CNET News: Apple to drop PowerPC chips?
Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.
The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.
IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.
That skepticism remains. "If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.
Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)
The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue. More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.
Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.
One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.
The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.
IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.
"I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.
Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene/L.
Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.
Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+I...?tag=nefd.lede
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.
The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.
IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.
That skepticism remains. "If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.
Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)
The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue. More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.
Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.
One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.
The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.
IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.
"I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.
Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene/L.
Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.
Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+I...?tag=nefd.lede
Comments
Apple is trying for a true turn-key system for pros - give them the machine, the software and you have everything you need tightly integrated. At the kind of price point they can do that could make a compelling product.
The other thought is that Apple is pretty much giving up on the hardware business and intends to sell software, iPods and other consumer products - e.g. making the mini into a true home theater PC.
Bad, bad, bad...
I guess the 970MP will never see the light of day...
Originally posted by radiospace
wow.
Now that I've caught my breath: if true, does this mean that in a couple of years my current PowerMac won't be able to run contemporary OSX software (which will have been by then redesigned for Intel chips)?
NeXT comes to mind. Steven Jobs was in that very situation already. And that experiment failed.
NeXT started selling NextStep, the OS, on Intel hoping to gain market share. But that backfired. As Intel boxes were a lot cheaper than NeXT's own hardware, people just stopped buying NeXT hardware. They bought a cheap Intel box and ran NextStep on those.
Eventually NeXT had to scrap its hardware business and went 'software only'.
At that point they were taking on Microsoft. Head-on.
But that turned out to be a lost cause, and an up-hill battle. Microsoft is too entrenched. Basically what happend was that developers said: Why should we develop for NextStep? If users run this on an Intel box anyway, we might as well develop for Windows. That gives us a much greater market to sell to.
And that was the end of NeXT's OS business too. NeXT only 'survived' because it was bought by Apple. And at that time it was only a shadow of its former self. The company would have gone bust were it not for that deal.
If Apple really goes Intel, then I'm very certain that history will repeat itself.
No matter whether Apple will try to restrict the OS to run only on Apple hardware. If Windows boxes have the same CPU, it's only a matter of time until someone develops a crack and all Apple will end up is selling OS X. Too few will pay the design premium for Apple's hardware. And from then on the NeXT circle will start to repeat itself.
C|Net has been wrong before. I for one hope they're wrong again.
---
p.s.
There is the odd chance that Intel will develop a new chip exclusively for Apple. If that chip does not run on anything but Apple hardware, that might just work out.
But then there's still the transition phase, which will hurt.
IBM, Toshiba, and Sony have taken over ownership of the PPC architecture and have shut Apple out of the business !!!
Sony and Toshiba have insisted that IBM charge Apple twice as much as they have previously for the processors, citing concerns of unfair competition from Apple in the Asian arena.
Faced with these raised costs Apple will be moving to Intel processors as quickly as possible.
Steve Jobs was quoted as say, "WHAT THE HELL, NeXt ran BEST on Intel, Macs will be even HOTTER on Intel !!!"
NOT REALLY !!! JUST CONSIDERING WHAT COULD REALLY BE GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, although its probably just all an overdue April Fools Joke.
---------------------
Concerned in Nashvegas
i really want to know where they got this info from.
Originally posted by hobBIT
p.s.
There is the odd chance that Intel will develop a new chip exclusively for Apple. If that chip does not run on anything but Apple hardware, that might just work out.
But then there's still the transition phase, which will hurt.
What's interesting about this story is the reported transition plan. Working from the bottom up. Starting with low end (read cheap) where market share could be grown fastest... starting in 2006, an ramping to the high end.
Is it possible Apple is still hopeful that the IBM Power series will deliver the "killer" processor many have been anticipating (and which has as yet to be delivered)? Could Apple consider a 2 processor lineup? This is very disconcerting as I'm right in the middle of spec'ing an upgrade for our production dept (8-10 workstations, Xserve & supporting hardware) and an announcement like this could cause me to rethink my plans. Ugh!
