Also wouldnt it be cool to say we have a 5ghz powerbook instead of a Athlon XP 6000 (which is probably where they will be up to by then, to be honest their numbering system sucks, my chips overclocked in my pc and it dont tell me the cpu speed at bootup it tells me the chip name (which is wrong, it tells me its a 3200xp when its only a 2500xp, but this could be because of it being overclocked)
If OC an Xp from 2599 to 3200 you would need a liquid nitrogen colling system. but yes, by overclocking it you probably confused ur BIOS.
The reason AMD doesnt use the ghz is becuase it would be bad marketing to say that their top processor was ghz slower than intels. AMD's desktop chips are very competitive with intel, and are sometimes better - my personal preference is for AMD, but thats just me.
The reason apple went intel, is becuase intel makes their own chipsets, AMD does not, AMD uses primarily nvidea chipsets, while VIA and SIS (I hate both) make chipstes for both platforms.. Intel also has the Pentium M, with Yonah core, which is the dual core chip likely to be seen in the POwerbooks. AMD has not yet released their Athlon 64 X2, which is their high end (and i believe, only) dual core chip. Intel has dual core options starting from $399AUD, for a dual 2.8ghz processor.
All the pother stuff listed in the orginal post is nothiing new, AMD has had FSB speeds of 3ghz for a while.
Actualy I bet the switch to Intel is simply because Jobs feels IBM betrayed them. First with the promisse of a 3 Ghz G5 in under a year. Then they found out almost all of IBM's chip R&D was going into making striped down G5s for the next generations of videogame consles that simply could not be used in any way to the benefit of apple.
The seccond one is probebly what made him so angry he didnt even have G5 in his slides durring the keynote. Steve thinks Apple and himself should be the center of any buisness venture involving the company.
Jobs may be inept at buisness, crazy, and in love with himself but boy does he give a good keynote. The only keynote that comes close was the historic "Developers! Developers! Developers!" chant. Granted mostly that was notable because Balmer looked like he lost his mind and was sweating his pits just yelling it at the top of his lungs.
All the pother stuff listed in the orginal post is nothiing new, AMD has had FSB speeds of 3ghz for a while.
I never claimed the stuff was revolutionary but I like the fact that Intel designs their chipsets rather than far out to Sis, Via and other companies. When you want safe and reliable in the PC land you get an Intel chip.
The Athlon/Opteron systems are great "today" however I like Intel's future roadmap better.
I never claimed the stuff was revolutionary but I like the fact that Intel designs their chipsets rather than far out to Sis, Via and other companies. When you want safe and reliable in the PC land you get an Intel chip.
The Athlon/Opteron systems are great "today" however I like Intel's future roadmap better.
Agreed
I think that Apple looks to Intel as a solutions company and the others as CPU manufactures.
Note also that Intel would like to work with Apple that may be a working partner in some of the things that Intel would like to do besides computers, like WiMax. Apple can adopt and integrate and will do so in a way that may influence MS to better integrate the technology. Not pointing a bad finger at MS at all, they have allot of legacy, and a huge market with lots of different groups and sub groups. MS can benefit by Apple showing them how to integrate new technologies and what the payoff is. For example, Apple integrated handwriting technology, but the payoff was not so big, so far. iTunes the payoff was huge. Apple may adopt WiMax and find out that there is a better solution, that is a misstep on Apple. Or Apple could integrate WiMax in such a way that makes using it a total solution, maybe even so good that the end user need not know it is even there, it configures itself, and all the Mac folks laugh at WinTel users. MS is compelled to adopt to provide the same solutions to their customers. Intel works with Apple and sees what sticks to the wall, MS adopts what is good for them, better success for Intel. Intel needs a market that is clamoring for new gadgets and Apple is a company that can take technology and wrap it in pretty plastics and great user interface. Win-Win-Win
... The Athlon/Opteron systems are great "today" however I like Intel's future roadmap better.
