Not if IBM redirects their intelectual, monitary, fabricating, and personell resources into the console buisness and leaves the 970, which is basically only used by Apple, to die a slow death. IBM has anounced Cell blade servers, just like they did 970's right after it was released, and their server buisness is apparently more portable than Apples is at the moment.
Exactly right... so wouldn't it make a LOT more sense for the Macs to transition to Cell?
Whoa! Not sure I'm going to make that promise on this rumor...
It seems that if these "Apple moves to Intel" reports were all wrong, then Apple would issue an official press release denying the rumors. That is the appropriate action for a large corporation to take when rumors balloon into storms that could affect their stock value.
i saw this amongst all the crap I read these past few days, sorry I can't give credit where it is due:
"Apple and will announce that Intel will make the PowerPC chip"
Heck... why not.
Still. Push comes to shove, I don't understand why Apple would use Intel X86. IBM is gonna be pushing the hell out of PowerPC and Altivec with Sony, MS, and Nintendo... I can't but see only good things for Apple as a result.
Unfortunately for Apple, IBM's business with Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft means that their sales to Apple account for a needle in a haystack of mondo profits. IBM is getting excellent returns on their R&D for console PPCs, but the return on PPC for Apple is comparatively abysmal. So what does a corporation driven by profits do? It cuts out the business with poor returns and focuses on the consol chips with phat returns. Apple loses.
I suspect that Apple's move to Intel was initiated not by Jobs but by IBM. IBM probably told Apple that they weren't committing any extra R&D towards providing dual core or low power PPC chips, and Apple could take it or leave it. Lucky for Apple, Jobs has kept an OS X on Intel program in the works as back up, and Apple was ready for IBM's denial.
What concerns me is that x86 Macs will probably be a bit slower than Wintels because of OS X's higher overhead. With no Altivec, Macs have no secret weapon for speed. It's a bit disheartening.
Imagine what happens afterwards... Investors sue, heads roll, SEC investigates possible misleading company statements.
Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
With all these Apple going to Intel rumors, I've been wondering, is this all a smokescreen? Some of it is plausable, and other parts smell strange. Here are a few things that I think are weird:
1. The WSJ breaks this story. Very unusual to have that publication break any story on Apple.
2. Steve Jobs is asked about it and offers a somewhat different not-confirming-not-denying remark from what he usually does.
3. If Apple talked to Intel a month ago, that's a very small time frame to do a bet-the-company transition.
4. It would cause a lot of frustration with the existing user base.
5. If they were to run on generic x86, they would be taking on Microsoft head on. Don't you think Mac Office would disappear?
6. What about apps? These computers are going to appear with no apps (other than apple-supplied). What are people going to do with them? If it's generic x86, developers will probably take the attitude of "why don't you just run windows on it? I don't want to support two operating systems." That's what they've done in the past.
How are existing apps going to run? Are they going to have a binary translator done by that time?
7. If they're not going to take on microsoft head on, how are they going to keep people from running it on non-apple hardware. I can guarantee if it's in x86 binary format, some hacker will find a way to make it run on generic x86. Right now the PPC compilation is preventing that.
I would imagine that Apple+Intel talks have been going on for YEARS, not just a month.
And as mentioned, PROBABLY no code would have to be changed. Courtesy of continuous Red Box development since 1998 (or so) when it was supposedly... "killed"
Apple has been possibly thinking of this for a LONG time. They WOULDN'T just shoot themselves in the heads.
At worst, they will announce today, deliver in a year, and then offer a whole list of tools to convert current code to be compatible with the supposed Intel hardware.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
If I judge from the post count (s)he is new here, so it is normal that (s)he does not understand.
Yes i am knew , didnt realize that it was a (apple)inside(r) joke.
and for the record its he.
Originally posted by @homenow
Not if IBM redirects their intelectual, monitary, fabricating, and personell resources into the console buisness and leaves the 970, which is basically only used by Apple, to die a slow death. IBM has anounced Cell blade servers, just like they did 970's right after it was released, and their server buisness is apparently more portable than Apples is at the moment.