An ISA transition for Apple would be (I fear) disasterous. Just take my father for example, he just swiched half a year ago, simply because he wanted to try something new. He had been hesitant for a while, but he felt that the G5 Powermac was a safe option. He bought that machine not expecting to upgrade for four to five years, if Apple swiches so will my dad ... back to his Windows machnice. This is what I fear will happen, lots of devs won't like the swich and will jump ship, lots of people with heavy invenstment in legacy, or those with recent investments will feel a deep deep recentment and turn away from Apple. And the bad just goes on and on.
What I further don't understand is why Apple would be interested to swich at al in the light of the positive news in general from IBM and Freescale; the 970MP, MPC8641/D, CELL, POWER 5 kicking ass like it does.
This raises a couple of logical questions: does Apple expect IBM to continue developing new PowerPC chips until 2007 at such a pace that they are outpacing Intel's development of the new chips? (Otherwise, the MacMini could conceivably have a 4.0 Ghz Intel chip while the PowerPC languishes at 2.9 Ghz or something). If IBM couldn't keep pace with Intel clock speeds when they had motivation to, what possible motivation would they have after having lost Apple's business already? On the other hand if the plan is to use low-end Intel chips (already on the market) in the MacMini in order to keep it well behind the PowerMac and iMac G5, doesn't that consign the MacMini to being grossly underpowered compared to the Wintel computers it should be competing with by the time 2006 rolls around?
Originally posted by radiospace
After reflection on this article, one fact seems strange to me, and that is the detail that they will be upgrading starting at the *bottom* of the lineup with the MacMini in 2006, and not the PowerMacs until 2007.
This raises a couple of logical questions: does Apple expect IBM to continue developing new PowerPC chips until 2007 at such a pace that they are outpacing Intel's development of the new chips? (Otherwise, the MacMini could conceivably have a 4.0 Ghz Intel chip while the PowerPC languishes at 2.9 Ghz or something). If IBM couldn't keep pace with Intel clock speeds when they had motivation to, what possible motivation would they have after having lost Apple's business already? On the other hand if the plan is to use low-end Intel chips (already on the market) in the MacMini in order to keep it well behind the PowerMac and iMac G5, doesn't that consign the MacMini to being grossly underpowered compared to the Wintel computers it should be competing with by the time 2006 rolls around?
The clock speed race is basically over, its now about cores. but i understand your point
I have actually left the suggestion before but that was YEARS AGO.
Well, I guess they took my advice, if this ticks you off, SORRY !!!
I HAVE OFTEN SAID THEY ALWAYS TAKE MY ADVICE.
Why do people always worry about these transition ???
Apple has already handled every transition in the book flawlessly why should this one be any different ?
The Mac OS is what makes Apple what Apple is, the drawback has always been that it runs on a nonstandard chip to 95% of the PC market.
Any Intel box where Mac OS X runs on would surely run Windows too. So that box could be booted in either Mac OS X or Windows.
Faced with that fact, why would a company like Microsoft (Office) or Alias (Maya) continue to develop their software for Mac OS X? Sure, it would be a much better user experience, and even a nicer development environment. But heck, it's extra effort too? Just tell the user to dual boot into Windows and use the Windows version instead.
The end of Mac OS X software...
And no matter what kind of tricks Apple will try, the moment OS X runs on Intel CPUs that can also run Windows, people will find a way to run OS X on any PC hardware.
Hmmm, bad news.
I think this decision to go Intel sucks (assuming its true) and will probably turn out to be a huge blunder for Apple in the long run. At the moment, I am so glad I did not get a new Powermac G5.
If there's any truth to this at all, I bet they're going to start selling an Intel version of OS X. They're not going to simply replace PowerPC with Intel chips in the mini and the iMac. That just doesn't make sense.
That would actually be pretty cool, but it's hard to understand from a business perspective for Apple.