IBM might be behind the curve, but it's not like they've just closed up shop and stopped designing processors, and Intel's roadmap has taken the same curve pretty much, due to the same set of barriers as IBM in getting 90nm under control. The benefits of a move to Intel do not outweigh the risks at all, and the board and stockholders will see that and reign him in if he's just off the deep end.
I couldn't agree more, unless Steve has used some major RDF on Al "I Created The Internet" Gore and company.
Haven't read all the posts but as Carson said, I'm stunned. I know, there was the WSJ article but then the analysts jumped in and said it wasn't likely. All kinds of stuff here about cell chips, 970MP chips, yadda, yadda. Still, we're faced with the fact that the portables aren't in the same league as the others and no good way to shoehorn a G5 into a PB.
We should have seen the writing on the wall when the cell news broke with Sony, Toshiba and IBM and no Apple. And MS is making Windows work on the PPC, starting with Longhorn? What's the world coming to? Instead of Wintel, we have PMS? Mactel?
If you buy a PM now, not only will it be obsolete in 2 years, it won't run new software in 2007 and won't be worth anything. Switching to Intel makes the Mac PPC a dead platform, even with the transition that starts in a year and takes a year.
As for the pain of switching, maybe that won't be as much of an issue as some think:
Here is the thing Aurora,IBM did that in 1995,remember IBM's O/S2 ,from what I understand,it was much better than Windows 95,but because both of them run on Intel and the majority of users are using Windows,guess who won,Microsoft.
If we are living in 1985,then Apple has good chance surviving the use of Intel.But we are in 2005,realistically speaking,they will be dead in three years as a computer company if they go choose this route.Honestly,I think this is just smokescreen,we will see on Monday.
Jobs maybe a egomaniac,but he should of all people should had learn the lesson of migrating to Intel with a hardware/OS combination.He saw his NeXTstep company dwindle into irrelevance until it was bought by Apple.
Hardware is the lifeblood of Apple,no hardware,bye-bye Apple.
Wow, crazy things. To stay true to their word, a lot of people on these and other boards are going to have to eat some strange things!
Truthfully though, AIM has been like a bad relationship for a long time now. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any forward looking strategy for portables. It is starting to look like the decision to dump Moto in favor of IBM was like moving to starboard on the Titanic.
Hopefully Intel will be providing a PPC-like chip so that the transition is a little smoother. Hey, maybe Intel see this a proving ground to get back into the console market?
I hope the ipod will provide the sustainable revenue so that Apple can survive this gamble. Anyway, you gotta love Apple for daring to do crazy sh!t like this.
Here is the thing Aurora,IBM did that in 1995,remember IBM's O/S2 ,from what I understand,it was much better than Windows 95,but because both of them run on Intel and the majority of users are using Windows,guess who won,Microsoft.
If we are living in 1985,then Apple has good chance surviving the use of Intel.But we are in 2005,realistically speaking,they will be dead in three years as a computer company if they go choose this route.Honestly,I think this is just smokescreen,we will see on Monday.
Jobs maybe a egomaniac,but he should of all people should had learn the lesson of migrating to Intel with a hardware/OS combination.He saw his NeXTstep company dwindle into irrelevance until it was bought by Apple.
Hardware is the lifeblood of Apple,no hardware,bye-bye Apple.
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
But they will inadvertedly. That's exactly what happend with NeXT. NeXT hat brilliant hardware. But they were just a tad bit more expensive. If given a choice, people will go for cheaper.
Intel builds reference designs for motherboards. Anyone who uses them, like e.g. DELL, will always be able to offer hardware boxes for cheaper.
If Apple goes to x86 CPUs but still restricts OS X to Apple hardware, Apple is still competing with Dell the same was they are now. If enough developers got behing it and if the transition was gradual enough people would choose Apple because of OSX and the software.
In light of the recent articles about people being unhappy wiith windows, if given the choice between OSX on Apple hardware with an Intel CPU vs. Wintel, I think people would be happy to go withh Apple.
If anything, a SUCCESSFUL transition to Intel levels the playing field even more and makes people decide 0based on OS and software.
Of course this would all be based on a successful transition x86. Do I think it would be successful? I think it's possible but will be a huge challange.
If Apple is to sell any hardware it MUST keep total control over the hardware (even with the x86 CPUs).
If OS X was released like Windows, Apple would have to sell only software.
The hardware isn't what makes a Mac a Mac, it's the software.
I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I switched back in early May. I used PCs for the past 18 years. I have been a software developer on the PC for 16 of those last 18 years.
I think that what makes the Mac the Mac is the entire package; hardware, software, etc. If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I switched back in early May. I used PCs for the past 18 years. I have been a software developer on the PC for 16 of those last 18 years.
