with Intel stuff for the moment. If Apple can use this for some sort of bargaining chip then go for it but I don't want one.
I think what you end up with with multiple processor suppliers in this case is fewer choices available for the consumer and in my mind that is a bad thing.
OSX is pretty portable so if they don't get their way with one vendor then they can easily move to another.
Seemingly, Apple's frustrations with CPU manufacturers may eventually have them creating their own CPUs at all levels of their products. Time will tell.
Even if AMD could deliver 110% performance at 60% of the cost I would not go there. If we were talking about manufacturing of a licensed design I might (as in Apple A4 for the iPad) but that is not what AMD produces. AMD does there own thing their own way.
With the sort of tweaking that is being done in software these days to try and wring out the max hp from every engine I do not think it is the time to try to add a diesel or rotary to the bunch just to insure supply. It would require a fair amount of engineering effort to optimize two different architectures for speed ups and then they would not be 'across the board' but possibly only for one family (remember the 601, 603, 604 PPC optimizations?).
AMD delivers Intel "compatible" processors. They are very different processors. Where do you usually see these on the Windows side - in the lower tier price conscious lower end. Apple seems to be able to do fine with Intel stuff for the moment. If Apple can use this for some sort of bargaining chip then go for it but I don't want one.
I think what you end up with with multiple processor suppliers in this case is fewer choices available for the consumer and in my mind that is a bad thing.
You seem oblivious to "modern" day tech. It matters not what the market looked like 6 years ago. The PPC 60x series were not multicore until the very ends and the development tools were nowhere as sophisticated as they are today. We cannot glean much from what the market was like a half decade ago and apply it to today and future computing needs.
AMDs roadmap, on paper, is strong for 2011 provided they hit their targets and deliver.
Apple had OS X running on Intel years before the switch. I would be willing to be large sums of money they have OS X already running very well on AMD if they ever did decided to go that route.
Apple is a very forward thinking company. A decision like this would not be made without much forethought.
Apple has become very protective of OS X, and after the recent Pystar debacle, it would not surprise me at all if they eventually move to proprietary chips across the entire line to prevent that kind of piracy from happening again, especially in China where IP is not very well respected. Now that Macs are reaching the 10% threshold and provided Apple can learn to work with partners like AMD, a new CPU could prove beneficial in that regard.
You seem oblivious to "modern" day tech. It matters not what the market looked like 6 years ago. The PPC 60x series were not multicore until the very ends and the development tools were nowhere as sophisticated as they are today. We cannot glean much from what the market was like a half decade ago and apply it to today and future computing needs.
AMDs roadmap, on paper, is strong for 2011 provided they hit their targets and deliver.
I couldn't agree anymore
If AMD are good enough for CRAY then im sure its good for me
by the way amd optrons wins hands down in multi cpu setups.
Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.
I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.
Oh boy.
I wonder if disagreeing with a moderator on AppleInsider gets one into trouble? (Yes, I just have to ask. Hoping it doesn't.)
I'd politely suggest that your viewpoint here is incorrect. I don't know where you got your reliability information for AMD versus Intel, but the source should be double-checked--it sounds highly dubious. I've been in the business of assembling systems for a long time for all kinds of roles--everything from end user desktops to servers to appliance "things" that center around a computer (such as surveillance or TV DVRs and FreeNAS boxes).
Some have Intel processors while others have AMD CPUs. The split is roughly 50% of each. There have been some odd failures along the way, but never has a microprocessor failed. Nor has the rate of failure been skewed to suggest that one platform is any more reliable than the other. I use good quality components, build things to have a reasonable lifetime, and don't try to cut corners somewhere.
If anything has given AMD's products a black eye here, I'd say that it had to be the number of unscrupulous dealers who took advantage of the fact that an AMD processor could cost less and paired it with junk (motherboard, case, PSU, etc) to get a system out the door for an unbelievable price. I've seen this done many times--and it's not AMD's fault. Is it easy to blame them? Yes, it is. Is it correct? Absolutely not.