Apple will find, as did Compaq and Dell before them, that having Intel as their supplier is like dancing with a 600-pound gorilla. Their technology is clearly behind AMD's, but it isn't their technology that really gives off that nasty odor.
After dealing with Motorola and their chronic tardiness to the party Apple can deal with anyone.
We have to keep AMD alive though and thus I will build all my homebuilts using AMD processors. It's cheaper faster and AMD does have that David vs Goliath spunk.
I have to agree here and wonder where the foundation of the original comments Originally posted by cwestpha
Jobs may be inept at buisness, came from.
SJ is running two companies and both are very successful, he has turned around Apple which no one else could do. Until I hear some evidence then I will assume that this comment is groundless, and baseless.
AMD is a future option when Apple moves to "Intel".
AMD is an option if it ever makes a platform. Until then I doubt Apple wants to rely on five or six companies for an AMD solution. With Intel they can get their CPUs, chipsets, mainboards, wireless chips, and even embedid graphics (well they are getting better) from one company. AMD cant do that, infact intigrating an AMD platform isnt all that easy. You have to research what works with what.
Quote:
Last year: $1.21 Billion in free cash flow*, $1.97 Billion cash flow from operations*, yup that's downright awful...
And where does it say Jobs actualy makes the products or pushes them? He just stands up and evangilizes his product. He is there to get the word out, not to sell or design.
Woz did more then Jobs for the company. He made the technology and platform that first launched it. Jobs just did a little bit of early PR, with the help from some of the two's freinds, and made initial sales. He got pretty quick out of direct sales. Then Jobs tried to dictate where the company should go and Woz left because he wanted to make a good fun product where as Jobs wanted to take on IBM.
Quote:
SJ is running two companies and both are very successful, he has turned around Apple which no one else could do. Until I hear some evidence then I will assume that this comment is groundless, and baseless.
Which he doesnt do anything constructive with other then bring in investment dollars (a good thing for starting companies, but not usefull for established brands) and get media attention through his crazy antics.
Other people in the company make the ads, sell to consumers, make the products, support the products, and come up with new ideas. Jobs has never done one of these things in atleast 20 years.
If anything he has done more damage to Apple then good. He almost destroyed the Macintosh by first trying to financialy kill the program before they showed him a demo and he emidiatly took over (and transfered the person who came up with the idea). He destroyed the Apple Newton to try and refocus the company on the Macintosh (Newton was the only profitable product apple made at the time). Durring most development cycles he will hawk over programers and use illigal tactics (like 60+ hour work weeks with no overtime pay) and promisse things to outragus that many inside forces have to work themselves to the bone to deliver (Lisa, the Mac, etc).
On the plus side he did bring Apple back into the media spotlight after he re-joined. Unfortunetly to say he has much to do with recent Apple sucess is a clear overesitmate. He had little if anything to do with the iPod. He doesnt decide platform changes (other people make those descisions and he just OKs it).
Apple fallowers like to evangualize him because he is the face of Apple (a great company with great products). Its all to easy to link the company results to the face of the company. If anything Apple is doing overtime because they are trying to make Jobs look better then he is.
AMD is an option if it ever makes a platform. Until then I doubt Apple wants to rely on five or six companies for an AMD solution. With Intel they can get their CPUs, chipsets, mainboards, wireless chips, and even embedid graphics (well they are getting better) from one company. AMD cant do that, infact intigrating an AMD platform isnt all that easy. You have to research what works with what.
AMD has got Nvidia and their nForce4, which is a great chipset. It provides all the peripherals and Nvidia has their single driver package.
In the end Apple probably went Intel and not AMD for one very simple reason, that I'm sure has been said before, Centrino. AMD simply has nothing to compete with that and Apple's big market has been laptops for years now. Intel has a roadmap built around a very high performing per watt microprocessor. That gives Apple the flexibility to do the designs they want without the concern of performance compared to the rest. They also now have the potential to eliminate one of the big anti-Apple arguments, software migration.
