Hmmm. I still look at this as one scenario out of a couple.
Largely because the primary reasons most everyone gives for Apple switching to Intel solves one set of problems, but do not address the new set of problems Apple will have.
Apple will now have a more stable supplier than IBM or Freescale. Intel is in competition with AMD which continues to fuel Intel's need for development. If Intel slips in its projections the entire market slips. All true.
But that is just one part of it, that's not a holistic view of what makes a successful business. Turning to x86 Apple flirts with some very big risks.
Hypethetically Apple does go full x86-x64.
First of all this would reinforce Microsoft as the dominate standards leader of the PC industry. Microsoft is in the best position to chart the course of future x86 design.
If Windows Vista turns out to be on par with OS X or is even perceived to be good enough. This will leave less motivation for people to try OS X or buy a Macintosh. Apple being in hardware lock step will impede their ability to make radical hardware changes to differentiate themselves from all other OEM's. The same as it did in 1999 when Apple abandoned parallel ports and floppy drives. That was an extreme radical change that was rewarded in high volume sales of iMac's.
OS X on x86. There is a small but motivated group that vows to break any protection Apple will use to keep OS X only on Macintosh. This is a group who mostly builds their own computers and would not buy a Macintosh at all. The ultimate goal of this group is to force Apple into selling OS X as a stand alone product. It is very possible this group will successfully hack future versions of OS X, write drivers for it, and spread to any one whom ever wants it. When you look at the fact that much of the world has no problem using pirated copies of Windows, this could be a big problem for Apple.
x86 will mean a Macintosh will have the exact same innards as a Dell or HP Pavilion. Apple would be forced to lower its price and come in line with general PC pricing. Which would lower Apple's revenue margins and profit. And at this particular time when medium and small OEM's are slowly dying or being consolodated into the larger OEM's. There is no way Apple could win a price war with Dell. From a hardware standpoint there is no way Apple could battle Dell in price for performance. This would be exacerbated if Vista was deemed good enough or pirated copies of OS X were rampant and common. Dell would have the ability to lower its hardware prices and essentially wait as Apple dies.
Because of poor hardware sales or piracy Apple decides to release OS X as a product. This sceanrio would pit OS X head to head with Windows. There's no need for the bloody details we all know how that would go.
What does Intel gain from any of this? Apple leaving IBM for Intel is a social feather in Intel's cap. But from a practical or business standpoint what does Intel gain? It might be optimistic if Apple even added 2% to Intel's profits.
Intel would have given up one of its best and possibly last chances to advance technology that will not be supported by Microsoft or the larger PC industry.
I really can't agree with all that.
Apple going to Intel wouldn't reinforce MS at all. As a matter of fact, MS considers OS X on x86 to be a direct challenge. This will worry MS. X86 will make PC people thinking to move over more comfortable as it's familiar. One less barrier.
As I've already said, Intel can use Apple to further its own agenda. Intel has been moving away from the Wintel alliance through supporting Linux heavily. It will now have Apple as well. The easier to resist MS which has been weakened somewhat by the monopoly ruling. the Mactel alliance will allow both companies to try technology that would not have been used before. I've mentioned EFI, new chip tech. All are advantages to both. MS will have to follow along.
The only thing I'm concerned about is too many people loading Vista on their Macs. Mac users aren't a problem there, but switchers could be.
The chip had nothing to do with Apple abandoning parallel ports or floppy drives or taking up USB or Firewire. Apple could have done these things or anything else no matter which chips they use. Apple does need Intel's hardware encryption. This is something that IBM and Freescale aren't building. Unfortunately DRM is also going to be of paramount importance shortly. If Apple doesn't have it because the hardware is x86 oriented, then we won't be able to play movies, CD's or possibly content from the net.
I'm not so worried about some dodo breaking the encryption. What I've been reading about that is that it will most likely be done but that it won't be worth it because the OS and programs running on it won't work properly. Even if these guys do it, the vast buying public aren't going to be using those copies. They never do.
Do you know that the innards of a Mac will be the same as those of a Dell etc.? I don't. Even so, Dell now has a hi end line of computers out. They just lose money on the cheap ones they sell. If Apple can lower prices somewhat, it can only help. It doesn't have to be all the way.
It's thought that Jobs has been thinking along those lines and just doesn't want to admit it. Dell said that they would be very happy to sell it if they could.
My scenario along those lines has been stated a number of times before. It's simple.
Right now Apple gets about 45% of its sales dollars from computers. If they come out with other products and the sales of the company becomes more dependent on those, the percentage of the computer division could fall. Even if Apple is selling more product. If Apple did what Dell and Hp is doing, and sell plasma's and other products like that, there isn't any question but that their sales would jump.
Under those conditions the computer division (hardware, not software) could drop to 25% of sales. If that happened, I believe that Apple could take the chance of not selling the OS as a box, but rather to makers such as Dell, Hp and others. Apple would spec the machine so that it met their operability standards, and off they go! Even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales, only 12.5% now, they could then make most of it up if not all of it. This could lead to a much greater marketshare. Inreeasing Apple's income ans yes, sales. Enterprise is wary about going back to the Mac because the hardware is single sourced. This eliminates that problem. Dell and others would be very happy to have another OS besides MS and Linux to sell. It gives them more power. Business too would like to have the choice.
x86 will not mean the exact same innards as a Dell or an HP. SGI Oxygen. x86 is not going to turn Apple into a commodity box maker.
Well Ok, in x86 hardware what can Apple do that Dell or HP cannot do and sell cheaper.
Quote:
Apple has always been about the marketing package, not the individual components.
Apple sold Power PC over Pentium, Apple sold Firewire and USB over P2 ports. Apple has sold its hardware differentiation from the larger PC world.
Quote:
x86 does nothing to reinforce Microsoft in anything. If anything it weakens their market confidence.
Intel?s plan was to have desktop Itanium by 2007. Microsoft half heartedly supported this effort, they had a Windows XP for Itanium in development, then completely pulled any support in favor of AMD 64.
If Apple switches from Power PC to AMD64 this reinforces Microsoft?s choice to abandon Itanium in favor of AMD64.
Explain to me how this weakens Microsoft?s market confidence.
Quote:
How does Apple justify developers porting to the specific vaguaries of x86.
This is more about XCode and Cocoa than it is directly about x86. Its easier for Apple to move if everyone is building from Xcode. Adobe and other developers have more work to do anyway if Apple uses EMT64 or any other 64 bit architecture.
Quote:
Once AMD beat them to the punch, the window closed. Apple is Not the same kind of window, because they do not represent nearly the same install base. Maybe 5 years from now there will be another window.
To say this you agree that Microsoft sets the tone for the whole industry. The window is closed with Microsoft and their base, but that doesn?t mean its closed for everyone. We don?t know what Intel is working on behind closed doors.
MS considers OS X on x86 to be a direct challenge. This will worry MS. X86 will make PC people thinking to move over more comfortable as it's familiar. One less barrier.
This is possible. Many people steeped in the PC world spit venom at the Macintosh platform. I don?t know too many who would buy a Macintosh if they didn?t have to. Many are hoping Vista is just as good as OS X. Others are planning to run the hacked version on their Dell.
Quote:
The chip had nothing to do with Apple abandoning parallel ports or floppy drives or taking up USB or Firewire. Apple could have done these things or anything else no matter which chips they use.
No I?m not saying they did that because of PPC. But Apple?s ability to do that would be diminished if its leaning heavily on Intel, and Intel is leaning heavily on standard PC motherboards.
Quote:
I'm not so worried about some dodo breaking the encryption. What I've been reading about that is that it will most likely be done but that it won't be worth it because the OS and programs running on it won't work properly.
It may not become a problem but there's the potential that it could. Windows has such a large installed base that the few people running pirate copies don't matter. But Apple is much smaller, I'm sure fewer people would have to do this to negatively affect Apple. If a group became dedicated enough to making it work, and enough people used it and don't buy a Macintosh, it could become a problem.
Right now to run a productive and usable copy of OS X you to must have a Macintosh. Apple's healthy profit margins will tumble if this changes.
