Apple To Debut Intel-Based Computers At MW SF 2004?

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Here is a comment from The Register. "Itanium server sales reached record levels in the second quarter, as Intel's chip surged into the lead as the slowest selling server processor." The Register frequently refers to this chip as the Itanic. It is not being adopted well by anyone except HP, who is co-inventor of the architecture.



    Apple has a good relationship with IBM and IBM is out to sink the Itanic. So Apple should use it? Illogical. Does not compute.
  • Reply 62 of 80
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    NaplesX, I would like to see link to that article.



    Also, why would IBM spend billions of dollars on new chip facilities, and R&D for the 970, and beyond just to drop it all, and start blowing intel? Apple said they researched using intel in the stevenote, and he said no way as far as I can remember. I don't see apple using AMD for servers either. What the heck is that supposed to accomplish? Apples server software already supports everything, and there is no need to use a x86 processor for it.

    Also once 3GHz G5's start rolling out of IBM's facilities all x86's are going to be dust in the wind. It makes no sense.




    I dhould have prefaced that post with:



    This is how you might write a fake press release.



    Sorry wrote it in haste
  • Reply 63 of 80
    "Apple was working on an Intel based machine for the education market only. It ran OS X but with a fixed and limited software suite (presumably to minimize compatibility issues). The idea was to get a very cheap educational alternative into the market. "



    Precisely what I have been told by a Mac Reseller. Surely an Intel chip through sheer weight of numbers would be a cheaper chip? Run OSX on it, sell it cheap and get a new generation of Mac users strated who can then move up the food chain to G5s. It's the OS that will engender loyalty. Ease of use and the realisation that it's actually not that hard to use once you try it. The bottom line is that the single biggest hindrance to Mac conversion is the bottom line. Money. Do we really care who makes the chip as long as it runs the OS?



    I think this story has legs
  • Reply 64 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by witsend

    "Apple was working on an Intel based machine for the education market only. It ran OS X but with a fixed and limited software suite (presumably to minimize compatibility issues). The idea was to get a very cheap educational alternative into the market. "



    Precisely what I have been told by a Mac Reseller. Surely an Intel chip through sheer weight of numbers would be a cheaper chip? Run OSX on it, sell it cheap and get a new generation of Mac users strated who can then move up the food chain to G5s. It's the OS that will engender loyalty. Ease of use and the realisation that it's actually not that hard to use once you try it. The bottom line is that the single biggest hindrance to Mac conversion is the bottom line. Money. Do we really care who makes the chip as long as it runs the OS?



    I think this story has legs




    Apple would be better served by building thin clients that could be netbooted off of the schools server, possibly with a large enough HD to keep the client up when then network goes down. Or building an EDU only version of the eMac without the "extras" like modem, firewire, and AirPort antenna/slot. These are wasted on most networed computers anyway.



    The whole OS X on intel opens Apple up to unlicensed (hacked) conversions of OS X to non-Apple hardware, and isnt Apple a hardware company? This would be one of the worst things for Apple's ability to compete in the low end market, they would loose most of their consumer hardware sales to Dell and be in worse shape than when they were licensing to clone manufacturers.



    If they were going to do it they would have had to give developers guidence at ADC last year so that they could be ready to recopile for the new processors. Also, they might get in trouble with investers (regulators?) for making such a radical change in direction of the platform with no public notice, opening themselves up to at minimum a few lawsuits at least. Lets not forget that Apple is a public company, and most information coming out of Apple in the last 12 months has indicated a continued dedication to the PowerPC as the center of their platform.
  • Reply 65 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    In other words, Apple could probably make a cheaper machine, rather than bringing in a whole new architecture.



    Then why don't they? As Apple's education market share declines and industry articles quote schools who consistantly list price as a major reason for the switch, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the reason is that "they don't want to." Apple needs market share, Apple knows that it needs market share, and this particular market segment where they have long been a leader has evolved into one that is largely cost driven.



    RE: Intel on Mac. Understand that I am not arguing that it's necessarily a good idea or even likely, I'm just trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for information that I was given.
  • Reply 66 of 80
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by neumac

    Then why don't they?



    Because, as a solutions provider, they can't put aside the question of suitability.