Furthermore, look around sometime and see how many AMD products you find. They're very big in the embedded microprocessor market, both x86 (Geode or 80186 based products) and non-x86 (Elan family and others, though it seems these have been discontinued). Apple has used AMD products before, usually at the heart of their LaserWriter printers. (And you don't have to look hard to find a LaserWriter still soldering along--I'd wager that many of the long time participants in this forum still have at least one. I have two.)
Do I hope to change your mind? Get you to use an AMD product? No, I don't. To think that I am is to miss my point. Intel's products are (for the most part*) excellent. I do hope that you might reconsider the "no respect" bits and maybe look further into the source that suggested AMD products were unreliable.
It must also be considered that AMD's lead in graphics technology (though through the acquisition of ATI) is considerable as compared to what Intel has. I hate to say that, as I really do like the Intel IGPs for what they are.
Disclaimers: I am not in any way affiliated with or employed by/for AMD. I am somewhat partial to their products and have been since the days of the Am486 CPU. However, I have just as many Intel-based boxen running as I do AMD--and all work fine.
* look sometime at the P4 processors. The Pentium 3 could give many early P4s a run for their money when running most programs, especially those that hadn't been optimized for a P4. Northwoods P4s were pretty good in most regards. The S478 and LGA775 Prescott processors, on the other hand, had a lousy performance to power consumption ratio. In addition, the thermal design power of the Prescott was poised to go through the roof. These things became such problems that Intel tossed out much of the work that was being done for future P4 CPUs and went back to the Pentium M mobile stuff (itself based on the P3) as the basis for all the Core/Core2/iX CPUs that followed.
That's why the 13' MacBooks have not moved to Core i3.
The nice thing about that 13 foot model is that with a little waterproofing you can actually surf the ocean and the net at the same time. Heck thats as long as some of the ancient Koa island boards of Hawaii!
Surfs up!
BTW: They say most of the weight is from the battery.
Are you kidding?!? Apple half sponsored the Hellmouth. Macs were prominently displayed on Buffy. Happy to see another whedonite here! How about that Avengers news?
On topic: I have an AMD Phenom II PC that I built, which has been great. I've had no issues with it and it's given me great bang for my buck. It's like saying that Coke is better than Pepsi...or macs are better than PC's for that matter...both have their place, and both are good products...
OSX is pretty portable so if they don't get their way with one vendor then they can easily move to another.
While OSX may be portable, those who have the older G4 Power chips might disagree with the loss of support with Snow Leopard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
Seemingly, Apple's frustrations with CPU manufacturers may eventually have them creating their own CPUs at all levels of their products. Time will tell.
While IMO there has been some widening in relations between Apple and Intel, putting AMD in the mix will give Apple more latitude. Seems that Apple has lost some of its favoritism with Intel. Apple use to have top priority with Intel in supply of chips and was the first in line to review new ones.
A question arises with Intel's acquisition of Wind River and its move into the Smart Phone territory might cause a further widening rift between Intel and Apple.
Apple could be wooing AMD into a deal similar to the IBM, Motorola and Apple alliance that produced the Power PC chips--or course all of this is pure speculation my my part.
While OSX may be portable, those who have the older G4 Power chips might disagree with the loss of support with Snow Leopard.
While IMO there has been some widening in relations between Apple and Intel, putting AMD in the mix will give Apple more latitude. Seems that Apple has lost some of its favoritism with Intel. Apple use to have top priority with Intel in supply of chips and was the first in line to review new ones.
A question arises with Intel's acquisition of Wind River and its move into the Smart Phone territory might cause a further widening rift between Intel and Apple.
Apple could be wooing AMD into a deal similar to the IBM, Motorola and Apple alliance that produced the Power PC chips--or course all of this is pure speculation my my part.
Wonder if it's possible the long awaited release of the Mac Pro has anything to do with this? Hopefully NOT.
You seem oblivious to "modern" day tech. It matters not what the market looked like 6 years ago. The PPC 60x series were not multicore until the very ends and the development tools were nowhere as sophisticated as they are today. We cannot glean much from what the market was like a half decade ago and apply it to today and future computing needs.
AMDs roadmap, on paper, is strong for 2011 provided they hit their targets and deliver.
You miss my point altogether - it has to do with writing code for processors that are seemingly the same but very different on the inside. I am very aware of how multicore technology has evolved.