Intel on the other hand gets a company that is interested in innovation and will hopefully help pave the way into new markets for them rather than just try to rinse repeat and compete on price for marketshare. Really it is a very good combination it's just a shame it had to be at the expense of PowerPC, which really was a much nicer architecture.
Quote:
Originally posted by cwestpha
And where does it say Jobs actualy makes the products or pushes them? He just stands up and evangilizes his product. He is there to get the word out, not to sell or design.
Bingo. You pretty much just hit the nail on the head of what a CEO is meant to do. If you want designs you go to your engineering team, if you want sales you have a marketing team, if you want leadership and management and organisation you turn to your CEO. His entire job is to ensure the company operates well and smoothly and people believe in its vision. Do you have any idea how hard it is to actually make thousands of people want to try and achieve your corporate goals? Apple staff are usually incredibly enthusiastic for what they do because they believe solidly in it, that's very rare and starts at the top.
His job is not to develop and sell every single product. He is there to make sure there is a climate conducive to innovation and an organisational structure that operates effectively.
As an aside though Steve Jobs is renowned as a very hands on CEO. It is fairly well published that he was heavily involved in the iPod's design and development and I have no doubt it was to some extent his excessive demand for simplicity, design and UI that got it to where it was.
He also freely admits he learnt a lot after his time away from Apple. You may not agree with all his methods, he may have his faults but he is a good CEO. No company succeeds in spite of their CEO but more than a few go belly up because of them.
Nice to know there are some who appreciate what a CEO really does. Steve is one of the few who successfully made the transition from tiny start up venture to a large corporation. It was a bumpy road, however.
Regarding the PowerPC. I'm not sure we will see the last of it in two years. Apple is getting on board with Intel because of the way things are going today and in the near future. Once the transition is complete, nearly all software will be dual CPU, and any commitments Apple has with Intel will likely be nearing an end. At that point, Apple could use the PowerPC or Cell in places where it delivers the greatest performance. Having a solid base in Intel processors means Apple will not be "dependent" on IBM, like it has been.
Actualy I bet the switch to Intel is simply because Jobs feels IBM betrayed them. First with the promisse of a 3 Ghz G5 in under a year. Then they found out almost all of IBM's chip R&D was going into making striped down G5s for the next generations of videogame consles that simply could not be used in any way to the benefit of apple.
Even today I'm not convinced that a PPE core could not have been advantageous to Apple. It is currently the only way to get three SMT cores on one die. To me it is a total lack of vision and an understanding of technology that has lead Apple down this path.
It is not like the PPE core matched to a large cache and a good memory interface couldn't have done well as a replacement for the G4. That and a small core like the PPE has serious future enhancement potential.
So this causes me to actually believe that Steve is being honest about the power issue. Hot running hardware is IBM's short coming as a chip foundry.
Quote:
The seccond one is probebly what made him so angry he didnt even have G5 in his slides durring the keynote. Steve thinks Apple and himself should be the center of any buisness venture involving the company.
Well when a vendor stumbles as badly as IBM did (far worst than the complaints about Freescale) then yes I could see hwere he might be a bit put off. As to the key note it is pretty remarkable that Steve keep the discussion civil. Of course I suspect that Appples legal department had some nfluence on how Steve delivered the message.
Quote:
Jobs may be inept at buisness, crazy, and in love with himself but boy does he give a good keynote. The only keynote that comes close was the historic "Developers! Developers! Developers!" chant. Granted mostly that was notable because Balmer looked like he lost his mind and was sweating his pits just yelling it at the top of his lungs.
Yes and it keep Apple functioning. The question is what happens to Apple when Steve goes away?
Nice to know there are some who appreciate what a CEO really does. Steve is one of the few who successfully made the transition from tiny start up venture to a large corporation. It was a bumpy road, however.
Business in and of itself is a bummpy road. The strengths and weaknesses of a CEO though can make or break a company. Jpbs has clearly shown that he has the capacity to manage well. It is a shame that people don't understand that he has truely accomplished something that very few people ever do.