Quote:
Do you know that the innards of a Mac will be the same as those of a Dell etc.? I don't. Even so, Dell now has a hi end line of computers out. They just lose money on the cheap ones they sell. If Apple can lower prices somewhat, it can only help. It doesn't have to be all the way.
What is Apple going to have inside its computers that Dell won?t? How many people are going to buy a $2500 Macintosh if they see Dell selling the same computer for $1200?
So over all you feel eventually Apple will sell OS X to commodity OEM?s, foldy up the Macintosh platform, and get into the consumer electronics business?
Why is IBM the only chip maker who could manufacture exotic high performance chips for Apple.
Intel is actually in a much better position to experiment and take risks that IBM is able.
Hypethetically Apple uses a new Intel architecture.
In Intel, Apple would have a dedicated chip supplier. Intel has just as much at stake in this collaboration as Apple does. Intel is in direct competition with AMD and in many ways with Microsoft. This gives Intel motivation to produce and supply Apple with the chips it need.
Apple and Intel would compete against Microsoft and AMD with a better performing platform.
If Windows Vista were on par or percieved as good enough in comparison to OS X. Jobs can compare the performance of OS X/new Intel architecture to Vista and AMD64. Apple maintains the ability to change hardware specs as subtly or radically as it chooses.
OS X on a new Intel architecture would be impossible to hack and run on x86. Funny however Apple has not really shown much concern over this. That warning a month ago to websites was a slap on the wrist, but no legal action has been taken at all. Think about it. I'm sure all of the developer versions Apple sent out had serial numbers or some type of identification attatched. Would not take much effort for Apple to identify which developer the pirated OS X came from and prosecute them for breaking their NDA. Apple has done none of this and doesn't seem too concerned about it.
Intel would gain the ability to showcase its newest technologies that MS is not willing to adopt. If the performance and productivity of Macintosh, OS X, and the new Intel architecture exceed Microsoft and AMD. This would force both to change or adopt what Intel and Apple are doing.
I'm know Apple executives are mulling over all of these scenarios.
With all of the pro's and con's wieghd in they may choose x86. While this scenario would solve Apple's chip supply problem, it carries many other potential problems in the long run.
Apple could choose to work with a new Intel architecture. Which would have more risk in the beginning but has more potential to benefit the future requirements of both Apple and Intel.
Because no chip maker is going to make a special chip line just for Apple. This is just wishful thinking. If Apple's own chip makers who developed these chips in conjunction with Apple, using Apple's microcode won't do it then no one will. It costs hundreds of millions to develop a new chip line. It's much more expensive than to continue develop chips that have been around for over a decade.
The reason Apple went to Intel is because they wanted to use Intel's chips. The same ones they will be selling to everyone else.
Yes, I've said (over and over again) that Intel could put features into those chips that Apple will support but that MS doesn't. They could do that, and likely will. But they would them build tens of millions of these chips and sell them to EVERYONE. That's how they would pay for them. Then, if the features give Apple an advantage, the computer makers could turn to MS as MS's own customers will, and demand that MS support those features as well.
That's the power of a Mactel alliance. Apple will have what, 6 months, or even a year or more of an advantage? Intel gains control of its own destiny again. This can't happen with that disparate Linux crowd. They don't agree on anything. Also again, EFI. Intel can't convince the makers to use it. Only the IA-64 makers do. If Apple does, as expected, it could force the other makers into using it as well. No more BIOS.
And really, you don't know that Apple execs are mulling over what you've said.
Well Ok, in x86 hardware what can Apple do that Dell or HP cannot do and sell cheaper.
The same thing they do now. Provide well engineered hardware (including its packaging) integrated with a well engineered OS. User centric design as opposed to cost-centric design. Is this not obvious?Quote:
Apple sold Power PC over Pentium, Apple sold Firewire and USB over P2 ports. Apple has sold its hardware differentiation from the larger PC world.
What Apple sold was differntiation in solutions; better solutions for their customers. The underlying technologies were unimportant to Apple or the majority of its customer base.Quote:
Intel?s plan was to have desktop Itanium by 2007. Microsoft half heartedly supported this effort, they had a Windows XP for Itanium in development, then completely pulled any support in favor of AMD 64.
If Apple switches from Power PC to AMD64 this reinforces Microsoft?s choice to abandon Itanium in favor of AMD64.
Explain to me how this weakens Microsoft?s market confidence.
Because whatever cost/performance gains the Wintel market makes, Apple shares. Microsoft loses the ability of marketing Apple boxes as "quirkily different" and they become obviously higher end versions of the same Wintel hardware. just the OS can be labeled as "quirky."
Itanium on the desktop didn't fail because Microsoft adopted x64. Itanium on the desktop failed because of less than ideal 32 bit support/coexistance and lack of customer interest.Quote:
This is more about XCode and Cocoa than it is directly about x86. Its easier for Apple to move if everyone is building from Xcode. Adobe and other developers have more work to do anyway if Apple uses EMT64 or any other 64 bit architecture.
Tell that to Adobe after they spend 18 months optimizing CS3 for Mintel. I agree XCode offers developers an easier migration path in the future provided Apple supports the changes, but don't for a moment believe these changes don't present significant development costs on both the part of Apple and their developers.Quote:
To say this you agree that Microsoft sets the tone for the whole industry. The window is closed with Microsoft and their base, but that doesn?t mean its closed for everyone. We don?t know what Intel is working on behind closed doors.
But we do know market factors need to be right for another window of opportunity (ie where the market percieves a need to invest large amounts of time in cash in change anyway)
Because no chip maker is going to make a special chip line just for Apple. This is just wishful thinking.
See that's the thing.
It wouldn't be a special "Apple chip". It would be Intel's future architecture. Apple would just be the first to use it. Intel of course would want to sell it to everyone.
Quote:
The reason Apple went to Intel is because they wanted to use Intel's chips. The same ones they will be selling to everyone else.
This may be true but so far I haven't seen this officially stated from Apple.
Quote:
Intel could put features into those chips that Apple will support but that MS doesn't. They could do that, and likely will. But they would them build tens of millions of these chips and sell them to EVERYONE. That's how they would pay for them.
Yes that sounds plausible and reasonable. At the same time its not an unpresidented notion that Intel would be willing to invest billions in a risky new architecture. Itanium.
At this point if Intel makes no real attempt to make a bold movement with IA-64 they might as well abandon it. But stubbornly they continue to support and develop new Itanium chips.
That shows Intel is willing to try something new invest lots of money in it and support it.
Intel has an opportunity in Apple to work with a thriving and growing independent OS and hardware platform. I'll just wait to see what happens.
Quote:
And really, you don't know that Apple execs are mulling over what you've said.
Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?
The same thing they do now. Provide well engineered hardware (including its packaging) integrated with a well engineered OS. User centric design as opposed to cost-centric design. Is this not obvious?
Sounds good in a brochure but in reality will most people be willing to pay an extra $1000 - $1500 for that. Especially if Vista is considered good enough.
If computer A runs a Pentium M at 3.2 Ghz and computer B runs a Pentium M at 3.2 Ghz. Computer A may have a prettier box but computer B is cheaper....
Quote:
The underlying technologies were unimportant to Apple or the majority of its customer base.
It was important. I was getting my master of fine arts in 1999. My arts department bought something like 50 iMac?s. One of the big selling points was firewire and USB. We were able to connect external drives, zip drives, digital cameras, that was a really big deal at the time.
Quote:
Because whatever cost/performance gains the Wintel market makes, Apple shares. Microsoft loses the ability of marketing Apple boxes as "quirkily different" and they become obviously higher end versions of the same Wintel hardware. just the OS can be labeled as "quirky."
This is true, but in the grand scheme I can?t see MS loosing sleep over it.
I could see MS worrying if Apple introduced a system which truly had better performance than Vista on AMD64.
I don't think MS will be that concerned about Apple using the exact same hardware.
Quote:
But we do know market factors need to be right for another window of opportunity
Intel is still investing and developing Itanium and will come out with a new chip in 2007. Doesn?t seem they are judging market forces or waiting for a window. For some reason they continue to loose money on something few people want.