Exactly right... so wouldn't it make a LOT more sense for the Macs to transition to Cell?
Is this all a smokescreen?
Yes.
(I hope.)
Originally posted by murk
Columbus
East Fork could be the Apple "Asteroid" about to burst on the scene.
A closed box running only specialized OSX applications on all Intel hardware.
No worry about developers revolting at another platform change. They won't be needed.
At last a true digital hub from Apple. Bring it on!
...
I can't remember anything recent... maybe a few years?
Originally posted by ZO
well... when was the last time good old Schiller has come out and done a "bake off" to totally diss Intel?
...
I can't remember anything recent... maybe a few years?
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/49.htm
I keep thinking of that when i read all this talk.
-Owl
It seems that if these "Apple moves to Intel" reports were all wrong, then Apple would issue an official press release denying the rumors. That is the appropriate action for a large corporation to take when rumors balloon into storms that could affect their stock value.
"Apple and will announce that Intel will make the PowerPC chip"
Heck... why not.
Still. Push comes to shove, I don't understand why Apple would use Intel X86. IBM is gonna be pushing the hell out of PowerPC and Altivec with Sony, MS, and Nintendo... I can't but see only good things for Apple as a result.
I suspect that Apple's move to Intel was initiated not by Jobs but by IBM. IBM probably told Apple that they weren't committing any extra R&D towards providing dual core or low power PPC chips, and Apple could take it or leave it. Lucky for Apple, Jobs has kept an OS X on Intel program in the works as back up, and Apple was ready for IBM's denial.
What concerns me is that x86 Macs will probably be a bit slower than Wintels because of OS X's higher overhead. With no Altivec, Macs have no secret weapon for speed. It's a bit disheartening.
Imagine what happens afterwards... Investors sue, heads roll, SEC investigates possible misleading company statements.
Originally posted by unixguru
With all these Apple going to Intel rumors, I've been wondering, is this all a smokescreen? Some of it is plausable, and other parts smell strange. Here are a few things that I think are weird:
1. The WSJ breaks this story. Very unusual to have that publication break any story on Apple.
2. Steve Jobs is asked about it and offers a somewhat different not-confirming-not-denying remark from what he usually does.
3. If Apple talked to Intel a month ago, that's a very small time frame to do a bet-the-company transition.
4. It would cause a lot of frustration with the existing user base.
5. If they were to run on generic x86, they would be taking on Microsoft head on. Don't you think Mac Office would disappear?
6. What about apps? These computers are going to appear with no apps (other than apple-supplied). What are people going to do with them? If it's generic x86, developers will probably take the attitude of "why don't you just run windows on it? I don't want to support two operating systems." That's what they've done in the past.
How are existing apps going to run? Are they going to have a binary translator done by that time?
7. If they're not going to take on microsoft head on, how are they going to keep people from running it on non-apple hardware. I can guarantee if it's in x86 binary format, some hacker will find a way to make it run on generic x86. Right now the PPC compilation is preventing that.
And as mentioned, PROBABLY no code would have to be changed. Courtesy of continuous Red Box development since 1998 (or so) when it was supposedly... "killed"
Apple has been possibly thinking of this for a LONG time. They WOULDN'T just shoot themselves in the heads.
At worst, they will announce today, deliver in a year, and then offer a whole list of tools to convert current code to be compatible with the supposed Intel hardware.
Just a few minutes left...
Lets enjoy the show.
Originally posted by webmail
No. It's not a smokescreen.
Imagine what happens afterwards... Investors sue, heads roll, SEC investigates possible misleading company statements.
This is a valid argument. Actually, seeing this rumor spreading like wild fire in the news, not rumors, channels, makes me really wonder and worry.
why do you think the "Intel Mini PC" is so similar to the Mac Mini?
Its the result of a "proof of concept" that Intel put together to prove to Apple that Intel chips can deliver.
Originally posted by ZO
a little clue:
why do you think the "Intel Mini PC" is so similar to the Mac Mini?
Its the result of a "proof of concept" that Intel put together to prove to Apple that Intel chips can deliver.
Nooow, this statement makes a lot of sense.