Now the real challenge he has ahead is this transistion. I'm not convinced that the decision made is the right one just as many on this board feel. It is clear however that the PPC partners have failed terribly so he had little in the way of choice.
Quote:
Regarding the PowerPC. I'm not sure we will see the last of it in two years. Apple is getting on board with Intel because of the way things are going today and in the near future. Once the transition is complete, nearly all software will be dual CPU, and any commitments Apple has with Intel will likely be nearing an end. At that point, Apple could use the PowerPC or Cell in places where it delivers the greatest performance. Having a solid base in Intel processors means Apple will not be "dependent" on IBM, like it has been.
I solidly convinced that Apple will transistion to Intel and not look back. As to performance we are talking about PC's here, none of the PPC based processors mentioned have been proven to be good PC chips. In any event IBM chips just run to hot.
. . . As to performance we are talking about PC's here, none of the PPC based processors mentioned have been proven to be good PC chips. In any event IBM chips just run to hot. . .
That is today, and possibly for the next year or so. IBM is working with AMD on the 65nm process, and with Sony/Toshiba on the Cell. Combined, these companies have as much talent as Intel, I'm sure. They will not be standing still.
I don't think Apple legal held Steve back during the keynote. Hey, it could have been a mutual agreement between IBM and Apple to part ways for a while. Notice how polite each has been, just providing excuses for doing it and face saving comments in return. This split gives IBM some breathing room to concentrate on their problems and Apple gets a solid supplier of PC type chips with Intel. Once the dust has settled in a few years Apple will be in a position to use any of these chips. Quite a unique position and maybe an industry first, as I had mentioned before. The same OS and software distributions will run on vastly different CPUs.
I don't discount your position at all however. Apple may have made this move and will never look back. Nobody really knows at this point it time except a small group of executives and engineers at Apple, and they aren't talking. I say my scenario is as likely as yours.
That is today, and possibly for the next year or so. IBM is working with AMD on the 65nm process, and with Sony/Toshiba on the Cell. Combined, these companies have as much talent as Intel, I'm sure. They will not be standing still.
Hopefully we will find out soon how well IBM did lowering the power in the 970 series. To be honest I don't hold out much hope.
Quote:
I don't think Apple legal held Steve back during the keynote. Hey, it could have been a mutual agreement between IBM and Apple to part ways for a while. Notice how polite each has been, just providing excuses for doing it and face saving comments in return. This split gives IBM some breathing room to concentrate on their problems and Apple gets a solid supplier of PC type chips with Intel. Once the dust has settled in a few years Apple will be in a position to use any of these chips. Quite a unique position and maybe an industry first, as I had mentioned before. The same OS and software distributions will run on vastly different CPUs.
there is NO WAY Apple would go down this path. could you just imagine how confused the consumer would be or how enraged the developer would be. PPC will disappear from Apples line as fast as it can.
Quote:
I don't discount your position at all however. Apple may have made this move and will never look back. Nobody really knows at this point it time except a small group of executives and engineers at Apple, and they aren't talking. I say my scenario is as likely as yours.
To be honest I wish that the scenario wasn't as it seems to be. I think moving away from PPC will be terribly damaging in the long run for the PC industry. Alternatives are a good thing. further Apple will neve have the oportunity to deliver a faster system than what is available on PC hardware, this will raise hell with Apples ability to sell hardware.
When all personal computers run Intel CPUs (since nothing in the current environment seems to prohibit Intel from arm-twisting everyone to stop using AMD, as they have been doing), there will be no need for any further technological innovation. Oh, we can do a speed bump here and there, I suppose. Just wait and see - Intel will make Motorola look good.
Oh, and you think Apple will be able to move to something else? Funny. Like Hungary choosing a new government in 1956.
Well unlike Moto, who had as many embedded customers as they wanted, and embedded product cycles are MANY times longer than desktop computers. We saw that same business model with IBM as well, despite everyone's hopes it would be different this time.