Itanium on the desktop didn't fail because Microsoft adopted x64. Itanium on the desktop failed because of less than ideal 32 bit support/coexistance and lack of customer interest.
Agreed Intel bungled its introduction of Itanium.
Without a doubt if MS built an XP version for Itanium and sold it as the future and laid out a transition plan the industry would go along.
Instead MS built an XP for AMD64. Which has been of little use becuase of the lack of support and drivers. From what I've heard doesn't do well with mixing 64 bit and 32 bit instructions. But that didn't stop MS from building it anyway.
Apple going to Intel wouldn't reinforce MS at all. As a matter of fact, MS considers OS X on x86 to be a direct challenge. This will worry MS. X86 will make PC people thinking to move over more comfortable as it's familiar. One less barrier.
As I've already said, Intel can use Apple to further its own agenda. Intel has been moving away from the Wintel alliance through supporting Linux heavily. It will now have Apple as well. The easier to resist MS which has been weakened somewhat by the monopoly ruling. the Mactel alliance will allow both companies to try technology that would not have been used before. I've mentioned EFI, new chip tech. All are advantages to both. MS will have to follow along.
The only thing I'm concerned about is too many people loading Vista on their Macs. Mac users aren't a problem there, but switchers could be.
The chip had nothing to do with Apple abandoning parallel ports or floppy drives or taking up USB or Firewire. Apple could have done these things or anything else no matter which chips they use. Apple does need Intel's hardware encryption. This is something that IBM and Freescale aren't building. Unfortunately DRM is also going to be of paramount importance shortly. If Apple doesn't have it because the hardware is x86 oriented, then we won't be able to play movies, CD's or possibly content from the net.
I'm not so worried about some dodo breaking the encryption. What I've been reading about that is that it will most likely be done but that it won't be worth it because the OS and programs running on it won't work properly. Even if these guys do it, the vast buying public aren't going to be using those copies. They never do.
Do you know that the innards of a Mac will be the same as those of a Dell etc.? I don't. Even so, Dell now has a hi end line of computers out. They just lose money on the cheap ones they sell. If Apple can lower prices somewhat, it can only help. It doesn't have to be all the way.
It's thought that Jobs has been thinking along those lines and just doesn't want to admit it. Dell said that they would be very happy to sell it if they could.
My scenario along those lines has been stated a number of times before. It's simple.
Right now Apple gets about 45% of its sales dollars from computers. If they come out with other products and the sales of the company becomes more dependent on those, the percentage of the computer division could fall. Even if Apple is selling more product. If Apple did what Dell and Hp is doing, and sell plasma's and other products like that, there isn't any question but that their sales would jump.
Under those conditions the computer division (hardware, not software) could drop to 25% of sales. If that happened, I believe that Apple could take the chance of not selling the OS as a box, but rather to makers such as Dell, Hp and others. Apple would spec the machine so that it met their operability standards, and off they go! Even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales, only 12.5% now, they could then make most of it up if not all of it. This could lead to a much greater marketshare. Inreeasing Apple's income ans yes, sales. Enterprise is wary about going back to the Mac because the hardware is single sourced. This eliminates that problem. Dell and others would be very happy to have another OS besides MS and Linux to sell. It gives them more power. Business too would like to have the choice.
Anyway, that's my vision.
that's one narrow vision.........
Apple may open up future OS for all Wintel machines, but apple will sell hardwares along with it. Lower end macs such as Macmini will get cheaper and cheaper by using Intel reference design internals....and will be as cheap as dell can offer. Apple will have cost advantange since Mac OS and bundled softwares will be free.
The day apple stops making hardwares, the tecnology alliance with intel becomes null.....or dull....... and dell?
Apple gets tied/slaved to Intel hardware only?..... This isn't SJ's style....
It wouldn't be a special "Apple chip". It would be Intel's future architecture. Apple would just be the first to use it. Intel of course would want to sell it to everyone.
This may be true but so far I haven't seen this officially stated from Apple.
Yes that sounds plausible and reasonable. At the same time its not an unpresidented notion that Intel would be willing to invest billions in a risky new architecture. Itanium.
At this point if Intel makes no real attempt to make a bold movement with IA-64 they might as well abandon it. But stubbornly they continue to support and develop new Itanium chips.
That shows Intel is willing to try something new invest lots of money in it and support it.
Intel has an opportunity in Apple to work with a thriving and growing independent OS and hardware platform. I'll just wait to see what happens.
Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?
There are too many posts to respond to by myself. I'll try this one.
I don't think that Intel has a future architecture other than what I've said. Dropping legacy microcode and hardware. That will leave a clean 32/64 bit chip that they can continue to build upon. That will be a *new* architecture.
IA-64 which started out as IA-256 is failing because the Intel/Hp alliance mucked around with several ideas before they saw that they wouldn't work. A true VLIW design. What they came up with is a hybrid. Because of that it was over two years late, and not nearly as powerful as they thought it would be. The x86 emulation which was supposed to be on a par with a Pentium 3 250MHz chip ended up having only 1/8th the performance of the current Pentium 4 at the time it came out. That's why it failed as a solution to the x86 upgrade path. Only two years after it did come out was it a viable competitor to the POWER line, the Sparc's, etc. But that wasn't supposed to be. It was supposed to be several times as powerful as any other chipset around. Even now it's having problems technically. But it's not dead yet.
Intel isn't about to go through that again.
Apple didn't specifically say that they would be using x86, it's pretty obvious that they will. There is no way that they send out those developer machines otherwise. Haven't I said that several times already/ Are you ignoring the importance of that? You think that Apple will pull a fast one at the last minute?
"Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?"
Apple may open up future OS for all Wintel machines, but apple will sell hardwares along with it. Lower end macs such as Macmini will get cheaper and cheaper by using Intel reference design internals....and will be as cheap as dell can offer. Apple will have cost advantange since Mac OS and bundled softwares will be free.
The day apple stops making hardwares, the tecnology alliance with intel becomes null.....or dull....... and dell?
Apple gets tied/slaved to Intel hardware only?..... This isn't SJ's style....
No, it's not a narrow vision. It's about as realistic as you can get.
I didn't say that Apple wouldn't sell hardware. Please re-read my post again. You missed it.
I'll repeat some though. I said that if computer HW sales are a smaller percentege of sales Apple might be able to risk licensing other manufactures. In doing so they might lose some of their own HW sales, but they might be able to make up for it by the licensing.
To make it clearer. Licensing fees, certification fees, increased sales of the OS, increased sales of their programs etc.
Possibly even buyers of a Dell might, after using one, decide to buy a genuine Apple Mac next time instead.
Sounds good in a brochure but in reality will most people be willing to pay an extra $1000 - $1500 for that. Especially if Vista is considered good enough.
They already do. Most of Apple's customers do not understand the difference between PPC and Intel. Also, I think you'll find that Apple's price differential is not quite as high as that, and it will end up fairly competitive with similar high end boxes from Dell etc. Apple will charge a slight premium likely but their margins are more a factor of the market they sell into, rather than an "Apple Tax" unless you custom configure RAM etc on their web site.They just skip the super low margin boxes that make up the vast majority of Dell/HP sales.
Quote:
It was important. I was getting my master of fine arts in 1999. My arts department bought something like 50 iMac?s. One of the big selling points was firewire and USB. We were able to connect external drives, zip drives, digital cameras, that was a really big deal at the time.
You are carrying my argument here. Your benefit was external drives, zip drives, digital cameras; not firewire or USB.
Quote:
This is true, but in the grand scheme I can?t see MS loosing sleep over it.
I could see MS worrying if Apple introduced a system which truly had better performance than Vista on AMD64.
I don't think MS will be that concerned about Apple using the exact same hardware.
Intel is still investing and developing Itanium and will come out with a new chip in 2007. Doesn?t seem they are judging market forces or waiting for a window. For some reason they continue to loose money on something few people want.