    Fred Anderson recently made an interesting presentation in NYC (well, the content is interesting - Anderson is many things, but he's not a riveting public speaker). Apple has noticed that educational desktop sales are flat over a matter of years, while laptop sales have risen steadily, with no signs of slowing down - from 6% to 28% of overall sales over some 5 years. Now, Apple's overall education share just ticked upward to 16% last quarter, but here's the interesting bit: Apple's share of laptop sales to education is 30%, up from 24% last year. They're focusing on "one on one" laptop sales; that is, deals like the ones in Maine and Henrico County where each student gets an iBook, because from an educational standpoint this gets better results and from a business point of view it's where the growth is in education. From a competitive point of view, what's Dell's answer to the iBook?



    So the answer to your question lies in the question I punted for the sake of addressing the attractiveness of using an x86 platform: Laptops are better education machines, and schools, having figured this out, are buying laptops. Dell can have a larger share of a dying sector while Apple gains share in the growth sector (Anderson revealed that there are a number of Maine-style sales in the works). In the medium term this means that overall share might not change much; but when laptop sales exceed 50%, Apple will start pulling away (assuming that Dell doesn't come up with some sort of response, which I admit is an unrealistic assumption - they didn't get where they are by selling into shrinking markets). Even if Dell manages to field a competing solution in the laptop space, they'll be playing on Apple's turf, rather than Apple having to play on Dell's.



    Quote:

    As Apple's education market share declines and industry articles quote schools who consistantly list price as a major reason for the switch, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the reason is that "they don't want to." Apple needs market share, Apple knows that it needs market share, and this particular market segment where they have long been a leader has evolved into one that is largely cost driven.



    The numbers that Anderson gave belie this argument, even given the fact that the cost of the iBooks to Maine and Henrico County is not much more than the cost of the Dell desktops. For one, Apple has stopped their decline in share and even reclaimed a few percentage points, and for another they're targeting their sales into a growing market driven by the increased effectiveness of having a computer that the students can take with them (and featuring a computer that Dell doesn't have an answer for).



    Quote:

    RE: Intel on Mac. Understand that I am not arguing that it's necessarily a good idea or even likely, I'm just trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for information that I was given.



    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple did in fact try it. They'd be foolish not to explore all their options, given that they're in an uphill struggle against a dangerous competitor in a market that (again, by Anderson's account) accounts for 1/3 of their sales and a crucial part of their legacy. The strategy they ended up taking seems sound, though. They're definitely taking the long view, which is a good thing.
  • Reply 67 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Because, as a solutions provider, they can't put aside the question of suitability.



    Thanks, Amorph, It does make sense as you've spelled it out.



    One of the things that has puzzled me was Apple's apparent reluctance to compete with Dell in the educational desktop market. Most of the market share studies that I referred to were 1 to 3 years old. Apparently Apple did respond, just not in a way that I recognized. I always have underestimated the iBook.
  • Reply 68 of 80
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    Fred Anderson says "You can see, we are getting more and more into the software business so that we become - over time - less dependent on hardware"



    Maybe there is more to this than we give credit for.
  • Reply 69 of 80
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    I'm sorry but this idea doesn't make a lick of sense anymore. Apple on Intel? Phasing out the chip that they just spent lots of money to help develop? Give it up!





    Beyond stupid. Way beyond.
  • Reply 70 of 80
    Why would Apple use Intel?



    You wouldn't worry ever worry about your computer being slower than a PC or 10x the price.



    Which equals a damn good thing if they offered both intel and x86. Cheep ones and Mercedes computers.



    Price is the #1 factor worldwide for computer sales. Which means Apple is pretty much f*cked ;-)
  • Reply 71 of 80
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by inkhead

    You wouldn't worry ever worry about your computer being slower than a PC or 10x the price.



    Well, according to Apple they have the fastest computer right now, and again, why would going Intel make the computer cheaper? PowerPCs are cheaper than Pentiums.
  • Reply 72 of 80
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    Take a step back, and consider what you would do if Apple were a software company. Wouldn't you release an x86 version of your OS? Imagine the size of the existing potential customer base. All you have to do is persuade some of the 95% to spend $129 and buy a copy of OSx86.



    Doesn't look so daft then, a software company just wants to sell as many copies as possible and doesn't care about the processor. Apple is not like that they make hardware and their profits are guaranteed by their hardware market share, after all when someone buys a Mac they have to run an Apple OS (I discount Linux).