If Intel doesn't come up with something new worth buying they won't sell as many processors as they need to. Intel has created a need for a self-sustaining upgrade cycle so they have to engineer something the market will continue to want or they will crash in a big way. It may not be as innovatively risky as if they had a competition of equals, but it does need to be something compelling enough to get a fourth to a third of the market to trade in every year.
Comments
Originally posted by cdoverlaw
Also wouldnt it be cool to say we have a 5ghz powerbook instead of a Athlon XP 6000 (which is probably where they will be up to by then, to be honest their numbering system sucks, my chips overclocked in my pc and it dont tell me the cpu speed at bootup it tells me the chip name (which is wrong, it tells me its a 3200xp when its only a 2500xp, but this could be because of it being overclocked)
If OC an Xp from 2599 to 3200 you would need a liquid nitrogen colling system. but yes, by overclocking it you probably confused ur BIOS.
The reason AMD doesnt use the ghz is becuase it would be bad marketing to say that their top processor was ghz slower than intels. AMD's desktop chips are very competitive with intel, and are sometimes better - my personal preference is for AMD, but thats just me.
The reason apple went intel, is becuase intel makes their own chipsets, AMD does not, AMD uses primarily nvidea chipsets, while VIA and SIS (I hate both) make chipstes for both platforms.. Intel also has the Pentium M, with Yonah core, which is the dual core chip likely to be seen in the POwerbooks. AMD has not yet released their Athlon 64 X2, which is their high end (and i believe, only) dual core chip. Intel has dual core options starting from $399AUD, for a dual 2.8ghz processor.
All the pother stuff listed in the orginal post is nothiing new, AMD has had FSB speeds of 3ghz for a while.
Just my $0.02AUD
The seccond one is probebly what made him so angry he didnt even have G5 in his slides durring the keynote. Steve thinks Apple and himself should be the center of any buisness venture involving the company.
Jobs may be inept at buisness, crazy, and in love with himself but boy does he give a good keynote. The only keynote that comes close was the historic "Developers! Developers! Developers!" chant. Granted mostly that was notable because Balmer looked like he lost his mind and was sweating his pits just yelling it at the top of his lungs.
All the pother stuff listed in the orginal post is nothiing new, AMD has had FSB speeds of 3ghz for a while.
I never claimed the stuff was revolutionary but I like the fact that Intel designs their chipsets rather than far out to Sis, Via and other companies. When you want safe and reliable in the PC land you get an Intel chip.
The Athlon/Opteron systems are great "today" however I like Intel's future roadmap better.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I never claimed the stuff was revolutionary but I like the fact that Intel designs their chipsets rather than far out to Sis, Via and other companies. When you want safe and reliable in the PC land you get an Intel chip.
The Athlon/Opteron systems are great "today" however I like Intel's future roadmap better.
Agreed
I think that Apple looks to Intel as a solutions company and the others as CPU manufactures.
Note also that Intel would like to work with Apple that may be a working partner in some of the things that Intel would like to do besides computers, like WiMax. Apple can adopt and integrate and will do so in a way that may influence MS to better integrate the technology. Not pointing a bad finger at MS at all, they have allot of legacy, and a huge market with lots of different groups and sub groups. MS can benefit by Apple showing them how to integrate new technologies and what the payoff is. For example, Apple integrated handwriting technology, but the payoff was not so big, so far. iTunes the payoff was huge. Apple may adopt WiMax and find out that there is a better solution, that is a misstep on Apple. Or Apple could integrate WiMax in such a way that makes using it a total solution, maybe even so good that the end user need not know it is even there, it configures itself, and all the Mac folks laugh at WinTel users. MS is compelled to adopt to provide the same solutions to their customers. Intel works with Apple and sees what sticks to the wall, MS adopts what is good for them, better success for Intel. Intel needs a market that is clamoring for new gadgets and Apple is a company that can take technology and wrap it in pretty plastics and great user interface. Win-Win-Win
Originally posted by hmurchison
... The Athlon/Opteron systems are great "today" however I like Intel's future roadmap better.