There's money to be made in the high end server market still, that's all that says. Now will Intel push Apple to adopt this new Itanium? No doubt. I do, however, doubt it will be a mass consumption part. It will likely target XServe and larger (much larger) boxes. I don't expect Intel to push the Itanium into desktop markets until they have a fair foothold in the higher margin server markets to drive down costs/ease adoption.
Much as it seems the contrary they aren't just throwing money at products and hoping they will stick.
?I said that if computer HW sales are a smaller percentege of sales Apple might be able to risk licensing other manufactures. In doing so they might lose some of their own HW sales, but they might be able to make up for it by the licensing.
To make it clearer. Licensing fees, certification fees, increased sales of the OS, increased sales of their programs etc.
Possibly even buyers of a Dell might, after using one, decide to buy a genuine Apple Mac next time instead.
Licensing the OS is such a tricky topic for Apple? because Dell and HP will try to leverage a Mac OS license to get into higher margin markets than they operate in now; while Apple would best be served by Dell/HP selling into the lower end of the market. Handling the high volume, low margin portion of the Market Apple traditionally has done well in consistently.
Possibly the best end run around this is once Apple has strong market share showing, selling a version of Mac OS X for generic PC hardware, shrinkwrapped, and not license to OEMs. That would certainly allow Apple a lower cost of entry, while denying Dell/HP a solid foothold into their market. (a la Power Computing) I could possibly see Apple partnering with Lenovo; but there are similar dangers there.
I think you'll find that Apple's price differential is not quite as high as that, and it will end up fairly competitive with similar high end boxes from Dell etc. Apple will charge a slight premium likely but their margins are more a factor of the market they sell into,
It could work out this way all things being fair and equal. But business is not fair. PC price for performance will continue to go down. Dell is in a better position to drive prices down to a level difficult for Apple to compete.
If I were Dell that 's what I would do.
Quote:
Your benefit was external drives, zip drives, digital cameras; not firewire or USB.
The external drives and digital cameras together were worthless without the computer to tie them together. Firewire and USB were the enabler to make that happen.
Quote:
I don't expect Intel to push the Itanium into desktop markets until they have a fair foothold in the higher margin server markets to drive down costs/ease adoption.
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
It could work out this way all things being fair and equal. But business is not fair. PC price for performance will continue to go down. Dell is in a better position to drive prices down to a level difficult for Apple to compete.
If I were Dell that 's what I would do.
Dell is most aggressive in the lower end of the market; I think you will find they aren't as agressive where Apple plays. Also, since many of the parts are commoditized, and Apple is operating as efficiently, or close, to Dell, I think you will find fairness won't have much place. Where Dell will have the largest advantage is in brand new technologies, price wise. Ironically it'll also be their weakness, from an integration standpoint.
This ignores of course Dell's manic rebates.
Quote:
The external drives and digital cameras together were worthless without the computer to tie them together. Firewire and USB were the enabler to make that happen.
I misspoke. The advantage was that you could use these devices easily. The technology that made that happen wasn't terribly important. Just that it worked.
Quote:
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
Intel saw the Itanium as having a huge potential for market growth when they started the project; basically stealing the SPARC/POWER high end market and trickling down eventually to the high end desktop market. One has to wonder what the market drive Intel would have for a new Apple architecture, since their existing processor consumption doesn't encompass such huge $.
Licensing the OS is such a tricky topic for Apple? because Dell and HP will try to leverage a Mac OS license to get into higher margin markets than they operate in now; while Apple would best be served by Dell/HP selling into the lower end of the market. Handling the high volume, low margin portion of the Market Apple traditionally has done well in consistently.
Possibly the best end run around this is once Apple has strong market share showing, selling a version of Mac OS X for generic PC hardware, shrinkwrapped, and not license to OEMs. That would certainly allow Apple a lower cost of entry, while denying Dell/HP a solid foothold into their market. (a la Power Computing) I could possibly see Apple partnering with Lenovo; but there are similar dangers there.
If they don't license and certify the machines, there would be no guarantee that The OS worked properly. Then Apple would be blamed for all the crashes and wonkyness that MS is blamed for now.They would gain far more by doing it that way.
Besides, if anyone could walk into a store and buy the OS then Apple loses ALL control over which machines it goes on. It then doesn't get the other money either.
The cost of entry would be lower with licensing. MS doesn't make a copy of the OS for every machine sold. They just give a master to the manufacturer which is then responsible for doing the duplications. That's much cheaper than producing a shrinkwrapped package for every one sold. The machine manufacturer would also be responsible for supporting the OS just as they are now with Windows. That's a great deal of money that Apple would save there as well.
It could work out this way all things being fair and equal. But business is not fair. PC price for performance will continue to go down. Dell is in a better position to drive prices down to a level difficult for Apple to compete.
If I were Dell that 's what I would do.
The external drives and digital cameras together were worthless without the computer to tie them together. Firewire and USB were the enabler to make that happen.
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
Dell already has prices and sales at levels that Apple can't or won't meet. Dell can't go any lower.
It's not fear that drove Intel/Hp to a new architecture, it was need. It wasn't fear that they looked at when they decided to do it either.
It's people getting together and saying; "Where do we go from here?"
Intel wanted to go higher than the x86 seemed to allow them to, and Hp wanted to replace their Precision Architecture. They had both done research into VLIW designs and decided that it would be too expensive for either to go it alone.
That's all.
What you're talking about is different. There's no market value in it. If you sell one million chipsets for $3,000 apiece that's $3 billion dollars. If you sell 3 million chipsets at $250 apiece that's only $750 million. Probably not enough. If you sell more of the cheaper chips, they go into cheaper machines. The 7447a's in the iBook and Mini only cost about $40. Again, not enough to bother developing a new line. They have to sell them in the tens of millions each year with just minor mods such as speed and cache. Apple doesn't have the volume.
Dell already has prices and sales at levels that Apple can't or won't meet. Dell can't go any lower.
This goes back to my original statement.
If Apple sells a computer for $1200 with 3.2 Ghz Intel. Dell sells a computer for $800 with the same 3.2Ghz Intel. The difference largely comes between OS X and Vista.
OS X would have to be extraordinarily better to be worth $400 more to most consumers. If Vista is deemed good enough most consumers are going with the $800 Dell.
Quote:
It's not fear that drove Intel/Hp to a new architecture, it was need.
I?m not saying Intel is motivated to action through fear. I?m saying quite the opposite that Intel has not used fear as a reason for inaction.
Quote:
They have to sell them in the tens of millions each year with just minor mods such as speed and cache. Apple doesn't have the volume.
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
If Apple sells a computer for $1200 with 3.2 Ghz Intel. Dell sells a computer for $800 with the same 3.2Ghz Intel. The difference largely comes between OS X and Vista.
OS X would have to be extraordinarily better to be worth $400 more to most consumers. If Vista is deemed good enough most consumers are going with the $800 Dell.
If Apple does their job right it isn't just between OS X and Vista; will the Dell have Firewire 800? Gigabit Ethernet? a competitive video card that isn't soldered onto the board and sharing main memory? Will it have a good out-of-box experience, with useful, well designed software already installed? Will the Dell be known for working well with all their other gadgets? Will the Dell look like a cheap toy box or will it's attention to design be engaging?
This is all part of Apple selling a brand rather than a commodity; nordstroms vs. Walmart. It may not get apple 95% market share but it's the market they shoot for.
Quote:
I?m not saying Intel is motivated to action through fear. I?m saying quite the opposite that Intel has not used fear as a reason for inaction.
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
They also don't sell Itaniums for $40. At several thousand a piece it makes more sense in the low volume market of servers.
... Apple sells a computer for $1200 with 3.2 Ghz Intel. Dell sells a computer for $800 with the same 3.2Ghz Intel. The difference largely comes between OS X and Vista. ...
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
You guys are going to be surprised. Apple's prices are going to be competitive with Dell's. They are not going to be $400 more.
As for Itanic, there's little development going on. The marriage between HP and Intel is on the rocks. Wait and see, Itanic is at death's door.
We don't want Apple getting stuck with another niche processor and gigahertz myth anyway. Mainstream hardware is the end of that.
Comments
Originally posted by TenoBell
Hmmm. I still look at this as one scenario out of a couple.