    I am just point out that it is possible to concieve that they could be a stratergy here. I think it would be high risk, but you never know someone ould have to postulate very carefully before ever going down that route.
  • Reply 73 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Addison

    Take a step back, and consider what you would do if Apple were a software company. Wouldn't you release an x86 version of your OS? Imagine the size of the existing potential customer base. All you have to do is persuade some of the 95% to spend $129 and buy a copy of OSx86.



    Doesn't look so daft then, a software company just wants to sell as many copies as possible and doesn't care about the processor. Apple is not like that they make hardware and their profits are guaranteed by their hardware market share, after all when someone buys a Mac they have to run an Apple OS (I discount Linux).



    I am just point out that it is possible to concieve that they could be a stratergy here. I think it would be high risk, but you never know someone ould have to postulate very carefully before ever going down that route.






    Actually it still looks daft, because then you have to support it on another architecture, with all the different brands of vid cards,ect. and then you have to get people to write software for the OS. IBM tried this with OS/2, it could even run windows apps, and was better than windows. but it failed. too costly to support, plus, why run osx apps when you can run windows apps and since windows COMES with most machines... it would not succeed
  • Reply 74 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The General

    Actually it still looks daft, because then you have to support it on another architecture, with all the different brands of vid cards,ect. and then you have to get people to write software for the OS. IBM tried this with OS/2, it could even run windows apps, and was better than windows. but it failed. too costly to support, plus, why run osx apps when you can run windows apps and since windows COMES with most machines... it would not succeed



    If I recall correctly, reviews of OS X said that it ran Windows programs better than Windows, and OS 2 programs ran faster and more stable than the Windows programs and it still went T#ts up. No incentive for developers to port to a nitch OS.
  • Reply 75 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    This rumor is a total BS. What next ? : windows will be the next os for mac ?







    If that ever happened, which it won't, I would never (and I mean NEVER EVER EVER EVER) use a compuer again. That would be the end of it. Never again. That's why I'm glad that it won't happen.
  • Reply 76 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    REDMOND, Wash. - Sept. 02, 2003 -- Microsoft Corp. announced today that it will be entering talks with Apple Computer Corp. (Cupertino, California) to become an exclusive licensee for a PC based version of the wildly popular operating system OS X.



    LOL. You beat me too it. I was thinking of posting a fake rumor that Dell was going to abandon the x86 architecture in favor of the IBM 970.



    The idea that Apple would switch platforms at this point in time is beyond ridiculous, somewhere between plaid and a Moire pattern.



    It has been a struggle to switch people from OS 9 to OS X. Things are just settling down and Apple is gaining new found respect. Markets love stability. Apart from all the other negatives to this idea just the chaos of the transition could quite possibly sink Apple.



    Nevertheless, I am sure they have a mostly working version locked away as an insurance policy. Things would have to get very desperate before they cash in that policy. I for one, would dump my Apple stock in a heartbeat if I thought they were seriously considering this move.
  • Reply 77 of 80
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    OS X server on intel is believable -- 'hey don't bother paying huge licence costs for MS server. install OS X server unlimited on your existing hardware'
  • Reply 78 of 80
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    I can't say about 86 machines, i have always looked at apple as a software and hardware team, inseparable, apple has the look and feel i and many others want. I'm not sure of the Benfit of 86



    the edu and business saw first hand the advantages of windows, panic ruled my corp, but those with macs were productive, IT costs are lower with mac, and schools know that now. those schools that have mac weren't down, those that have windows scurried about filling holes. the constant undates drive people nuts, and on a network they don't all go so smoothly.



    when you talk costs talk total costs, a company or schooll can cut it's IT buget when using mac. Don't think this is not enticing some switchers. These cheap pc's are loss leaders, the expansion is in very high specialty end, and laptops. apple can compete with this. i like the idea of a striped down emac for edu. apple will repond.



    so the big questions can market share be gained with 86

    Can there be an alternative strategy????absolutely i think apple could have and edu only machines, keep a g3 ibook 12 and emac. what more do elementary and high school need can they be had at a compettive total cost yes yes yes



    remember a down computer is non productive, imagine a down system in a school which happened with these last viruses OMG lost productivity has huge costs. spend a little more get much more. i often thought that these worms could have been from a mac person to make a big point.
  • Reply 79 of 80
    how´s everyone doing?



    my apologies, i can see i am pretty late already...
  • Reply 80 of 80
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    apologies i bow down to the greatest comic genius in the world...
Sign In or Register to comment.