OK, here's another thing that would persuade me...if that point was clarified. It just doesn't make sense to me that Intel would be making PowerPC chips for Apple. I don't know, that's kind of like Schwepps asking Coca-Cola for help making Dr. Pepper.
Look at it this way. Dr. Pepper is a sugary syrup. If you have the receipe for Dr. Pepper, you can go to Fred's Soda Pop Plant, put the ingredients together, and you have Dr. Pepper. It doesn't matter who makes it. If you put the ingredients together using the same receipe, you have the same product. Outside the US Schweppes and Pepsi have had deals like that.
Keep in mind that in all of this hubbub, no one seems to know just what sort of cross-licensing deals still exist between Intel and IBM. IBM had the rights to use a number of Intel chipmaking patents over the years (anyone except me remember the IBM "better than 80286" clone?). If those rights still exist, an Intel PPC chip is not out of the question.
Don't think for a minute Uncle Steve didn't know this kinda stuff when he cut the deal for the G5.
The answer? Intels need a lead vendor to launch a Centrino-like platform with WiMax wireless.
Intel has invested tens if not hundreds of millions in this wide area wireless technology. It views WiMax as the obvious upgrade for both individuals and businesses. The only problem: no one is stepping up to build it in as a standard part of every mobile computer. There's a chicken-and-egg problem here: if no computers have WiMax, no router manufacturers or carriers have any interest in it either. Intel needs a lead user.
For those who don't want to surf, here's the short answer: laptop PPC with WiMax for Mac Mini Mark II and/or PB/iBook design from Intel.
OK, here's another thing that would persuade me...if that point was clarified. It just doesn't make sense to me that Intel would be making PowerPC chips for Apple. I don't know, that's kind of like Schwepps asking Coca-Cola for help making Dr. Pepper.
Well, Coca Cola is making and selling Dr. Pepper (and Schweppes btw.) in Denmark
John Markoff for the New York Times has the scoop on the ground in San Francisco. He is noting that Jobs's rhetorical task (a huge one) will be to convince the development community to accept the "wisdom" of the Intel transition. We'll have a better sense soon of what that transition will entail.
The other thought is that Apple is pretty much giving up on the hardware business and intends to sell software, iPods and other consumer products - e.g. making the mini into a true home theater PC.
I agree with this scenario, but I think you are taking it too far. Apple is still going to make the hardware, they are just no longer going to be designing their own motherboards and such. The iBook is a great product wether it has intel of PPC inside.
I think this is more of a coming of age for Apple. They are now robust enough to attempt this type of transition.
Besides, there are pros and cons with regards to Powermac vs a P.C. This would now make it Windows vs OSX, easily tipping the scales in Apples favor.
What is a "design win"? Maybe this is referring to a newly designed chip relative to what Intel has done in the past. Maybe Intel will produce a new PowerPC chip for Apple instead of Apple using the x86 architecture.
I am sure we will find out for sure tomorrow midday.
What is a "design win"? Maybe this is referring to a newly designed chip relative to what Intel has done in the past. Maybe Intel will produce a new PowerPC chip for Apple instead of Apple using the x86 architecture.
I am sure we will find out for sure tomorrow midday.
Well, he talked about possibly doing some customizing for the gaming consoles if it made economic sense - so I don't see why they couldn;t do a custom chip for Apple.
"We always talk to Apple. Apple is a design win that we?ve coveted for 20 years and we continue to covet them as a design win. We will never give up on Apple."
This deal is as good as done. Last time they commented on this story they said
"We are always talking with them, but each year, the story gets less and less interesting" (paraphrasing)
I hope the developers at the conference don't "boo" Steve Jobs off the stage when he makes the announcement that Apple is "switching" (talk about irony) to Intel processors.
I don't understand IBM's intentions. If Apple is upset with IBM over IBM's inability to provide enough 970XX processors for Apple, then why is it that IBM is going to have the ability to provide all the processors necessary to meet the demand for the XBox360? Also, IBM seems to be doing all right in terms of their co-developed Cell processor (PS3 & IBM's Cell based Server), so, again, how and/or why is it that IBM cannot provide what is needed for Apple?