Largely because the primary reasons most everyone gives for Apple switching to Intel solves one set of problems, but do not address the new set of problems Apple will have.
Apple will now have a more stable supplier than IBM or Freescale. Intel is in competition with AMD which continues to fuel Intel's need for development. If Intel slips in its projections the entire market slips. All true.
But that is just one part of it, that's not a holistic view of what makes a successful business. Turning to x86 Apple flirts with some very big risks.
Hypethetically Apple does go full x86-x64.
First of all this would reinforce Microsoft as the dominate standards leader of the PC industry. Microsoft is in the best position to chart the course of future x86 design.
If Windows Vista turns out to be on par with OS X or is even perceived to be good enough. This will leave less motivation for people to try OS X or buy a Macintosh. Apple being in hardware lock step will impede their ability to make radical hardware changes to differentiate themselves from all other OEM's. The same as it did in 1999 when Apple abandoned parallel ports and floppy drives. That was an extreme radical change that was rewarded in high volume sales of iMac's.
OS X on x86. There is a small but motivated group that vows to break any protection Apple will use to keep OS X only on Macintosh. This is a group who mostly builds their own computers and would not buy a Macintosh at all. The ultimate goal of this group is to force Apple into selling OS X as a stand alone product. It is very possible this group will successfully hack future versions of OS X, write drivers for it, and spread to any one whom ever wants it. When you look at the fact that much of the world has no problem using pirated copies of Windows, this could be a big problem for Apple.
x86 will mean a Macintosh will have the exact same innards as a Dell or HP Pavilion. Apple would be forced to lower its price and come in line with general PC pricing. Which would lower Apple's revenue margins and profit. And at this particular time when medium and small OEM's are slowly dying or being consolodated into the larger OEM's. There is no way Apple could win a price war with Dell. From a hardware standpoint there is no way Apple could battle Dell in price for performance. This would be exacerbated if Vista was deemed good enough or pirated copies of OS X were rampant and common. Dell would have the ability to lower its hardware prices and essentially wait as Apple dies.
Because of poor hardware sales or piracy Apple decides to release OS X as a product. This sceanrio would pit OS X head to head with Windows. There's no need for the bloody details we all know how that would go.
What does Intel gain from any of this? Apple leaving IBM for Intel is a social feather in Intel's cap. But from a practical or business standpoint what does Intel gain? It might be optimistic if Apple even added 2% to Intel's profits.
Intel would have given up one of its best and possibly last chances to advance technology that will not be supported by Microsoft or the larger PC industry.
I really can't agree with all that.
Apple going to Intel wouldn't reinforce MS at all. As a matter of fact, MS considers OS X on x86 to be a direct challenge. This will worry MS. X86 will make PC people thinking to move over more comfortable as it's familiar. One less barrier.
As I've already said, Intel can use Apple to further its own agenda. Intel has been moving away from the Wintel alliance through supporting Linux heavily. It will now have Apple as well. The easier to resist MS which has been weakened somewhat by the monopoly ruling. the Mactel alliance will allow both companies to try technology that would not have been used before. I've mentioned EFI, new chip tech. All are advantages to both. MS will have to follow along.
The only thing I'm concerned about is too many people loading Vista on their Macs. Mac users aren't a problem there, but switchers could be.
The chip had nothing to do with Apple abandoning parallel ports or floppy drives or taking up USB or Firewire. Apple could have done these things or anything else no matter which chips they use. Apple does need Intel's hardware encryption. This is something that IBM and Freescale aren't building. Unfortunately DRM is also going to be of paramount importance shortly. If Apple doesn't have it because the hardware is x86 oriented, then we won't be able to play movies, CD's or possibly content from the net.
I'm not so worried about some dodo breaking the encryption. What I've been reading about that is that it will most likely be done but that it won't be worth it because the OS and programs running on it won't work properly. Even if these guys do it, the vast buying public aren't going to be using those copies. They never do.
Do you know that the innards of a Mac will be the same as those of a Dell etc.? I don't. Even so, Dell now has a hi end line of computers out. They just lose money on the cheap ones they sell. If Apple can lower prices somewhat, it can only help. It doesn't have to be all the way.
It's thought that Jobs has been thinking along those lines and just doesn't want to admit it. Dell said that they would be very happy to sell it if they could.
My scenario along those lines has been stated a number of times before. It's simple.
Right now Apple gets about 45% of its sales dollars from computers. If they come out with other products and the sales of the company becomes more dependent on those, the percentage of the computer division could fall. Even if Apple is selling more product. If Apple did what Dell and Hp is doing, and sell plasma's and other products like that, there isn't any question but that their sales would jump.
Under those conditions the computer division (hardware, not software) could drop to 25% of sales. If that happened, I believe that Apple could take the chance of not selling the OS as a box, but rather to makers such as Dell, Hp and others. Apple would spec the machine so that it met their operability standards, and off they go! Even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales, only 12.5% now, they could then make most of it up if not all of it. This could lead to a much greater marketshare. Inreeasing Apple's income ans yes, sales. Enterprise is wary about going back to the Mac because the hardware is single sourced. This eliminates that problem. Dell and others would be very happy to have another OS besides MS and Linux to sell. It gives them more power. Business too would like to have the choice.
Anyway, that's my vision.
x86 will not mean the exact same innards as a Dell or an HP. SGI Oxygen. x86 is not going to turn Apple into a commodity box maker.
Well Ok, in x86 hardware what can Apple do that Dell or HP cannot do and sell cheaper.
Apple has always been about the marketing package, not the individual components.
Apple sold Power PC over Pentium, Apple sold Firewire and USB over P2 ports. Apple has sold its hardware differentiation from the larger PC world.
x86 does nothing to reinforce Microsoft in anything. If anything it weakens their market confidence.
Intel?s plan was to have desktop Itanium by 2007. Microsoft half heartedly supported this effort, they had a Windows XP for Itanium in development, then completely pulled any support in favor of AMD 64.
If Apple switches from Power PC to AMD64 this reinforces Microsoft?s choice to abandon Itanium in favor of AMD64.
Explain to me how this weakens Microsoft?s market confidence.
How does Apple justify developers porting to the specific vaguaries of x86.
This is more about XCode and Cocoa than it is directly about x86. Its easier for Apple to move if everyone is building from Xcode. Adobe and other developers have more work to do anyway if Apple uses EMT64 or any other 64 bit architecture.
Once AMD beat them to the punch, the window closed. Apple is Not the same kind of window, because they do not represent nearly the same install base. Maybe 5 years from now there will be another window.
To say this you agree that Microsoft sets the tone for the whole industry. The window is closed with Microsoft and their base, but that doesn?t mean its closed for everyone. We don?t know what Intel is working on behind closed doors.
MS considers OS X on x86 to be a direct challenge. This will worry MS. X86 will make PC people thinking to move over more comfortable as it's familiar. One less barrier.
This is possible. Many people steeped in the PC world spit venom at the Macintosh platform. I don?t know too many who would buy a Macintosh if they didn?t have to. Many are hoping Vista is just as good as OS X. Others are planning to run the hacked version on their Dell.
The chip had nothing to do with Apple abandoning parallel ports or floppy drives or taking up USB or Firewire. Apple could have done these things or anything else no matter which chips they use.
No I?m not saying they did that because of PPC. But Apple?s ability to do that would be diminished if its leaning heavily on Intel, and Intel is leaning heavily on standard PC motherboards.
I'm not so worried about some dodo breaking the encryption. What I've been reading about that is that it will most likely be done but that it won't be worth it because the OS and programs running on it won't work properly.
It may not become a problem but there's the potential that it could. Windows has such a large installed base that the few people running pirate copies don't matter. But Apple is much smaller, I'm sure fewer people would have to do this to negatively affect Apple. If a group became dedicated enough to making it work, and enough people used it and don't buy a Macintosh, it could become a problem.
Right now to run a productive and usable copy of OS X you to must have a Macintosh. Apple's healthy profit margins will tumble if this changes.