The fact is that software is where the biggest bottleneck is in performance right now. I dare say if we had a good model for using the resources that are available to us for the silicon providers we could get much more out of what we already have. Why make the model more complex by adding a new flavor?
The sophistication of the development tools has a lot more to do with how easy it is to do the kind of things that allow us to reuse code and build on stuff we already have done. In the last 25 years I have seen great advances in our ability to express ourselves and abstract our code to take away from the iron but that has little to do with the processor. Can you expand on how this?
I am quite surprised to say that we can learn nothing from history - remember what happens when you do not learn from it. You are doomed with this attitude.
Will an AMD iMac/Macbook be able to run programs like Parallels or Bootcamp. If not--I'm sorry to say but I just won't be able to bring myself to update my iMac or Macbook. It's disappointing enough that an article suggests they are thinking of switching over to AMD because it's "cheaper" (since when did Apple go for cheap?), but not having the freedom to choose which OS I want to use is real burden to me. Nevertheless, I prefer functionality over easiness/luxury in the long run. Sorry Apple.
...that kind of piracy... ...especially in China where IP is not very well respected.
Seeing some of the stuff from there knockoff district has amazed me. These guys have made it a real art to reverse engineer stuff. I think that what is really respected there is the ability to copy.
Not to be too anal-retentive, but I think the author meant "advance" discussions, not "advanced."
I have noticed that the grammar and spelling on AI has been in a state of decline lately! Hopefully my post will be taken as constructive, as I am a big fan of the site, and start every morning my coming here to see what is new in the world of Apple!
-Josh
Actually, isn't "advanced" an adjective which modifies the noun "discussions?"
Note that I state the following under speculation #1
Speculation 1 - Apple adopts AMD processors
Ok, this one is out there but not outside the realm of possibility. By adopting AMD processors, Apple could open several doors for the Mac. I highlight two:
1. It could strengthen Apple's bargaining position with Intel over microprocessor supply and prices. A pure play on buyer and supplier power.
2 Differentiation - Adding AMD as a chip supplier will allow Apple to further differentiate and segment both the portable Mac lineup and its customers. This segmentation could occur at the feature and price sensitivity levels. The precedent was set when Apple lowered Mac prices in 2009. It's no secret that the MacBook and MacBook Pro models do not differ substantially (see Apple's comparison table) even though Apple rebranded the 13-inch aluminum MacBook as a MacBook Pro in June 2009 and now classifies the white polycarbonate model as the only MacBook. Adding a new microprocessor supplier could help differentiate the portable lineup.
I can see amd cpu's in macbooks but not in macbook pro's. Apple will not lower the price and if the put in an amd in macbook pro's but do not lower the price significantly they will start to go back to how they were right before the change over to x86.
Unless they plan on doing what Dell does. Have an amd and intel version.
Apple positions itself as a premium brand, it would hurt their image if they begin cheaping out on parts. People are willing to pay more money for a PREMIUM computer. Despite quality or performance, AMD is seen as a budget brand. Switching to Intel legitimized Apple as a quality brand, and Apple has grown leaps and bounds because of it. Why fix something that is not broken?
i don't think that the switch to intel 'legitimized apple as a quality brand'. i think it was a great move because of the 'you can run windows if you want to' aspect of it, so it gave switchers another reason, but the quality of the brand was already established.
with apple's highest growth being in the consumer market, i'm not sure how important the brand of the cpu is. apple doesn't take intel's cobranding money, so there have never been any 'intel inside' stickers on them. i wonder how many of apple's customers know or care what's inside.
With OpenCL in Snow Leopard Apple could switch to AMD and not lose any processing performance, right? Wouldn't apps be able to take advantage of better, ATI, graphics to make up for slightly weaker processor speed?
Comments
Might be interesting. And it seems at least as likely as Apple going to AMD despite not even using Intel's latest chip offerings when they come out. What's the point of changing suppliers if you're not even taking full advantage of your current one?
I understand that Apple wants to get great deals on chips, but no way they should be satisfied with possibly getting 80% performance at 60% cost. They need to get 100% performance at all times when possible. If AMD can deliver, more power to them. I personally wouldn't buy an AMD-based Mac. I've had minor stability issues with them on the Windows side.