Apple will find, as did Compaq and Dell before them, that having Intel as their supplier is like dancing with a 600-pound gorilla. Their technology is clearly behind AMD's, but it isn't their technology that really gives off that nasty odor.
We have to keep AMD alive though and thus I will build all my homebuilts using AMD processors. It's cheaper faster and AMD does have that David vs Goliath spunk.
I agree that on the desktop AMD 0wn5!11!
Originally posted by cwestpha
Jobs may be inept at buisness,
Last year: $1.21 Billion in free cash flow*, $1.97 Billion cash flow from operations*, yup that's downright awful...
*trailing twelve months From Yahoo Finance's stats on AAPL
Originally posted by tchwojko
Last year: $1.21 Billion in free cash flow*, $1.97 Billion cash flow from operations*, yup that's downright awful...
*trailing twelve months From Yahoo Finance's stats on AAPL
I have to agree here and wonder where the foundation of the original comments Originally posted by cwestpha
Jobs may be inept at buisness, came from.
SJ is running two companies and both are very successful, he has turned around Apple which no one else could do. Until I hear some evidence then I will assume that this comment is groundless, and baseless.
AMD is a future option when Apple moves to "Intel".
AMD is an option if it ever makes a platform. Until then I doubt Apple wants to rely on five or six companies for an AMD solution. With Intel they can get their CPUs, chipsets, mainboards, wireless chips, and even embedid graphics (well they are getting better) from one company. AMD cant do that, infact intigrating an AMD platform isnt all that easy. You have to research what works with what.
Last year: $1.21 Billion in free cash flow*, $1.97 Billion cash flow from operations*, yup that's downright awful...
And where does it say Jobs actualy makes the products or pushes them? He just stands up and evangilizes his product. He is there to get the word out, not to sell or design.
Woz did more then Jobs for the company. He made the technology and platform that first launched it. Jobs just did a little bit of early PR, with the help from some of the two's freinds, and made initial sales. He got pretty quick out of direct sales. Then Jobs tried to dictate where the company should go and Woz left because he wanted to make a good fun product where as Jobs wanted to take on IBM.
SJ is running two companies and both are very successful, he has turned around Apple which no one else could do. Until I hear some evidence then I will assume that this comment is groundless, and baseless.
Which he doesnt do anything constructive with other then bring in investment dollars (a good thing for starting companies, but not usefull for established brands) and get media attention through his crazy antics.
Other people in the company make the ads, sell to consumers, make the products, support the products, and come up with new ideas. Jobs has never done one of these things in atleast 20 years.
If anything he has done more damage to Apple then good. He almost destroyed the Macintosh by first trying to financialy kill the program before they showed him a demo and he emidiatly took over (and transfered the person who came up with the idea). He destroyed the Apple Newton to try and refocus the company on the Macintosh (Newton was the only profitable product apple made at the time). Durring most development cycles he will hawk over programers and use illigal tactics (like 60+ hour work weeks with no overtime pay) and promisse things to outragus that many inside forces have to work themselves to the bone to deliver (Lisa, the Mac, etc).
On the plus side he did bring Apple back into the media spotlight after he re-joined. Unfortunetly to say he has much to do with recent Apple sucess is a clear overesitmate. He had little if anything to do with the iPod. He doesnt decide platform changes (other people make those descisions and he just OKs it).
Apple fallowers like to evangualize him because he is the face of Apple (a great company with great products). Its all to easy to link the company results to the face of the company. If anything Apple is doing overtime because they are trying to make Jobs look better then he is.
What the hell does this have to do with Intel's "Platformization"?! You know, the topic of this thread?
And what does Job's tactics from twenty years ago have to do with Apple today?
Originally posted by cwestpha
AMD is an option if it ever makes a platform. Until then I doubt Apple wants to rely on five or six companies for an AMD solution. With Intel they can get their CPUs, chipsets, mainboards, wireless chips, and even embedid graphics (well they are getting better) from one company. AMD cant do that, infact intigrating an AMD platform isnt all that easy. You have to research what works with what.