Do you know that the innards of a Mac will be the same as those of a Dell etc.? I don't. Even so, Dell now has a hi end line of computers out. They just lose money on the cheap ones they sell. If Apple can lower prices somewhat, it can only help. It doesn't have to be all the way.
What is Apple going to have inside its computers that Dell won?t? How many people are going to buy a $2500 Macintosh if they see Dell selling the same computer for $1200?
So over all you feel eventually Apple will sell OS X to commodity OEM?s, foldy up the Macintosh platform, and get into the consumer electronics business?
Hey anything could happen.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Why is IBM the only chip maker who could manufacture exotic high performance chips for Apple.
Intel is actually in a much better position to experiment and take risks that IBM is able.
Hypethetically Apple uses a new Intel architecture.
In Intel, Apple would have a dedicated chip supplier. Intel has just as much at stake in this collaboration as Apple does. Intel is in direct competition with AMD and in many ways with Microsoft. This gives Intel motivation to produce and supply Apple with the chips it need.
Apple and Intel would compete against Microsoft and AMD with a better performing platform.
If Windows Vista were on par or percieved as good enough in comparison to OS X. Jobs can compare the performance of OS X/new Intel architecture to Vista and AMD64. Apple maintains the ability to change hardware specs as subtly or radically as it chooses.
OS X on a new Intel architecture would be impossible to hack and run on x86. Funny however Apple has not really shown much concern over this. That warning a month ago to websites was a slap on the wrist, but no legal action has been taken at all. Think about it. I'm sure all of the developer versions Apple sent out had serial numbers or some type of identification attatched. Would not take much effort for Apple to identify which developer the pirated OS X came from and prosecute them for breaking their NDA. Apple has done none of this and doesn't seem too concerned about it.
Intel would gain the ability to showcase its newest technologies that MS is not willing to adopt. If the performance and productivity of Macintosh, OS X, and the new Intel architecture exceed Microsoft and AMD. This would force both to change or adopt what Intel and Apple are doing.
I'm know Apple executives are mulling over all of these scenarios.
With all of the pro's and con's wieghd in they may choose x86. While this scenario would solve Apple's chip supply problem, it carries many other potential problems in the long run.
Apple could choose to work with a new Intel architecture. Which would have more risk in the beginning but has more potential to benefit the future requirements of both Apple and Intel.
Because no chip maker is going to make a special chip line just for Apple. This is just wishful thinking. If Apple's own chip makers who developed these chips in conjunction with Apple, using Apple's microcode won't do it then no one will. It costs hundreds of millions to develop a new chip line. It's much more expensive than to continue develop chips that have been around for over a decade.
The reason Apple went to Intel is because they wanted to use Intel's chips. The same ones they will be selling to everyone else.
Yes, I've said (over and over again) that Intel could put features into those chips that Apple will support but that MS doesn't. They could do that, and likely will. But they would them build tens of millions of these chips and sell them to EVERYONE. That's how they would pay for them. Then, if the features give Apple an advantage, the computer makers could turn to MS as MS's own customers will, and demand that MS support those features as well.
That's the power of a Mactel alliance. Apple will have what, 6 months, or even a year or more of an advantage? Intel gains control of its own destiny again. This can't happen with that disparate Linux crowd. They don't agree on anything. Also again, EFI. Intel can't convince the makers to use it. Only the IA-64 makers do. If Apple does, as expected, it could force the other makers into using it as well. No more BIOS.
And really, you don't know that Apple execs are mulling over what you've said.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Well Ok, in x86 hardware what can Apple do that Dell or HP cannot do and sell cheaper.
The same thing they do now. Provide well engineered hardware (including its packaging) integrated with a well engineered OS. User centric design as opposed to cost-centric design. Is this not obvious?Quote:
Apple sold Power PC over Pentium, Apple sold Firewire and USB over P2 ports. Apple has sold its hardware differentiation from the larger PC world.
What Apple sold was differntiation in solutions; better solutions for their customers. The underlying technologies were unimportant to Apple or the majority of its customer base.Quote:
Intel?s plan was to have desktop Itanium by 2007. Microsoft half heartedly supported this effort, they had a Windows XP for Itanium in development, then completely pulled any support in favor of AMD 64.
If Apple switches from Power PC to AMD64 this reinforces Microsoft?s choice to abandon Itanium in favor of AMD64.
Explain to me how this weakens Microsoft?s market confidence.
Because whatever cost/performance gains the Wintel market makes, Apple shares. Microsoft loses the ability of marketing Apple boxes as "quirkily different" and they become obviously higher end versions of the same Wintel hardware. just the OS can be labeled as "quirky."
Itanium on the desktop didn't fail because Microsoft adopted x64. Itanium on the desktop failed because of less than ideal 32 bit support/coexistance and lack of customer interest.Quote:
This is more about XCode and Cocoa than it is directly about x86. Its easier for Apple to move if everyone is building from Xcode. Adobe and other developers have more work to do anyway if Apple uses EMT64 or any other 64 bit architecture.
Tell that to Adobe after they spend 18 months optimizing CS3 for Mintel. I agree XCode offers developers an easier migration path in the future provided Apple supports the changes, but don't for a moment believe these changes don't present significant development costs on both the part of Apple and their developers.Quote:
To say this you agree that Microsoft sets the tone for the whole industry. The window is closed with Microsoft and their base, but that doesn?t mean its closed for everyone. We don?t know what Intel is working on behind closed doors.
But we do know market factors need to be right for another window of opportunity (ie where the market percieves a need to invest large amounts of time in cash in change anyway)
Because no chip maker is going to make a special chip line just for Apple. This is just wishful thinking.
See that's the thing.
It wouldn't be a special "Apple chip". It would be Intel's future architecture. Apple would just be the first to use it. Intel of course would want to sell it to everyone.
The reason Apple went to Intel is because they wanted to use Intel's chips. The same ones they will be selling to everyone else.
This may be true but so far I haven't seen this officially stated from Apple.
Intel could put features into those chips that Apple will support but that MS doesn't. They could do that, and likely will. But they would them build tens of millions of these chips and sell them to EVERYONE. That's how they would pay for them.
Yes that sounds plausible and reasonable. At the same time its not an unpresidented notion that Intel would be willing to invest billions in a risky new architecture. Itanium.
At this point if Intel makes no real attempt to make a bold movement with IA-64 they might as well abandon it. But stubbornly they continue to support and develop new Itanium chips.
That shows Intel is willing to try something new invest lots of money in it and support it.
Intel has an opportunity in Apple to work with a thriving and growing independent OS and hardware platform. I'll just wait to see what happens.
And really, you don't know that Apple execs are mulling over what you've said.
Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?
The same thing they do now. Provide well engineered hardware (including its packaging) integrated with a well engineered OS. User centric design as opposed to cost-centric design. Is this not obvious?
Sounds good in a brochure but in reality will most people be willing to pay an extra $1000 - $1500 for that. Especially if Vista is considered good enough.
If computer A runs a Pentium M at 3.2 Ghz and computer B runs a Pentium M at 3.2 Ghz. Computer A may have a prettier box but computer B is cheaper....
The underlying technologies were unimportant to Apple or the majority of its customer base.
It was important. I was getting my master of fine arts in 1999. My arts department bought something like 50 iMac?s. One of the big selling points was firewire and USB. We were able to connect external drives, zip drives, digital cameras, that was a really big deal at the time.
Because whatever cost/performance gains the Wintel market makes, Apple shares. Microsoft loses the ability of marketing Apple boxes as "quirkily different" and they become obviously higher end versions of the same Wintel hardware. just the OS can be labeled as "quirky."
This is true, but in the grand scheme I can?t see MS loosing sleep over it.
I could see MS worrying if Apple introduced a system which truly had better performance than Vista on AMD64.
I don't think MS will be that concerned about Apple using the exact same hardware.
But we do know market factors need to be right for another window of opportunity
Intel is still investing and developing Itanium and will come out with a new chip in 2007. Doesn?t seem they are judging market forces or waiting for a window. For some reason they continue to loose money on something few people want.
Itanium on the desktop didn't fail because Microsoft adopted x64. Itanium on the desktop failed because of less than ideal 32 bit support/coexistance and lack of customer interest.