Even if AMD could deliver 110% performance at 60% of the cost I would not go there. If we were talking about manufacturing of a licensed design I might (as in Apple A4 for the iPad) but that is not what AMD produces. AMD does there own thing their own way.
With the sort of tweaking that is being done in software these days to try and wring out the max hp from every engine I do not think it is the time to try to add a diesel or rotary to the bunch just to insure supply. It would require a fair amount of engineering effort to optimize two different architectures for speed ups and then they would not be 'across the board' but possibly only for one family (remember the 601, 603, 604 PPC optimizations?).
AMD delivers Intel "compatible" processors. They are very different processors. Where do you usually see these on the Windows side - in the lower tier price conscious lower end. Apple seems to be able to do fine with Intel stuff for the moment. If Apple can use this for some sort of bargaining chip then go for it but I don't want one.
I think what you end up with with multiple processor suppliers in this case is fewer choices available for the consumer and in my mind that is a bad thing.
Seemingly, Apple's frustrations with CPU manufacturers may eventually have them creating their own CPUs at all levels of their products. Time will tell.
Even if AMD could deliver 110% performance at 60% of the cost I would not go there. If we were talking about manufacturing of a licensed design I might (as in Apple A4 for the iPad) but that is not what AMD produces. AMD does there own thing their own way.
With the sort of tweaking that is being done in software these days to try and wring out the max hp from every engine I do not think it is the time to try to add a diesel or rotary to the bunch just to insure supply. It would require a fair amount of engineering effort to optimize two different architectures for speed ups and then they would not be 'across the board' but possibly only for one family (remember the 601, 603, 604 PPC optimizations?).
AMD delivers Intel "compatible" processors. They are very different processors. Where do you usually see these on the Windows side - in the lower tier price conscious lower end. Apple seems to be able to do fine with Intel stuff for the moment. If Apple can use this for some sort of bargaining chip then go for it but I don't want one.
I think what you end up with with multiple processor suppliers in this case is fewer choices available for the consumer and in my mind that is a bad thing.
You seem oblivious to "modern" day tech. It matters not what the market looked like 6 years ago. The PPC 60x series were not multicore until the very ends and the development tools were nowhere as sophisticated as they are today. We cannot glean much from what the market was like a half decade ago and apply it to today and future computing needs.
AMDs roadmap, on paper, is strong for 2011 provided they hit their targets and deliver.
Apple had OS X running on Intel years before the switch. I would be willing to be large sums of money they have OS X already running very well on AMD if they ever did decided to go that route.
Apple is a very forward thinking company. A decision like this would not be made without much forethought.
Apple has become very protective of OS X, and after the recent Pystar debacle, it would not surprise me at all if they eventually move to proprietary chips across the entire line to prevent that kind of piracy from happening again, especially in China where IP is not very well respected. Now that Macs are reaching the 10% threshold and provided Apple can learn to work with partners like AMD, a new CPU could prove beneficial in that regard.
Rosetta2 for legacy Intel compatibility.
You seem oblivious to "modern" day tech. It matters not what the market looked like 6 years ago. The PPC 60x series were not multicore until the very ends and the development tools were nowhere as sophisticated as they are today. We cannot glean much from what the market was like a half decade ago and apply it to today and future computing needs.
AMDs roadmap, on paper, is strong for 2011 provided they hit their targets and deliver.
I couldn't agree anymore
If AMD are good enough for CRAY then im sure its good for me
by the way amd optrons wins hands down in multi cpu setups.
I don't want this to happen—EVER!!!
Despite what some people here think, there is no advantage going to crippled AMD, and some big dangers. AMD is nowhere near as reliable as Intel, and as usual, they are behind in every area that matters.
I have no respect for anyone running AMD. None at all.
Oh boy.
I wonder if disagreeing with a moderator on AppleInsider gets one into trouble? (Yes, I just have to ask. Hoping it doesn't.)
I'd politely suggest that your viewpoint here is incorrect. I don't know where you got your reliability information for AMD versus Intel, but the source should be double-checked--it sounds highly dubious. I've been in the business of assembling systems for a long time for all kinds of roles--everything from end user desktops to servers to appliance "things" that center around a computer (such as surveillance or TV DVRs and FreeNAS boxes).