AMD has got Nvidia and their nForce4, which is a great chipset. It provides all the peripherals and Nvidia has their single driver package.
Intel on the other hand gets a company that is interested in innovation and will hopefully help pave the way into new markets for them rather than just try to rinse repeat and compete on price for marketshare. Really it is a very good combination it's just a shame it had to be at the expense of PowerPC, which really was a much nicer architecture.
Originally posted by cwestpha
And where does it say Jobs actualy makes the products or pushes them? He just stands up and evangilizes his product. He is there to get the word out, not to sell or design.
Bingo. You pretty much just hit the nail on the head of what a CEO is meant to do. If you want designs you go to your engineering team, if you want sales you have a marketing team, if you want leadership and management and organisation you turn to your CEO. His entire job is to ensure the company operates well and smoothly and people believe in its vision. Do you have any idea how hard it is to actually make thousands of people want to try and achieve your corporate goals? Apple staff are usually incredibly enthusiastic for what they do because they believe solidly in it, that's very rare and starts at the top.
His job is not to develop and sell every single product. He is there to make sure there is a climate conducive to innovation and an organisational structure that operates effectively.
As an aside though Steve Jobs is renowned as a very hands on CEO. It is fairly well published that he was heavily involved in the iPod's design and development and I have no doubt it was to some extent his excessive demand for simplicity, design and UI that got it to where it was.
He also freely admits he learnt a lot after his time away from Apple. You may not agree with all his methods, he may have his faults but he is a good CEO. No company succeeds in spite of their CEO but more than a few go belly up because of them.
Regarding the PowerPC. I'm not sure we will see the last of it in two years. Apple is getting on board with Intel because of the way things are going today and in the near future. Once the transition is complete, nearly all software will be dual CPU, and any commitments Apple has with Intel will likely be nearing an end. At that point, Apple could use the PowerPC or Cell in places where it delivers the greatest performance. Having a solid base in Intel processors means Apple will not be "dependent" on IBM, like it has been.
Originally posted by cwestpha
Actualy I bet the switch to Intel is simply because Jobs feels IBM betrayed them. First with the promisse of a 3 Ghz G5 in under a year. Then they found out almost all of IBM's chip R&D was going into making striped down G5s for the next generations of videogame consles that simply could not be used in any way to the benefit of apple.
Even today I'm not convinced that a PPE core could not have been advantageous to Apple. It is currently the only way to get three SMT cores on one die. To me it is a total lack of vision and an understanding of technology that has lead Apple down this path.
It is not like the PPE core matched to a large cache and a good memory interface couldn't have done well as a replacement for the G4. That and a small core like the PPE has serious future enhancement potential.
So this causes me to actually believe that Steve is being honest about the power issue. Hot running hardware is IBM's short coming as a chip foundry.
Quote:
The seccond one is probebly what made him so angry he didnt even have G5 in his slides durring the keynote. Steve thinks Apple and himself should be the center of any buisness venture involving the company.
Well when a vendor stumbles as badly as IBM did (far worst than the complaints about Freescale) then yes I could see hwere he might be a bit put off. As to the key note it is pretty remarkable that Steve keep the discussion civil. Of course I suspect that Appples legal department had some nfluence on how Steve delivered the message.
Quote:
Jobs may be inept at buisness, crazy, and in love with himself but boy does he give a good keynote. The only keynote that comes close was the historic "Developers! Developers! Developers!" chant. Granted mostly that was notable because Balmer looked like he lost his mind and was sweating his pits just yelling it at the top of his lungs.
Yes and it keep Apple functioning. The question is what happens to Apple when Steve goes away?
Dave
Originally posted by snoopy
Nice to know there are some who appreciate what a CEO really does. Steve is one of the few who successfully made the transition from tiny start up venture to a large corporation. It was a bumpy road, however.