Agreed Intel bungled its introduction of Itanium.
Without a doubt if MS built an XP version for Itanium and sold it as the future and laid out a transition plan the industry would go along.
Instead MS built an XP for AMD64. Which has been of little use becuase of the lack of support and drivers. From what I've heard doesn't do well with mixing 64 bit and 32 bit instructions. But that didn't stop MS from building it anyway.
Originally posted by melgross
I really can't agree with all that.
Apple going to Intel wouldn't reinforce MS at all. As a matter of fact, MS considers OS X on x86 to be a direct challenge. This will worry MS. X86 will make PC people thinking to move over more comfortable as it's familiar. One less barrier.
As I've already said, Intel can use Apple to further its own agenda. Intel has been moving away from the Wintel alliance through supporting Linux heavily. It will now have Apple as well. The easier to resist MS which has been weakened somewhat by the monopoly ruling. the Mactel alliance will allow both companies to try technology that would not have been used before. I've mentioned EFI, new chip tech. All are advantages to both. MS will have to follow along.
The only thing I'm concerned about is too many people loading Vista on their Macs. Mac users aren't a problem there, but switchers could be.
The chip had nothing to do with Apple abandoning parallel ports or floppy drives or taking up USB or Firewire. Apple could have done these things or anything else no matter which chips they use. Apple does need Intel's hardware encryption. This is something that IBM and Freescale aren't building. Unfortunately DRM is also going to be of paramount importance shortly. If Apple doesn't have it because the hardware is x86 oriented, then we won't be able to play movies, CD's or possibly content from the net.
I'm not so worried about some dodo breaking the encryption. What I've been reading about that is that it will most likely be done but that it won't be worth it because the OS and programs running on it won't work properly. Even if these guys do it, the vast buying public aren't going to be using those copies. They never do.
Do you know that the innards of a Mac will be the same as those of a Dell etc.? I don't. Even so, Dell now has a hi end line of computers out. They just lose money on the cheap ones they sell. If Apple can lower prices somewhat, it can only help. It doesn't have to be all the way.
It's thought that Jobs has been thinking along those lines and just doesn't want to admit it. Dell said that they would be very happy to sell it if they could.
My scenario along those lines has been stated a number of times before. It's simple.
Right now Apple gets about 45% of its sales dollars from computers. If they come out with other products and the sales of the company becomes more dependent on those, the percentage of the computer division could fall. Even if Apple is selling more product. If Apple did what Dell and Hp is doing, and sell plasma's and other products like that, there isn't any question but that their sales would jump.
Under those conditions the computer division (hardware, not software) could drop to 25% of sales. If that happened, I believe that Apple could take the chance of not selling the OS as a box, but rather to makers such as Dell, Hp and others. Apple would spec the machine so that it met their operability standards, and off they go! Even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales, only 12.5% now, they could then make most of it up if not all of it. This could lead to a much greater marketshare. Inreeasing Apple's income ans yes, sales. Enterprise is wary about going back to the Mac because the hardware is single sourced. This eliminates that problem. Dell and others would be very happy to have another OS besides MS and Linux to sell. It gives them more power. Business too would like to have the choice.
Anyway, that's my vision.
that's one narrow vision.........
Apple may open up future OS for all Wintel machines, but apple will sell hardwares along with it. Lower end macs such as Macmini will get cheaper and cheaper by using Intel reference design internals....and will be as cheap as dell can offer. Apple will have cost advantange since Mac OS and bundled softwares will be free.
The day apple stops making hardwares, the tecnology alliance with intel becomes null.....or dull....... and dell?
Apple gets tied/slaved to Intel hardware only?..... This isn't SJ's style....
Originally posted by TenoBell
See that's the thing.
It wouldn't be a special "Apple chip". It would be Intel's future architecture. Apple would just be the first to use it. Intel of course would want to sell it to everyone.
This may be true but so far I haven't seen this officially stated from Apple.
Yes that sounds plausible and reasonable. At the same time its not an unpresidented notion that Intel would be willing to invest billions in a risky new architecture. Itanium.
At this point if Intel makes no real attempt to make a bold movement with IA-64 they might as well abandon it. But stubbornly they continue to support and develop new Itanium chips.
That shows Intel is willing to try something new invest lots of money in it and support it.
Intel has an opportunity in Apple to work with a thriving and growing independent OS and hardware platform. I'll just wait to see what happens.
Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?
There are too many posts to respond to by myself. I'll try this one.
I don't think that Intel has a future architecture other than what I've said. Dropping legacy microcode and hardware. That will leave a clean 32/64 bit chip that they can continue to build upon. That will be a *new* architecture.
IA-64 which started out as IA-256 is failing because the Intel/Hp alliance mucked around with several ideas before they saw that they wouldn't work. A true VLIW design. What they came up with is a hybrid. Because of that it was over two years late, and not nearly as powerful as they thought it would be. The x86 emulation which was supposed to be on a par with a Pentium 3 250MHz chip ended up having only 1/8th the performance of the current Pentium 4 at the time it came out. That's why it failed as a solution to the x86 upgrade path. Only two years after it did come out was it a viable competitor to the POWER line, the Sparc's, etc. But that wasn't supposed to be. It was supposed to be several times as powerful as any other chipset around. Even now it's having problems technically. But it's not dead yet.
Intel isn't about to go through that again.
Apple didn't specifically say that they would be using x86, it's pretty obvious that they will. There is no way that they send out those developer machines otherwise. Haven't I said that several times already/ Are you ignoring the importance of that? You think that Apple will pull a fast one at the last minute?
"Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?"
No.
Originally posted by bitemymac
that's one narrow vision.........
Apple may open up future OS for all Wintel machines, but apple will sell hardwares along with it. Lower end macs such as Macmini will get cheaper and cheaper by using Intel reference design internals....and will be as cheap as dell can offer. Apple will have cost advantange since Mac OS and bundled softwares will be free.
The day apple stops making hardwares, the tecnology alliance with intel becomes null.....or dull....... and dell?
Apple gets tied/slaved to Intel hardware only?..... This isn't SJ's style....
No, it's not a narrow vision. It's about as realistic as you can get.
I didn't say that Apple wouldn't sell hardware. Please re-read my post again. You missed it.
I'll repeat some though. I said that if computer HW sales are a smaller percentege of sales Apple might be able to risk licensing other manufactures. In doing so they might lose some of their own HW sales, but they might be able to make up for it by the licensing.
To make it clearer. Licensing fees, certification fees, increased sales of the OS, increased sales of their programs etc.
Possibly even buyers of a Dell might, after using one, decide to buy a genuine Apple Mac next time instead.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Sounds good in a brochure but in reality will most people be willing to pay an extra $1000 - $1500 for that. Especially if Vista is considered good enough.
They already do. Most of Apple's customers do not understand the difference between PPC and Intel. Also, I think you'll find that Apple's price differential is not quite as high as that, and it will end up fairly competitive with similar high end boxes from Dell etc. Apple will charge a slight premium likely but their margins are more a factor of the market they sell into, rather than an "Apple Tax" unless you custom configure RAM etc on their web site.They just skip the super low margin boxes that make up the vast majority of Dell/HP sales.
It was important. I was getting my master of fine arts in 1999. My arts department bought something like 50 iMac?s. One of the big selling points was firewire and USB. We were able to connect external drives, zip drives, digital cameras, that was a really big deal at the time.
You are carrying my argument here. Your benefit was external drives, zip drives, digital cameras; not firewire or USB.
This is true, but in the grand scheme I can?t see MS loosing sleep over it.
I could see MS worrying if Apple introduced a system which truly had better performance than Vista on AMD64.
I don't think MS will be that concerned about Apple using the exact same hardware.
Intel is still investing and developing Itanium and will come out with a new chip in 2007. Doesn?t seem they are judging market forces or waiting for a window. For some reason they continue to loose money on something few people want.
There's money to be made in the high end server market still, that's all that says. Now will Intel push Apple to adopt this new Itanium? No doubt. I do, however, doubt it will be a mass consumption part. It will likely target XServe and larger (much larger) boxes. I don't expect Intel to push the Itanium into desktop markets until they have a fair foothold in the higher margin server markets to drive down costs/ease adoption.
