CONFIRMED: Apple will NOT use AMD in the near future
[quote]eWEEK: What would the addition of Apple [Computer Inc.] to the 64-bit industry mean to AMD, to the industry?
Ruiz: First of all, I have no indication that Apple is even considering what we make.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]When asked if he was aware of any Apple interest in AMD chips, Ruiz said "you know, if they were I couldn't tell you, and if they're not I shouldn't tell you. But I think it would be an interesting relationship if that ever really happened." <hr></blockquote>
Incase you don't know, Ruiz is AMD CEO Hector de Ruiz. this was from an article by eweek <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741273,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741273,00.asp</a>;
So this basicly confirms it. If the CEO doesn't have any knowledge, and just "things it would be interesting" we can let this stupid rumor die.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
Ruiz: First of all, I have no indication that Apple is even considering what we make.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]When asked if he was aware of any Apple interest in AMD chips, Ruiz said "you know, if they were I couldn't tell you, and if they're not I shouldn't tell you. But I think it would be an interesting relationship if that ever really happened." <hr></blockquote>
Incase you don't know, Ruiz is AMD CEO Hector de Ruiz. this was from an article by eweek <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741273,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741273,00.asp</a>;
So this basicly confirms it. If the CEO doesn't have any knowledge, and just "things it would be interesting" we can let this stupid rumor die.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
Comments
[quote]I've heard rumors going around. But you know it would be interesting because at some point in time if Apple is going to do a 64-bit version, they're going to face the decision, what do they do for it? I cannot picture Apple putting an Itanium in their stuff. So I think if they're going to do that they're going to figure out some way to get a PowerPC version of that. Or they're going to have to consider one of the alternatives we offer and see there's many more than that.<hr></blockquote>
Emphasis mine. This only makes the case stronger, in my view.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>Thank God and I agree with all my heart. Now if we could only get the CEO of IBM to admit that the 970 will be used in Apples next year all would be right in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, and why we're all at it, why don't we just fix stock prices as well?
Besides, you have absolutely no idea what is going on inside AMD right now, how do you know this hasn't been in the works for a while?
Not that I think Apple will go with AMD at all, quite the contrary.
<strong>Taken out of context.
Emphasis mine. This only makes the case stronger, in my view.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point was that Ruiz stated that he has no knowledge of Apple making plans with AMD for them to produce chips for Apple. That is clear, and not taken out of context.
Look at the first quote I took. That is not taken out of context, and is a straight quote. It is very clear to me, I don't see why otehrs don't get it.
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
<strong>Guys if Apple was going to use an AMD chip in anything but a server then AMD would have to prepare a chip with Altivec and then would take long preparation and cooperation...might it happen..maybe...is it going to happen in 2003?...no...Apple switch to IBM based chips...if they have another bad experience like they did with moto then AMD is one of their options...but I really dougt IBM will let them down...</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM has already let them down, through the AIM alliance. To suggest that MOTU is the only culprit responsible for the lack of gusto behind the G4 is an obtuse perception of the big picture. Many people are steering this argument towards the chips--however it's not about the chips, it's about the opportunity to compete within the bounds of an industry standard.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Translation, if they have any collaboration, weather for a real product or simply for research on a possable product is is covered by an NDA, so he can neirther confirm or deny it. However it is somtheing that he might be interested in if Apple has or will contact AMD about it. I would be willing to bet that Apple has, though I doubt that they have a real product that they are planning with such a collaboration within the next 12 months. Remember that Jobs said, (parphrased) "... we like options, and with once the move to OS X is complete we will have more options"
<strong>My point was that Ruiz stated that he has no knowledge of Apple making plans with AMD for them to produce chips for Apple. That is clear, and not taken out of context.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what if Ruiz stated that he does have knowledge of Apple making plans with AMD?
Just because Ruiz does not admit to plans with Apple does not mean anything. To put it bluntly, in corporate America it's called covering your ass.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
IBM has already let them down, through the AIM alliance. To suggest that MOTU is the only culprit responsible for the lack of gusto behind the G4 is an obtuse perception of the big picture. Many people are steering this argument towards the chips--however it's not about the chips, it's about the opportunity to compete within the bounds of an industry standard.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple did a lot to hurt the AIM aliance, and the viability of the Power PC when they killed the clones, thus limiting the potential customer base for the Power PC chips. IBM had plans to market the CHRP as an alternate design to the X86 archetecture, but at the time of the demise of the clones t here was only one marketable OS for the platform. If I have the timeline correct IBM killed the CHRP shortly after Apple killed the clones.
They did more to hurt their chances when they signed on with a single supplier, Motorolla, for the G4, which IBM could only produce enough of to cover Motorolla's inabiltiy to deliver sufficient supplies of the G4 chip. They run the risk of doing this again with the 970, but if it can take them another 18-24 monts then Apple will have the flexability to switch platforms without pissing of developers too much, since the move to another platform for Carbon and Cocoa Apps will be relatively painless, and most if not all currently marketed software will have been updated to these API's by then.
<strong>....in other words, if I guy tells you that he never masturbates ?? do you believe him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
And what if Ruiz stated that he does have knowledge of Apple making plans with AMD?