Business in and of itself is a bummpy road. The strengths and weaknesses of a CEO though can make or break a company. Jpbs has clearly shown that he has the capacity to manage well. It is a shame that people don't understand that he has truely accomplished something that very few people ever do.
Now the real challenge he has ahead is this transistion. I'm not convinced that the decision made is the right one just as many on this board feel. It is clear however that the PPC partners have failed terribly so he had little in the way of choice.
Quote:
Regarding the PowerPC. I'm not sure we will see the last of it in two years. Apple is getting on board with Intel because of the way things are going today and in the near future. Once the transition is complete, nearly all software will be dual CPU, and any commitments Apple has with Intel will likely be nearing an end. At that point, Apple could use the PowerPC or Cell in places where it delivers the greatest performance. Having a solid base in Intel processors means Apple will not be "dependent" on IBM, like it has been.
I solidly convinced that Apple will transistion to Intel and not look back. As to performance we are talking about PC's here, none of the PPC based processors mentioned have been proven to be good PC chips. In any event IBM chips just run to hot.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by wizard69
. . . As to performance we are talking about PC's here, none of the PPC based processors mentioned have been proven to be good PC chips. In any event IBM chips just run to hot. . .
That is today, and possibly for the next year or so. IBM is working with AMD on the 65nm process, and with Sony/Toshiba on the Cell. Combined, these companies have as much talent as Intel, I'm sure. They will not be standing still.
I don't think Apple legal held Steve back during the keynote. Hey, it could have been a mutual agreement between IBM and Apple to part ways for a while. Notice how polite each has been, just providing excuses for doing it and face saving comments in return. This split gives IBM some breathing room to concentrate on their problems and Apple gets a solid supplier of PC type chips with Intel. Once the dust has settled in a few years Apple will be in a position to use any of these chips. Quite a unique position and maybe an industry first, as I had mentioned before. The same OS and software distributions will run on vastly different CPUs.
I don't discount your position at all however. Apple may have made this move and will never look back. Nobody really knows at this point it time except a small group of executives and engineers at Apple, and they aren't talking. I say my scenario is as likely as yours.
Originally posted by snoopy
That is today, and possibly for the next year or so. IBM is working with AMD on the 65nm process, and with Sony/Toshiba on the Cell. Combined, these companies have as much talent as Intel, I'm sure. They will not be standing still.
Hopefully we will find out soon how well IBM did lowering the power in the 970 series. To be honest I don't hold out much hope.
Quote:
I don't think Apple legal held Steve back during the keynote. Hey, it could have been a mutual agreement between IBM and Apple to part ways for a while. Notice how polite each has been, just providing excuses for doing it and face saving comments in return. This split gives IBM some breathing room to concentrate on their problems and Apple gets a solid supplier of PC type chips with Intel. Once the dust has settled in a few years Apple will be in a position to use any of these chips. Quite a unique position and maybe an industry first, as I had mentioned before. The same OS and software distributions will run on vastly different CPUs.
there is NO WAY Apple would go down this path. could you just imagine how confused the consumer would be or how enraged the developer would be. PPC will disappear from Apples line as fast as it can.
Quote:
I don't discount your position at all however. Apple may have made this move and will never look back. Nobody really knows at this point it time except a small group of executives and engineers at Apple, and they aren't talking. I say my scenario is as likely as yours.
To be honest I wish that the scenario wasn't as it seems to be. I think moving away from PPC will be terribly damaging in the long run for the PC industry. Alternatives are a good thing. further Apple will neve have the oportunity to deliver a faster system than what is available on PC hardware, this will raise hell with Apples ability to sell hardware.
Dave
Oh, and you think Apple will be able to move to something else? Funny. Like Hungary choosing a new government in 1956.
If Intel doesn't come up with something new worth buying they won't sell as many processors as they need to. Intel has created a need for a self-sustaining upgrade cycle so they have to engineer something the market will continue to want or they will crash in a big way. It may not be as innovatively risky as if they had a competition of equals, but it does need to be something compelling enough to get a fourth to a third of the market to trade in every year.