Much as it seems the contrary they aren't just throwing money at products and hoping they will stick.
Originally posted by melgross
?I said that if computer HW sales are a smaller percentege of sales Apple might be able to risk licensing other manufactures. In doing so they might lose some of their own HW sales, but they might be able to make up for it by the licensing.
To make it clearer. Licensing fees, certification fees, increased sales of the OS, increased sales of their programs etc.
Possibly even buyers of a Dell might, after using one, decide to buy a genuine Apple Mac next time instead.
Licensing the OS is such a tricky topic for Apple? because Dell and HP will try to leverage a Mac OS license to get into higher margin markets than they operate in now; while Apple would best be served by Dell/HP selling into the lower end of the market. Handling the high volume, low margin portion of the Market Apple traditionally has done well in consistently.
Possibly the best end run around this is once Apple has strong market share showing, selling a version of Mac OS X for generic PC hardware, shrinkwrapped, and not license to OEMs. That would certainly allow Apple a lower cost of entry, while denying Dell/HP a solid foothold into their market. (a la Power Computing) I could possibly see Apple partnering with Lenovo; but there are similar dangers there.
I think you'll find that Apple's price differential is not quite as high as that, and it will end up fairly competitive with similar high end boxes from Dell etc. Apple will charge a slight premium likely but their margins are more a factor of the market they sell into,
It could work out this way all things being fair and equal. But business is not fair. PC price for performance will continue to go down. Dell is in a better position to drive prices down to a level difficult for Apple to compete.
If I were Dell that 's what I would do.
Your benefit was external drives, zip drives, digital cameras; not firewire or USB.
The external drives and digital cameras together were worthless without the computer to tie them together. Firewire and USB were the enabler to make that happen.
I don't expect Intel to push the Itanium into desktop markets until they have a fair foothold in the higher margin server markets to drive down costs/ease adoption.
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
Originally posted by TenoBell
It could work out this way all things being fair and equal. But business is not fair. PC price for performance will continue to go down. Dell is in a better position to drive prices down to a level difficult for Apple to compete.
If I were Dell that 's what I would do.
Dell is most aggressive in the lower end of the market; I think you will find they aren't as agressive where Apple plays. Also, since many of the parts are commoditized, and Apple is operating as efficiently, or close, to Dell, I think you will find fairness won't have much place. Where Dell will have the largest advantage is in brand new technologies, price wise. Ironically it'll also be their weakness, from an integration standpoint.
This ignores of course Dell's manic rebates.
The external drives and digital cameras together were worthless without the computer to tie them together. Firewire and USB were the enabler to make that happen.
I misspoke. The advantage was that you could use these devices easily. The technology that made that happen wasn't terribly important. Just that it worked.
Quote:
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
Intel saw the Itanium as having a huge potential for market growth when they started the project; basically stealing the SPARC/POWER high end market and trickling down eventually to the high end desktop market. One has to wonder what the market drive Intel would have for a new Apple architecture, since their existing processor consumption doesn't encompass such huge $.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Licensing the OS is such a tricky topic for Apple? because Dell and HP will try to leverage a Mac OS license to get into higher margin markets than they operate in now; while Apple would best be served by Dell/HP selling into the lower end of the market. Handling the high volume, low margin portion of the Market Apple traditionally has done well in consistently.
Possibly the best end run around this is once Apple has strong market share showing, selling a version of Mac OS X for generic PC hardware, shrinkwrapped, and not license to OEMs. That would certainly allow Apple a lower cost of entry, while denying Dell/HP a solid foothold into their market. (a la Power Computing) I could possibly see Apple partnering with Lenovo; but there are similar dangers there.
If they don't license and certify the machines, there would be no guarantee that The OS worked properly. Then Apple would be blamed for all the crashes and wonkyness that MS is blamed for now.They would gain far more by doing it that way.
Besides, if anyone could walk into a store and buy the OS then Apple loses ALL control over which machines it goes on. It then doesn't get the other money either.
The cost of entry would be lower with licensing. MS doesn't make a copy of the OS for every machine sold. They just give a master to the manufacturer which is then responsible for doing the duplications. That's much cheaper than producing a shrinkwrapped package for every one sold. The machine manufacturer would also be responsible for supporting the OS just as they are now with Windows. That's a great deal of money that Apple would save there as well.
Originally posted by TenoBell
It could work out this way all things being fair and equal. But business is not fair. PC price for performance will continue to go down. Dell is in a better position to drive prices down to a level difficult for Apple to compete.
If I were Dell that 's what I would do.
The external drives and digital cameras together were worthless without the computer to tie them together. Firewire and USB were the enabler to make that happen.
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
Dell already has prices and sales at levels that Apple can't or won't meet. Dell can't go any lower.
It's not fear that drove Intel/Hp to a new architecture, it was need. It wasn't fear that they looked at when they decided to do it either.
It's people getting together and saying; "Where do we go from here?"
Intel wanted to go higher than the x86 seemed to allow them to, and Hp wanted to replace their Precision Architecture. They had both done research into VLIW designs and decided that it would be too expensive for either to go it alone.
That's all.
What you're talking about is different. There's no market value in it. If you sell one million chipsets for $3,000 apiece that's $3 billion dollars. If you sell 3 million chipsets at $250 apiece that's only $750 million. Probably not enough. If you sell more of the cheaper chips, they go into cheaper machines. The 7447a's in the iBook and Mini only cost about $40. Again, not enough to bother developing a new line. They have to sell them in the tens of millions each year with just minor mods such as speed and cache. Apple doesn't have the volume.
Dell already has prices and sales at levels that Apple can't or won't meet. Dell can't go any lower.
This goes back to my original statement.
If Apple sells a computer for $1200 with 3.2 Ghz Intel. Dell sells a computer for $800 with the same 3.2Ghz Intel. The difference largely comes between OS X and Vista.
OS X would have to be extraordinarily better to be worth $400 more to most consumers. If Vista is deemed good enough most consumers are going with the $800 Dell.
It's not fear that drove Intel/Hp to a new architecture, it was need.
I?m not saying Intel is motivated to action through fear. I?m saying quite the opposite that Intel has not used fear as a reason for inaction.
They have to sell them in the tens of millions each year with just minor mods such as speed and cache. Apple doesn't have the volume.
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
Originally posted by TenoBell
This goes back to my original statement.
If Apple sells a computer for $1200 with 3.2 Ghz Intel. Dell sells a computer for $800 with the same 3.2Ghz Intel. The difference largely comes between OS X and Vista.
OS X would have to be extraordinarily better to be worth $400 more to most consumers. If Vista is deemed good enough most consumers are going with the $800 Dell.
If Apple does their job right it isn't just between OS X and Vista; will the Dell have Firewire 800? Gigabit Ethernet? a competitive video card that isn't soldered onto the board and sharing main memory? Will it have a good out-of-box experience, with useful, well designed software already installed? Will the Dell be known for working well with all their other gadgets? Will the Dell look like a cheap toy box or will it's attention to design be engaging?
This is all part of Apple selling a brand rather than a commodity; nordstroms vs. Walmart. It may not get apple 95% market share but it's the market they shoot for.
Quote:
I?m not saying Intel is motivated to action through fear. I?m saying quite the opposite that Intel has not used fear as a reason for inaction.
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
They also don't sell Itaniums for $40. At several thousand a piece it makes more sense in the low volume market of servers.
Originally posted by TenoBell
... Apple sells a computer for $1200 with 3.2 Ghz Intel. Dell sells a computer for $800 with the same 3.2Ghz Intel. The difference largely comes between OS X and Vista. ...
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
You guys are going to be surprised. Apple's prices are going to be competitive with Dell's. They are not going to be $400 more.
As for Itanic, there's little development going on. The marriage between HP and Intel is on the rocks. Wait and see, Itanic is at death's door.
We don't want Apple getting stuck with another niche processor and gigahertz myth anyway. Mainstream hardware is the end of that.