If Intel is going to start making processors for Apple, then doesn't that theoretically mean a new motherboard will need to be made for the processor? If so, could that mean that future Apple computers could have and utilize some of the hardware seen in current PCs, such as faster RAM, better video cards, and PCI-E? I'd like to add that if Apple does indeed decide to use Intel processors, then the only way I'd be interested is if the first processor provided by Intel for an Apple computer was a 3.0+GHz Multicore processor with an outstanding front side bus.
I like the idea, that someone else brought up, that Intel could make a processor specifically for Apple; however, regardless of the idea, am I led to believe that if we all want to stay "current" with Apple's software and/or hardware, then sometime, in 2006, we're all going to have to buy a MacMini (one that we probably don't want) just to stay current, and then wait for a year or more until we can run the new software on a PowerMac?
It's been pointed out a few times now that the articles never actually say apple is switching to current x86 intel chips. I highly doubt Apple would do such a thing. Why does everyone assume that apple is switching to x86 chips? I'll tell you what is going to happen tomorrow. Apple will announce a PPC alliance with intel and that starting X/X/X intel PPC chips will replace the G4 chips in the consumer lines. That is all that will happen tomorrow if anything other than a statement from steve jobs clarifying the falsity of the rumors. Apple will not be switching to x86 I promise.
These rumors of switching to x86 are not only unfounded and falsely established on content that doesn't exist but also uniquely insane.
The mass of you have far to much faith in the media. The american media consists of not only the dumbest and laziest people on earth but also the most crooked people on earth.
I am tired of being worked up over this nonsense. Steve Jobs is not going to destroy his company monday. I don't know why i was even worried before. This is all absolutely preposterous!!!
edit:
And I'm not referring the the stupid inquirer article posted above mine. I am referring to the bunch of articles ranging form cnet to the NYT.
I think part of the problem is simply in people's heads. They've had it burned in their brains for 10 years how horrible the other platform is... it's even called the "dark side" in these threads. I mean, Apple has virtually fed brochures of PR material for their fans to digest.
Intel chips simply never were as bad as Apple loved people to think they were... and a switch (assuming it's to x86 which I think it will be) will be proof positive that the platform is solid and viable.
CPUs are Intel's bread and butter. And you know that even with their bumps in the road, like Prescott, they manage to recover and move forward. So they couldn't get to 4GHz yet... well big deal. They moved up their dual core schedule substantially which will have more impact than a 5% clock increase.
I think it only makes sense that Apple would stay with the PPC platform for as long as they could. But IBM is all over the place. They do incredible work, but they have their hands in a lot of jars. Now they will have to supply more than 200 million console-grade custom PPC cores in the next 5 years. That's a lot of cores and chips. Not a small order.
Maybe 970's in the hundreds of thousands, plus production problems, just don't generate enough return to continue to invest in its growth. They may be more responsible for the switch than Apple is. Who knows?
I hope the developers at the conference don't "boo" Steve Jobs off the stage when he makes the announcement that Apple is "switching" (talk about irony) to Intel processors.
No irony. Switching is about switching the OS, not the chip. I really don't care what chip is inside as long as its running Mac OS and my software. My only concern about a switch to Intel is what effects it will have on my current software and that the switch doesn't hurt or kill Apple.
Yes feel free to quote me all you like. If I am wrong I will have killed myself so it wont matter anyway.
So what are your thoughts on AAPL?
I've checked in with a number of others (both short and long) and the consensus seems to be that panic is the best hope for tomorrow (as opposed to total chaos). The shorts think it'll open 5-10 point higher, the longs seem to think 5-10 points lower. Unfortunately, all this lunacy will have 3 hours to do all the harm that the market can do before Steve gets up and turns the whole damn thing on it's head, and then the pattern will probably reverse.