I think that what makes the Mac the Mac is the entire package; hardware, software, etc. If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
Interesting comparison and point since Linux on Intel is by-far the fastest growing platform !!!
AND HAS BEEN EATING MICROSOFT'S LUNCH SINCE DINNER TIME LAST WEEK.
If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
I respectfully disagree. If Apple keeps total control over hardware as they do now and could port everything to x86 it's still a Mac. Buying an x86 Mac still would be an experience you couldn't get if you buy a Dell.
If I could type on an iMac like I am now with the same user experience except a dual-core Pentium M was crunching the numbers.......well, I would still be getting the Mac experience.
To me the Mac experience is a mixture of OS, software, and hardware. Of these I personally break it down to 80% of my experience is based on the OS and software with 20% based on the hardware with HW design making up 90% of that.
Point is, if Apple is still controlling the OS, software and hardware then you get a completely different experience than that of a standard Wintel box or a Linux box.
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
Who said anything about viruses? OS/2 was a much better product than Windows 3.1 or 95. I used it for a while, but you couldn't get any apps for it because of the Microsoft juggernaut. Microsoft realized that preloads and hype would determine the winner, and they executed perfectly on both of those. Hell it was hard to get *IBM* to preload OS/2 for you. Oh, and I found your caps lock key. Let me know if you want to drop by and pick it up.
Who said anything about viruses? OS/2 was a much better product than Windows 3.1 or 95. I used it for a while, but you couldn't get any apps for it because of the Microsoft juggernaut. Microsoft realized that preloads and hype would determine the winner, and they executed perfectly on both of those. Hell it was hard to get *IBM* to preload OS/2 for you. Oh, and I found your caps lock key. Let me know if you want to drop by and pick it up.
I stold it back thieF !!!
YOU SHOULD HAVE said something about virus, viruses and spam are driving the switch to Macs -- DUUU !
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
And where is OS2 now,btw?Oh I forgot,it was EOL by IBM a few years back because it did not stop the Windows juggernaut.
In regards to Linux,Microsoft cannot beat it because for one thing,how can you beat an OS that has a lot of derivatives due to the work of not only by companies like Mandrake or REdHat,but by thousands of anonymous programmers and most important of all,a lot of Linux are free.
Wouldn't Tiger running on any PC hardware be worse for MS, not Apple?
The fact that Tiger has no copy protection or activation scheme would allow it to spread like "digital crabgrass"(TM) and choke out everything in it's path.
Once it's done kicking some major a$$, Apple just adds activation to the next version.
This thought should have MS scared sh1tless.
Everyone I know personally - from friends to relatives would switch their PCs to Tiger. Small businesses everywhere would make the switch. In less than a month, Apple's installed base of Tiger would be staggering.
Regardless of whether this would be good for Apple, it sure would be fun to witness.
That is the scary bit right there. All the effort put into Altivec, including convincing IBM to put it in their chips, wasted? Thrown out with the bath water. Seems unlikley.
Quote:
\t Apple may have plans for Xscale line of CPU's for some other non Macintosh project.
One question for those who wanted this news to be true,did you ever consider on how Apple will be able to persuade potential upgraders as well as new buyers to buy their machines now when everybody knows that those machines with IBM processors will be replaced with a new one that has Intel on it in the next year or so.Even Steve Jobs RDF won't save Apple stock from going down like a brick because of low to no sales of it's Mac computers.
Wouldn't Tiger running on any PC hardware be worse for MS, not Apple?
This thought should have MS scared sh1tless.
Everyone I know personally - from friends to relatives would switch their PCs to Tiger. Small businesses everywhere would make the switch. In less than a month, Apple's installed base of Tiger would be staggering.
That's a nice dream, but as Jobs recently said, it's applications stupid! If those people put Tiger on their machines and there's no word and excel and powerpoint, what the hell are they going to do with it? The fact is that most businesses use M$ office. If it can't run that, they'll just switch back to windows. I doubt most of those people you talked to realize what's involved installing a new OS or the fact that there won't be many apps available. If you want to see how this works, look at the history of the computer industry.
One question for those who wanted this news to be true,did you ever consider on how Apple will be able to persuade potential upgraders as well as new buyers to buy their machines now when everybody knows that those machines with IBM processors will be replaced with a new one that has Intel on it in the next year or so.Even Steve Jobs RDF won't save Apple stock from going down like a brick because of low to no sales of it's Mac computers.
Maybe the hope to sell a million subscriptions to dot-Mac!
That's a nice dream, but as Jobs recently said, it's applications stupid! If those people put Tiger on their machines and there's no word and excel and powerpoint, what the hell are they going to do with it? The fact is that most businesses use M$ office. If it can't run that, they'll just switch back to windows. I doubt most of those people you talked to realize what's involved installing a new OS or the fact that there won't be many apps available. If you want to see how this works, look at the history of the computer industry.
