is this all a smokescreen?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
With all these Apple going to Intel rumors, I've been wondering, is this all a smokescreen? Some of it is plausable, and other parts smell strange. Here are a few things that I think are weird:



1. The WSJ breaks this story. Very unusual to have that publication break any story on Apple.



2. Steve Jobs is asked about it and offers a somewhat different not-confirming-not-denying remark from what he usually does.



3. If Apple talked to Intel a month ago, that's a very small time frame to do a bet-the-company transition.



4. It would cause a lot of frustration with the existing user base.



5. If they were to run on generic x86, they would be taking on Microsoft head on. Don't you think Mac Office would disappear?



6. What about apps? These computers are going to appear with no apps (other than apple-supplied). What are people going to do with them? If it's generic x86, developers will probably take the attitude of "why don't you just run windows on it? I don't want to support two operating systems." That's what they've done in the past.



How are existing apps going to run? Are they going to have a binary translator done by that time?



7. If they're not going to take on microsoft head on, how are they going to keep people from running it on non-apple hardware. I can guarantee if it's in x86 binary format, some hacker will find a way to make it run on generic x86. Right now the PPC compilation is preventing that.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    radiospaceradiospace Posts: 180member
    the truth is out there...
  • Reply 2 of 35
    a j steva j stev Posts: 79member
    You only have 5 days to work that one out...
  • Reply 3 of 35
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    Apple is a secretive company, but when's the last time they ever created a smokescreen for an upcoming announcement?
  • Reply 4 of 35
    unixguruunixguru Posts: 49member
    I don't know, but when was the last time they sued a rumor site?
  • Reply 5 of 35
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by frawgz

    Apple is a secretive company, but when's the last time they ever created a smokescreen for an upcoming announcement?



    Columbus
  • Reply 6 of 35
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Columbus



    I think you can also argue that was the result of shoddy reporting on CNET's part.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    unixguruunixguru Posts: 49member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by frawgz

    I think you can also argue that was the result of shoddy reporting on CNET's part.



    Here's the Columbus story; I originally had no idea what you were talking about. Thanks, Google!



    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-209082.html?legacy=cnet
  • Reply 8 of 35
    unixguruunixguru Posts: 49member
    Hey, remember the "color ipod" story on thinksecret a while back?
  • Reply 9 of 35
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Columbus was the smokescreen for the original iMac.
  • Reply 10 of 35
    hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Columbus was the smokescreen for the original iMac.





    No. No. Not at all. The iMac was one part of columbus, as was the ipod, and itunes, and iphoto and idvd, and imovie... and the mac mini?



    It all makes sense now...
  • Reply 11 of 35
    feraliferali Posts: 173member
    whats this columbus all about? never even heard of it before.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Apple is not going to take on Microsoft directly. The only thing that will change from a user standpoint is that the CPU will have a different name. Otherwise, OS X will still only run on Mac hardware, Windows will not run on Mac hardware, and OS X will not run on anything but Mac hardware. These restrictions are easy to do, just slap the Intel CPU on a custom mobo and wrap it in a cool Apple hardware box.



    Of course, it means Apple is poised to quickly and decisively unleash OS X on the greater x86 community at any opportune time!
  • Reply 13 of 35
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    Apple is not going to take on Microsoft directly. The only thing that will change from a user standpoint is that the CPU will have a different name. Otherwise, OS X will still only run on Mac hardware, Windows will not run on Mac hardware, and OS X will not run on anything but Mac hardware. These restrictions are easy to do, just slap the Intel CPU on a custom mobo and wrap it in a cool Apple hardware box.



    Of course, it means Apple is poised to quickly and decisively unleash OS X on the greater x86 community at any opportune time!




    If Apple moves to Intel, I'm going to suck my own dick.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    If Apple moves to Intel, I'm going to suck my own dick.



    You too ?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    Otherwise, OS X will still only run on Mac hardware, Windows will not run on Mac hardware, and OS X will not run on anything but Mac hardware. These restrictions are easy to do, just slap the Intel CPU on a custom mobo and wrap it in a cool Apple hardware box.



    I am reading these discussions with great interest. However one point is not clear to me: what Apple has to gain by switching to Intel chips? Why enter this hell of a transition to a new CPU architecture, if there are no huge benefits? Are there such benefits or not?
  • Reply 15 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    If Apple moves to Intel, I'm going to suck my own dick.



    have fun with that.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by oh_the_humanity

    have fun with that.



    It's a very old AppleInsider joke, you wouldn't understand - isn't that right Dawg
  • Reply 17 of 35
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    It's a very old AppleInsider joke, you wouldn't understand



    If I judge from the post count (s)he is new here, so it is normal that (s)he does not understand.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    One thing that just doesn't make sense...IBM has HUGE business now with making the PPC for consoles. Sure, they are not Macs. But there must be some R&D overlap, and it's good for the unit as a whole, giving it revenue for more R&D, for the G5 as well, and perhaps something Cell-based. I mean it IS a good thing, not a bad thing, right, with IBM and the consoles?
  • Reply 19 of 35
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    I always wondered where this guy went....does he work for apple now? Or c|net? WSJ?



  • Reply 20 of 35
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    One thing that just doesn't make sense...IBM has HUGE business now with making the PPC for consoles. Sure, they are not Macs. But there must be some R&D overlap, and it's good for the unit as a whole, giving it revenue for more R&D, for the G5 as well, and perhaps something Cell-based. I mean it IS a good thing, not a bad thing, right, with IBM and the consoles?



    Not if IBM redirects their intelectual, monitary, fabricating, and personell resources into the console buisness and leaves the 970, which is basically only used by Apple, to die a slow death. IBM has anounced Cell blade servers, just like they did 970's right after it was released, and their server buisness is apparently more portable than Apples is at the moment.
Sign In or Register to comment.