A day trader with balls of titanium should be able to make a fortune tomorrow.
But, personally, the more I think the more at ease I am with it, knowing that Steve will soften the blow considerably, and the more inclined I am to ride it out, even with my considerable position in Jan 06 options.
Comments
Originally posted by DHagan4755
OK, here's another thing that would persuade me...if that point was clarified. It just doesn't make sense to me that Intel would be making PowerPC chips for Apple. I don't know, that's kind of like Schwepps asking Coca-Cola for help making Dr. Pepper.
Look at it this way. Dr. Pepper is a sugary syrup. If you have the receipe for Dr. Pepper, you can go to Fred's Soda Pop Plant, put the ingredients together, and you have Dr. Pepper. It doesn't matter who makes it. If you put the ingredients together using the same receipe, you have the same product. Outside the US Schweppes and Pepsi have had deals like that.
Keep in mind that in all of this hubbub, no one seems to know just what sort of cross-licensing deals still exist between Intel and IBM. IBM had the rights to use a number of Intel chipmaking patents over the years (anyone except me remember the IBM "better than 80286" clone?). If those rights still exist, an Intel PPC chip is not out of the question.
Don't think for a minute Uncle Steve didn't know this kinda stuff when he cut the deal for the G5.
Blackfriar Communications blog
The answer? Intels need a lead vendor to launch a Centrino-like platform with WiMax wireless.
Intel has invested tens if not hundreds of millions in this wide area wireless technology. It views WiMax as the obvious upgrade for both individuals and businesses. The only problem: no one is stepping up to build it in as a standard part of every mobile computer. There's a chicken-and-egg problem here: if no computers have WiMax, no router manufacturers or carriers have any interest in it either. Intel needs a lead user.
For those who don't want to surf, here's the short answer: laptop PPC with WiMax for Mac Mini Mark II and/or PB/iBook design from Intel.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
OK, here's another thing that would persuade me...if that point was clarified. It just doesn't make sense to me that Intel would be making PowerPC chips for Apple. I don't know, that's kind of like Schwepps asking Coca-Cola for help making Dr. Pepper.
Well, Coca Cola is making and selling Dr. Pepper (and Schweppes btw.) in Denmark
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
The other thought is that Apple is pretty much giving up on the hardware business and intends to sell software, iPods and other consumer products - e.g. making the mini into a true home theater PC.
I agree with this scenario, but I think you are taking it too far. Apple is still going to make the hardware, they are just no longer going to be designing their own motherboards and such. The iBook is a great product wether it has intel of PPC inside.
I think this is more of a coming of age for Apple. They are now robust enough to attempt this type of transition.
Besides, there are pros and cons with regards to Powermac vs a P.C. This would now make it Windows vs OSX, easily tipping the scales in Apples favor.
Originally posted by Sybaritic
He is noting that Jobs's rhetorical task (a huge one) will be to convince the development community to accept the "wisdom" of the Intel transition.
I'm sure there is quite a bit of crap to work through, but in the end, isn't it easier to develop for the same processor?
I don't think Apple would move ahead with this without consulting Adobe and other big software vendors. Would they?
I am sure we will find out for sure tomorrow midday.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...php?lsrc=mwrss
Originally posted by kwsanders
What is a "design win"? Maybe this is referring to a newly designed chip relative to what Intel has done in the past. Maybe Intel will produce a new PowerPC chip for Apple instead of Apple using the x86 architecture.
I am sure we will find out for sure tomorrow midday.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...php?lsrc=mwrss
Well, he talked about possibly doing some customizing for the gaming consoles if it made economic sense - so I don't see why they couldn;t do a custom chip for Apple.
"We always talk to Apple. Apple is a design win that we?ve coveted for 20 years and we continue to covet them as a design win. We will never give up on Apple."