Well, you're using far-future-speak here. Currently Office does run on Tiger. Will MS run out and pull all the copies off the shelf? Anyway, I was just having some fun.
Comments
originally posted by chris v:
IBM might be behind the curve, but it's not like they've just closed up shop and stopped designing processors, and Intel's roadmap has taken the same curve pretty much, due to the same set of barriers as IBM in getting 90nm under control. The benefits of a move to Intel do not outweigh the risks at all, and the board and stockholders will see that and reign him in if he's just off the deep end.
I couldn't agree more, unless Steve has used some major RDF on Al "I Created The Internet" Gore and company.
We should have seen the writing on the wall when the cell news broke with Sony, Toshiba and IBM and no Apple. And MS is making Windows work on the PPC, starting with Longhorn? What's the world coming to? Instead of Wintel, we have PMS?
If you buy a PM now, not only will it be obsolete in 2 years, it won't run new software in 2007 and won't be worth anything. Switching to Intel makes the Mac PPC a dead platform, even with the transition that starts in a year and takes a year.
As for the pain of switching, maybe that won't be as much of an issue as some think:
MacRumors, page 2
If we are living in 1985,then Apple has good chance surviving the use of Intel.But we are in 2005,realistically speaking,they will be dead in three years as a computer company if they go choose this route.Honestly,I think this is just smokescreen,we will see on Monday.
Jobs maybe a egomaniac,but he should of all people should had learn the lesson of migrating to Intel with a hardware/OS combination.He saw his NeXTstep company dwindle into irrelevance until it was bought by Apple.
Hardware is the lifeblood of Apple,no hardware,bye-bye Apple.
Truthfully though, AIM has been like a bad relationship for a long time now. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any forward looking strategy for portables. It is starting to look like the decision to dump Moto in favor of IBM was like moving to starboard on the Titanic.
Hopefully Intel will be providing a PPC-like chip so that the transition is a little smoother. Hey, maybe Intel see this a proving ground to get back into the console market?
I hope the ipod will provide the sustainable revenue so that Apple can survive this gamble. Anyway, you gotta love Apple for daring to do crazy sh!t like this.
Originally posted by Wil
Here is the thing Aurora,IBM did that in 1995,remember IBM's O/S2 ,from what I understand,it was much better than Windows 95,but because both of them run on Intel and the majority of users are using Windows,guess who won,Microsoft.
If we are living in 1985,then Apple has good chance surviving the use of Intel.But we are in 2005,realistically speaking,they will be dead in three years as a computer company if they go choose this route.Honestly,I think this is just smokescreen,we will see on Monday.
Jobs maybe a egomaniac,but he should of all people should had learn the lesson of migrating to Intel with a hardware/OS combination.He saw his NeXTstep company dwindle into irrelevance until it was bought by Apple.
Hardware is the lifeblood of Apple,no hardware,bye-bye Apple.
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
quote:
I do not beleive Apple is killing hardware.
They will not want to, certainly.
But they will inadvertedly. That's exactly what happend with NeXT. NeXT hat brilliant hardware. But they were just a tad bit more expensive. If given a choice, people will go for cheaper.
Intel builds reference designs for motherboards. Anyone who uses them, like e.g. DELL, will always be able to offer hardware boxes for cheaper.
If Apple goes to x86 CPUs but still restricts OS X to Apple hardware, Apple is still competing with Dell the same was they are now. If enough developers got behing it and if the transition was gradual enough people would choose Apple because of OSX and the software.
In light of the recent articles about people being unhappy wiith windows, if given the choice between OSX on Apple hardware with an Intel CPU vs. Wintel, I think people would be happy to go withh Apple.
If anything, a SUCCESSFUL transition to Intel levels the playing field even more and makes people decide 0based on OS and software.
Of course this would all be based on a successful transition x86. Do I think it would be successful? I think it's possible but will be a huge challange.
If Apple is to sell any hardware it MUST keep total control over the hardware (even with the x86 CPUs).
If OS X was released like Windows, Apple would have to sell only software.
Originally posted by iPeon
The hardware isn't what makes a Mac a Mac, it's the software.
I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I switched back in early May. I used PCs for the past 18 years. I have been a software developer on the PC for 16 of those last 18 years.
I think that what makes the Mac the Mac is the entire package; hardware, software, etc. If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
Originally posted by kwsanders
I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I switched back in early May. I used PCs for the past 18 years. I have been a software developer on the PC for 16 of those last 18 years.
I think that what makes the Mac the Mac is the entire package; hardware, software, etc. If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
Interesting comparison and point since Linux on Intel is by-far the fastest growing platform !!!
AND HAS BEEN EATING MICROSOFT'S LUNCH SINCE DINNER TIME LAST WEEK.