Some have Intel processors while others have AMD CPUs. The split is roughly 50% of each. There have been some odd failures along the way, but never has a microprocessor failed. Nor has the rate of failure been skewed to suggest that one platform is any more reliable than the other. I use good quality components, build things to have a reasonable lifetime, and don't try to cut corners somewhere.
If anything has given AMD's products a black eye here, I'd say that it had to be the number of unscrupulous dealers who took advantage of the fact that an AMD processor could cost less and paired it with junk (motherboard, case, PSU, etc) to get a system out the door for an unbelievable price. I've seen this done many times--and it's not AMD's fault. Is it easy to blame them? Yes, it is. Is it correct? Absolutely not.
Furthermore, look around sometime and see how many AMD products you find. They're very big in the embedded microprocessor market, both x86 (Geode or 80186 based products) and non-x86 (Elan family and others, though it seems these have been discontinued). Apple has used AMD products before, usually at the heart of their LaserWriter printers. (And you don't have to look hard to find a LaserWriter still soldering along--I'd wager that many of the long time participants in this forum still have at least one. I have two.)
Do I hope to change your mind? Get you to use an AMD product? No, I don't. To think that I am is to miss my point. Intel's products are (for the most part*) excellent. I do hope that you might reconsider the "no respect" bits and maybe look further into the source that suggested AMD products were unreliable.
It must also be considered that AMD's lead in graphics technology (though through the acquisition of ATI) is considerable as compared to what Intel has. I hate to say that, as I really do like the Intel IGPs for what they are.
Disclaimers: I am not in any way affiliated with or employed by/for AMD. I am somewhat partial to their products and have been since the days of the Am486 CPU. However, I have just as many Intel-based boxen running as I do AMD--and all work fine.
* look sometime at the P4 processors. The Pentium 3 could give many early P4s a run for their money when running most programs, especially those that hadn't been optimized for a P4. Northwoods P4s were pretty good in most regards. The S478 and LGA775 Prescott processors, on the other hand, had a lousy performance to power consumption ratio. In addition, the thermal design power of the Prescott was poised to go through the roof. These things became such problems that Intel tossed out much of the work that was being done for future P4 CPUs and went back to the Pentium M mobile stuff (itself based on the P3) as the basis for all the Core/Core2/iX CPUs that followed.
That's why the 13' MacBooks have not moved to Core i3.
The nice thing about that 13 foot model is that with a little waterproofing you can actually surf the ocean and the net at the same time. Heck thats as long as some of the ancient Koa island boards of Hawaii!
Surfs up!
BTW: They say most of the weight is from the battery.
Noooooooo!!!!!
Apple must stay clear of the Hellmouth!!!
(yes, I know its Sunnydale)
Are you kidding?!? Apple half sponsored the Hellmouth. Macs were prominently displayed on Buffy. Happy to see another whedonite here! How about that Avengers news?
On topic: I have an AMD Phenom II PC that I built, which has been great. I've had no issues with it and it's given me great bang for my buck. It's like saying that Coke is better than Pepsi...or macs are better than PC's for that matter...both have their place, and both are good products...
OSX is pretty portable so if they don't get their way with one vendor then they can easily move to another.
While OSX may be portable, those who have the older G4 Power chips might disagree with the loss of support with Snow Leopard.
Seemingly, Apple's frustrations with CPU manufacturers may eventually have them creating their own CPUs at all levels of their products. Time will tell.
While IMO there has been some widening in relations between Apple and Intel, putting AMD in the mix will give Apple more latitude. Seems that Apple has lost some of its favoritism with Intel. Apple use to have top priority with Intel in supply of chips and was the first in line to review new ones.
A question arises with Intel's acquisition of Wind River and its move into the Smart Phone territory might cause a further widening rift between Intel and Apple.
Apple could be wooing AMD into a deal similar to the IBM, Motorola and Apple alliance that produced the Power PC chips--or course all of this is pure speculation my my part.
While OSX may be portable, those who have the older G4 Power chips might disagree with the loss of support with Snow Leopard.