This deal is as good as done. Last time they commented on this story they said
"We are always talking with them, but each year, the story gets less and less interesting" (paraphrasing)
I don't understand IBM's intentions. If Apple is upset with IBM over IBM's inability to provide enough 970XX processors for Apple, then why is it that IBM is going to have the ability to provide all the processors necessary to meet the demand for the XBox360? Also, IBM seems to be doing all right in terms of their co-developed Cell processor (PS3 & IBM's Cell based Server), so, again, how and/or why is it that IBM cannot provide what is needed for Apple?
If Intel is going to start making processors for Apple, then doesn't that theoretically mean a new motherboard will need to be made for the processor? If so, could that mean that future Apple computers could have and utilize some of the hardware seen in current PCs, such as faster RAM, better video cards, and PCI-E? I'd like to add that if Apple does indeed decide to use Intel processors, then the only way I'd be interested is if the first processor provided by Intel for an Apple computer was a 3.0+GHz Multicore processor with an outstanding front side bus.
I like the idea, that someone else brought up, that Intel could make a processor specifically for Apple; however, regardless of the idea, am I led to believe that if we all want to stay "current" with Apple's software and/or hardware, then sometime, in 2006, we're all going to have to buy a MacMini (one that we probably don't want) just to stay current, and then wait for a year or more until we can run the new software on a PowerMac?
'THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true,'
These rumors of switching to x86 are not only unfounded and falsely established on content that doesn't exist but also uniquely insane.
The mass of you have far to much faith in the media. The american media consists of not only the dumbest and laziest people on earth but also the most crooked people on earth.
I am tired of being worked up over this nonsense. Steve Jobs is not going to destroy his company monday. I don't know why i was even worried before. This is all absolutely preposterous!!!
edit:
And I'm not referring the the stupid inquirer article posted above mine. I am referring to the bunch of articles ranging form cnet to the NYT.
Originally posted by nowayout11
Can we quote you tomorrow?
Yes feel free to quote me all you like. If I am wrong I will have killed myself so it wont matter anyway.
Intel chips simply never were as bad as Apple loved people to think they were... and a switch (assuming it's to x86 which I think it will be) will be proof positive that the platform is solid and viable.
CPUs are Intel's bread and butter. And you know that even with their bumps in the road, like Prescott, they manage to recover and move forward. So they couldn't get to 4GHz yet... well big deal. They moved up their dual core schedule substantially which will have more impact than a 5% clock increase.
I think it only makes sense that Apple would stay with the PPC platform for as long as they could. But IBM is all over the place. They do incredible work, but they have their hands in a lot of jars. Now they will have to supply more than 200 million console-grade custom PPC cores in the next 5 years. That's a lot of cores and chips. Not a small order.
Maybe 970's in the hundreds of thousands, plus production problems, just don't generate enough return to continue to invest in its growth. They may be more responsible for the switch than Apple is. Who knows?
Originally posted by 00100011
I hope the developers at the conference don't "boo" Steve Jobs off the stage when he makes the announcement that Apple is "switching" (talk about irony) to Intel processors.
No irony. Switching is about switching the OS, not the chip. I really don't care what chip is inside as long as its running Mac OS and my software. My only concern about a switch to Intel is what effects it will have on my current software and that the switch doesn't hurt or kill Apple.
Originally posted by Algol
Yes feel free to quote me all you like. If I am wrong I will have killed myself so it wont matter anyway.
So what are your thoughts on AAPL?
I've checked in with a number of others (both short and long) and the consensus seems to be that panic is the best hope for tomorrow (as opposed to total chaos). The shorts think it'll open 5-10 point higher, the longs seem to think 5-10 points lower. Unfortunately, all this lunacy will have 3 hours to do all the harm that the market can do before Steve gets up and turns the whole damn thing on it's head, and then the pattern will probably reverse.
A day trader with balls of titanium should be able to make a fortune tomorrow.
But, personally, the more I think the more at ease I am with it, knowing that Steve will soften the blow considerably, and the more inclined I am to ride it out, even with my considerable position in Jan 06 options.