If Apple goes the way of the Intel chips, then what we will have is just another Wintel box loaded with a variant form of Linux with a nice GUI on top of it. It will not be a Mac.
I respectfully disagree. If Apple keeps total control over hardware as they do now and could port everything to x86 it's still a Mac. Buying an x86 Mac still would be an experience you couldn't get if you buy a Dell.
If I could type on an iMac like I am now with the same user experience except a dual-core Pentium M was crunching the numbers.......well, I would still be getting the Mac experience.
To me the Mac experience is a mixture of OS, software, and hardware. Of these I personally break it down to 80% of my experience is based on the OS and software with 20% based on the hardware with HW design making up 90% of that.
Point is, if Apple is still controlling the OS, software and hardware then you get a completely different experience than that of a standard Wintel box or a Linux box.
Originally posted by MACchine
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
Who said anything about viruses? OS/2 was a much better product than Windows 3.1 or 95. I used it for a while, but you couldn't get any apps for it because of the Microsoft juggernaut. Microsoft realized that preloads and hype would determine the winner, and they executed perfectly on both of those. Hell it was hard to get *IBM* to preload OS/2 for you. Oh, and I found your caps lock key. Let me know if you want to drop by and pick it up.
Originally posted by unixguru
Who said anything about viruses? OS/2 was a much better product than Windows 3.1 or 95. I used it for a while, but you couldn't get any apps for it because of the Microsoft juggernaut. Microsoft realized that preloads and hype would determine the winner, and they executed perfectly on both of those. Hell it was hard to get *IBM* to preload OS/2 for you. Oh, and I found your caps lock key. Let me know if you want to drop by and pick it up.
I stold it back thieF !!!
YOU SHOULD HAVE said something about virus, viruses and spam are driving the switch to Macs -- DUUU !
Originally posted by MACchine
YOU GUYS COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. WHEN OS2 WAS A PRODUCT THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS VIRUSES COULD COUNTED ON YOUR HANDS.
And where is OS2 now,btw?Oh I forgot,it was EOL by IBM a few years back because it did not stop the Windows juggernaut.
In regards to Linux,Microsoft cannot beat it because for one thing,how can you beat an OS that has a lot of derivatives due to the work of not only by companies like Mandrake or REdHat,but by thousands of anonymous programmers and most important of all,a lot of Linux are free.
The fact that Tiger has no copy protection or activation scheme would allow it to spread like "digital crabgrass"(TM) and choke out everything in it's path.
Once it's done kicking some major a$$, Apple just adds activation to the next version.
This thought should have MS scared sh1tless.
Everyone I know personally - from friends to relatives would switch their PCs to Tiger. Small businesses everywhere would make the switch. In less than a month, Apple's installed base of Tiger would be staggering.
Regardless of whether this would be good for Apple, it sure would be fun to witness.
Originally posted by Outsider
[*]What can substitute Altivec?[/list]
That is the scary bit right there. All the effort put into Altivec, including convincing IBM to put it in their chips, wasted? Thrown out with the bath water. Seems unlikley.
\t Apple may have plans for Xscale line of CPU's for some other non Macintosh project.
And that is the exciting bit.
Originally posted by inslider
Wouldn't Tiger running on any PC hardware be worse for MS, not Apple?
This thought should have MS scared sh1tless.
Everyone I know personally - from friends to relatives would switch their PCs to Tiger. Small businesses everywhere would make the switch. In less than a month, Apple's installed base of Tiger would be staggering.
That's a nice dream, but as Jobs recently said, it's applications stupid! If those people put Tiger on their machines and there's no word and excel and powerpoint, what the hell are they going to do with it? The fact is that most businesses use M$ office. If it can't run that, they'll just switch back to windows. I doubt most of those people you talked to realize what's involved installing a new OS or the fact that there won't be many apps available. If you want to see how this works, look at the history of the computer industry.
Originally posted by Wil
One question for those who wanted this news to be true,did you ever consider on how Apple will be able to persuade potential upgraders as well as new buyers to buy their machines now when everybody knows that those machines with IBM processors will be replaced with a new one that has Intel on it in the next year or so.Even Steve Jobs RDF won't save Apple stock from going down like a brick because of low to no sales of it's Mac computers.
Maybe the hope to sell a million subscriptions to dot-Mac!
Originally posted by unixguru
That's a nice dream, but as Jobs recently said, it's applications stupid! If those people put Tiger on their machines and there's no word and excel and powerpoint, what the hell are they going to do with it? The fact is that most businesses use M$ office. If it can't run that, they'll just switch back to windows. I doubt most of those people you talked to realize what's involved installing a new OS or the fact that there won't be many apps available. If you want to see how this works, look at the history of the computer industry.
Well, you're using far-future-speak here. Currently Office does run on Tiger. Will MS run out and pull all the copies off the shelf? Anyway, I was just having some fun.