Just because Ruiz does not admit to plans with Apple does not mean anything. To put it bluntly, in corporate America it's called covering your ass.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
But this comment is what I am talking about:
[quote]When asked if he was aware of any Apple interest in AMD chips, Ruiz said "you know, if they were I couldn't tell you, and if they're not I shouldn't tell you. But I think it would be an interesting relationship if that ever really happened."
<hr></blockquote>
What this says to me is that, if Apple had contacted them, he would make no comment. If Apple hadn't contacted him, he shouldn't say (but why? They are under no NDA to say that Apple has never contacted them...) But since he says "if it ever really happened" that is a statement saying nothing has happened between Apple and AMD, for if somethign was happening, why would he say "if it ever really happened"? By saying if, that means nothing at this point has happened.
Also the fact that he is speculating at all would mean that he has no deal with Apple, as he said above he wouldn't comment.
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
<strong>They run the risk of doing this again with the 970, but if it can take them another 18-24 monts then Apple will have the flexability to switch platforms without pissing of developers too much, since the move to another platform for Carbon and Cocoa Apps will be relatively painless, and most if not all currently marketed software will have been updated to these API's by then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But where does that leave the Apple consumer? One of the reasons people seem to want this migration to occur is the need for speed. How can IBM guarantee it will deliver a competitive product against Intel?
It's really the fault of the box manufacturers, especially Apple. Apple tried to position the PPC in people's mind as the next generation of computing power. Did they think Intel would just sit back and allow the public to think Apple had faster processors? Certainly not. So the MHz wars started, and now consumers are very educated about processor speed. Even my ten year old nephew knows about processor speed. It's that important. So are we about to start another "burn baby burn" fiasco? If Apple doesn't hop the fence while it still has a chance, then we, as loyal Apple customers, will continue to pay the price for bad business decisions.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>What this says to me is that, if Apple had contacted them, he would make no comment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kupan, forgive me, but you seem to be reading into this without a thorough understanding of corporate politics. Ruiz has reputations to protect as well as diplomatic obligations to protect shareholders' investments. This is a very delicate subject and he's handled it well. I think you're trying to read between the lines in favor of your argument--however, what a man says and what a man does are two entirely different things.
As I do not have the time to educate one on the finer points of the Corporate Management PR Machine, this is all I can offer as rebuttal.
I've noticed a lot of developers talking about what a possible migration from Apple to x86 would involve. There seems to be a great deal of speculation about whether it would work or not.
It would be best not to piss these people off with rumors of "reinventing the wheel again" floating around the office, don't you think?
It is in any company's better interest to keep "water cooler chat" at a minimum to avoid conflicts among employees. Employees, after all, have an invested interest in the company they work for, and if the CEO were to announce an unsubstantiated change prematurely, it may cause disasterous results.
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>I'm sorry, but if he says "I have no indication that Apple is even considering what we make" and it turns out that they've been in negotiations, that is an indictable offense.
Apple has no plans to use AMD. Period. He is not "covering his ass"
With all do respect, you are completely wrong. The comment "I have no indication that Apple is even considering what we make" is an obvious cover up to protect AMDs/Apple's stock prices from inflating. In fact, this is the biggest cover your ass statement I've ever heard. Do you expect me to believe Ruiz is sitting in his office twiddling his thumbs and has no connections with Apple whatsoever?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
As far as Apple not having plans to use AMD, "period"... if you can get a written statement from an officer of Apple Computer to verify this then I'll take your word for it. Until then, I suggest you keep your melodrama out of board room and rather save it for the ABC Afterschool Special.
<strong>
Apple did a lot to hurt the AIM aliance, and the viability of the Power PC when they killed the clones, thus limiting the potential customer base for the Power PC chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This has been discussed before, but it bears repeating. Killing the clones did not limit the market for the PowerPC because they sold to the same customers as Apple. They cut the pie into smaller slices rather than increasing the size of the pie.
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>
IBM had plans to market the CHRP as an alternate design to the X86 archetecture, but at the time of the demise of the clones t here was only one marketable OS for the platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You clearly don't understand CHRP. It is a firmware standard, not a processor standard. This firmware standard has been ported to PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, x86, MIPS, PA-RISC, ARM, StrongARM, and 680x0.
You are also just plain wrong about the operating systems available for CHRP. PPC-based CHRP machines running Windows NT were manufactured and sold. Microsoft dropped development of this non-Intel version of NT when AIM refused to pay M$ for its development.
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>
If I have the timeline correct IBM killed the CHRP shortly after Apple killed the clones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would seem that you have the timeline very wrong. CHRP is very much alive. My PowerBook is a CHRP machine.
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Mr. Me ]</p>
<strong>
. . . Many people are steering this argument towards the chips--however it's not about the chips, it's about the opportunity to compete within the bounds of an industry standard.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The "industry standard" is not just an x86 box, it is an x86 box running Windows OS. Apple cannot compete within this "standard." The word 'standard' is misused here, mostly by the Wintel crowd. It is a platform and there are standards for this platform. Apple has a different platform with different standards.