While IMO there has been some widening in relations between Apple and Intel, putting AMD in the mix will give Apple more latitude. Seems that Apple has lost some of its favoritism with Intel. Apple use to have top priority with Intel in supply of chips and was the first in line to review new ones.
A question arises with Intel's acquisition of Wind River and its move into the Smart Phone territory might cause a further widening rift between Intel and Apple.
Apple could be wooing AMD into a deal similar to the IBM, Motorola and Apple alliance that produced the Power PC chips--or course all of this is pure speculation my my part.
Wonder if it's possible the long awaited release of the Mac Pro has anything to do with this? Hopefully NOT.
You seem oblivious to "modern" day tech. It matters not what the market looked like 6 years ago. The PPC 60x series were not multicore until the very ends and the development tools were nowhere as sophisticated as they are today. We cannot glean much from what the market was like a half decade ago and apply it to today and future computing needs.
AMDs roadmap, on paper, is strong for 2011 provided they hit their targets and deliver.
You miss my point altogether - it has to do with writing code for processors that are seemingly the same but very different on the inside. I am very aware of how multicore technology has evolved.
The fact is that software is where the biggest bottleneck is in performance right now. I dare say if we had a good model for using the resources that are available to us for the silicon providers we could get much more out of what we already have. Why make the model more complex by adding a new flavor?
The sophistication of the development tools has a lot more to do with how easy it is to do the kind of things that allow us to reuse code and build on stuff we already have done. In the last 25 years I have seen great advances in our ability to express ourselves and abstract our code to take away from the iron but that has little to do with the processor. Can you expand on how this?
I am quite surprised to say that we can learn nothing from history - remember what happens when you do not learn from it. You are doomed with this attitude.
...that kind of piracy... ...especially in China where IP is not very well respected.
Seeing some of the stuff from there knockoff district has amazed me. These guys have made it a real art to reverse engineer stuff. I think that what is really respected there is the ability to copy.
Wonder if it's possible the long awaited release of the Mac Pro has anything to do with this? Hopefully NOT.
IMO no.
Not to be too anal-retentive, but I think the author meant "advance" discussions, not "advanced."
I have noticed that the grammar and spelling on AI has been in a state of decline lately! Hopefully my post will be taken as constructive, as I am a big fan of the site, and start every morning my coming here to see what is new in the world of Apple!
-Josh
Actually, isn't "advanced" an adjective which modifies the noun "discussions?"
Note that I state the following under speculation #1
Speculation 1 - Apple adopts AMD processors
Ok, this one is out there but not outside the realm of possibility. By adopting AMD processors, Apple could open several doors for the Mac. I highlight two:
1. It could strengthen Apple's bargaining position with Intel over microprocessor supply and prices. A pure play on buyer and supplier power.
2 Differentiation - Adding AMD as a chip supplier will allow Apple to further differentiate and segment both the portable Mac lineup and its customers. This segmentation could occur at the feature and price sensitivity levels. The precedent was set when Apple lowered Mac prices in 2009. It's no secret that the MacBook and MacBook Pro models do not differ substantially (see Apple's comparison table) even though Apple rebranded the 13-inch aluminum MacBook as a MacBook Pro in June 2009 and now classifies the white polycarbonate model as the only MacBook. Adding a new microprocessor supplier could help differentiate the portable lineup.
Unless they plan on doing what Dell does. Have an amd and intel version.
Apple positions itself as a premium brand, it would hurt their image if they begin cheaping out on parts. People are willing to pay more money for a PREMIUM computer. Despite quality or performance, AMD is seen as a budget brand. Switching to Intel legitimized Apple as a quality brand, and Apple has grown leaps and bounds because of it. Why fix something that is not broken?
i don't think that the switch to intel 'legitimized apple as a quality brand'. i think it was a great move because of the 'you can run windows if you want to' aspect of it, so it gave switchers another reason, but the quality of the brand was already established.
with apple's highest growth being in the consumer market, i'm not sure how important the brand of the cpu is. apple doesn't take intel's cobranding money, so there have never been any 'intel inside' stickers on them. i wonder how many of apple's customers know or care what's inside.