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>
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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
<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.
<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.
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.
<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.
<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.
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...
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?
[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.
<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! :-)
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?
<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And this puts IBM in a good light?
[quote]<strong>
They make several complete platforms, {...}
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but you're still trying to make a complicated point about why x86 isn't the industry standard platform. Just because x86 is the industry standard doesn't mean it has a perfect monopoly. Windows is the industry standard operating system. It runs on x86. Microsoft is not an illusion. Perhaps you wish it were, but it's not.
As far as you suggesting that the only chip manufacturers competing with Intel are those that produce similar chips, you're wrong. All chip manufacturers belong to an oligopoly. It doesn't matter who decides to use them. They all have to build and maintain markets.
[quote]<strong>
The occasional speed lead is certainly welcome, but it's never been necessary to the success of the platform.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since when? Your whole agrument is based on ideology--BETA vs. VHS. In a commodoty market speed is one of the staples of product evolution. When was the last time you saw any product that offers speed as a benefit not marketing how fast it is?
[quote]<strong>
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),
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does ugly and unwieldy have to do with anything? I'm not going to put it on my coffee table. It's going into a BOX. You do realize this is how DELL and other PC manufacturers makes a living, right?
[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The processors are not more expensive. Apple wouldn't have to deal with the "full complexity" of a commodity motherboard if they didn't want to. As far as slowing down Apple--how much slower do we have to get before I can run along side the car? You're trying to support the 970 which, knowing Apple and IBM, won't be ready for another two years. GNU Darwin runs on AMD now. Using price, speed, or speculating R&D costs is no basis for this argument.
[quote]<strong>
Apple would be a small fry customer locked into adapting Microsoft's design choices to their own uses,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not even going to bother with the rest.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<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?
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>
\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!
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).
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.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<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>
<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>
<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.
<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.
<strong>The Pentium 4 looks more and more like Word 6.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cool - did word also use 100 watt to run?
<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
<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
<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?
[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]" />
<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
<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]" />
<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And this puts IBM in a good light?
[quote]<strong>
They make several complete platforms, {...}
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but you're still trying to make a complicated point about why x86 isn't the industry standard platform. Just because x86 is the industry standard doesn't mean it has a perfect monopoly. Windows is the industry standard operating system. It runs on x86. Microsoft is not an illusion. Perhaps you wish it were, but it's not.
As far as you suggesting that the only chip manufacturers competing with Intel are those that produce similar chips, you're wrong. All chip manufacturers belong to an oligopoly. It doesn't matter who decides to use them. They all have to build and maintain markets.
[quote]<strong>
The occasional speed lead is certainly welcome, but it's never been necessary to the success of the platform.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since when? Your whole agrument is based on ideology--BETA vs. VHS. In a commodoty market speed is one of the staples of product evolution. When was the last time you saw any product that offers speed as a benefit not marketing how fast it is?
[quote]<strong>
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),
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does ugly and unwieldy have to do with anything? I'm not going to put it on my coffee table.
[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The processors are not more expensive. Apple wouldn't have to deal with the "full complexity" of a commodity motherboard if they didn't want to. As far as slowing down Apple--how much slower do we have to get before I can run along side the car? You're trying to support the 970 which, knowing Apple and IBM, won't be ready for another two years. GNU Darwin runs on AMD now. Using price, speed, or speculating R&D costs is no basis for this argument.
[quote]<strong>
Apple would be a small fry customer locked into adapting Microsoft's design choices to their own uses,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not even going to bother with the rest.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay people, it's time to stop feeding the troll.
Screed
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
<strong>
Okay people, it's time to stop feeding the troll.
Screed</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excuse me? Hey, have you read the board rules lately? I take offense to that remark.