Anyway, while it is completely possible that Apple will eventually use AMD chips, this dude just*inadvertently showed his hand ..........and he's bluffing.* Any work with Apple would have been done in complete silence, as others have mentioned. This just proves there really is nothing going on.
Anyhow, didn't ATI piss Apple off more than a few times last few years?
I like how he says, "Why would Apple want to be held hostage". What an idiot. It is intel who is hostage to Apple. Apple is raping them with incredibly low margins for intel. Pretty soon, AMD will be in the Apple vice. Apple comes out on top.
I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.
Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.
If we can think of this why not intel, it would take a little more to scare intel, I mean they do realize how much success apple has gained because of them. I dont think they are worried at all.
They may or may not use AMD chips, but the did not "adapt" OS X to Intel. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the port was to PowerPC, not Intel. NeXT already ran on Intel, and when they developed OS X, they developed it for both Intel and PowerPC, but they HID the Intel side.
Additionally, of course Apple isn't being "held hostage." If they want to do business with AMD, they'll let AMD know.
Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.
I can see it, but not in the same models at the same time. Apple switched between IBM and Motorola for their PPC chips several times, depending on the product and task in question. Their server line might possibly have Opterons if there's a worthwhile advantage even if the workstations have Core X chips, or the workstations and servers would have Opteron, but the rest of the line might be Core. I think there may be a lot of factors to consider, it it may need to be a very significant advantage to the needs of the users. Intel has had a performance advantage for media work for quite some time, so machines intended for that would likely remain Core.
It seems like AMD is having a hard enough time transitioning to 65nm processes, so it's probably not any time very soon.
I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.
Heh! Apple could vigorously deny it, and then do it the next day. Wouldn't be a first.
But, I see no need for it. No expectation that AMD will surpass Intel anytime soon.
We seem to be back to the '90's, where AMD was always playing catch-up.
The headline is incredibly misleading. He's essentially saying he can imagine apple knocking on their door evebtually, not that they have.
But the thing is apple probably can never use AMD chips because they offer to few cmputer models, it'd be too confusing to consumers. They only offer 5 computer models, 1 or 2 with AMD chips just wouldn't make any sense.
"Hoping" that they will knock on their door, is more like it.
AMD has some top-notch stuff; I can't wait to see what comes of their interrogated chipsets in future products. But when Apple was looking to make the switch AMD's roadmap didn't leak as bright as Intel's. Their mobile processors, server, desktop, a mobile chip in a Mac mini from AMD would have meant fans as well. Their Performance-Per-Watt was a little higher than Intel?s.
"Interrogated" Chip sets?
Right now, AMD is behind in every area that serves Apple's purpose.
Late 2007, or early 2008, Intel will be going to integrated memory controllers as well. Until then, AMD will have nothing to offer Apple. And when that does happen at Intel, whatever AMD does have to offer will be moved a step back again.
Show us what models have a better performance per watt. I don't know of any that match Intel's Apple offerings. Or, that of total performance.
The average user doesn't give a carp about what CPU is inside their computer (if they even know what a CPU is). As long as the computer does what they need to do with it...
So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?
It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.
Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.
I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.
Apple currently offers a specific level of Server tier. When they expand that area it is only reasonable that they will have offerings of both.
Apple is still a main member of the Hypertransport Consortium. The motherboard issues aren't difficult hurdles.
If Apple moves passed the 1U XServe and offers a 2U or 3U or a Blade configuration they will expand their vertical markets.
These areas AMD is gouging Intel. Take a look at Sun, HP, IBM. They all have AMD.
IF, and that is a big if, Apple ever moves to four socket, or higher, servers, it might be worth considering. But Apple has shown no inclination to do so.
By the time they do (if they ever do), it may not matter. Intel is moving to a better memory model. I think the issue will disappear about the time Apple might be ready.
Comments
Not going to happen Hector.
Of course it will happen. In fact, the OS will already be running in-house on AMD chips.
Apple is still a main member of the Hypertransport Consortium. The motherboard issues aren't difficult hurdles.
If Apple moves passed the 1U XServe and offers a 2U or 3U or a Blade configuration they will expand their vertical markets.
These areas AMD is gouging Intel. Take a look at Sun, HP, IBM. They all have AMD.
In fact, now that I think of it... perhaps the future lineup from intel is co-planned by the two CEO's of intel and Apple from the start.
That's been my suspicion ever since the Mactel announcement last year.
marijuanna ladies and gentleman...
Marijuanna is not an hallucinogen.*
Anyway, while it is completely possible that Apple will eventually use AMD chips, this dude just*inadvertently showed his hand ..........and he's bluffing.* Any work with Apple would have been done in complete silence, as others have mentioned. This just proves there really is nothing going on.
Anyhow, didn't ATI piss Apple off more than a few times last few years?
I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.
Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.
Even if it was in SJ's head, he hates when others invite Apple into their homes (so to speak) before Apple does.
-Clive
Not going to happen Hector.
Apple was using Intel chips in a secret remote lab while you were making the same quote against about using Intel instead of PPC.
Apple is all about opportunity, too.
Additionally, of course Apple isn't being "held hostage." If they want to do business with AMD, they'll let AMD know.
Perhaps... I can't see Apple offering both AMD and Intel at the same time - that's way too much like Dell's "customize it all" business model. I could definitely see Apple jumping ship, though, or at least threatening to jump ship in order to squeeze Intel a bit.
I can see it, but not in the same models at the same time. Apple switched between IBM and Motorola for their PPC chips several times, depending on the product and task in question. Their server line might possibly have Opterons if there's a worthwhile advantage even if the workstations have Core X chips, or the workstations and servers would have Opteron, but the rest of the line might be Core. I think there may be a lot of factors to consider, it it may need to be a very significant advantage to the needs of the users. Intel has had a performance advantage for media work for quite some time, so machines intended for that would likely remain Core.
It seems like AMD is having a hard enough time transitioning to 65nm processes, so it's probably not any time very soon.
I think it'll happen in a couple of years. Apple won't vigorously deny it because the only way to keep Intel honest is to let them know that other good options exist. Intel knows, from what happened to IBM, that Apple can move in a different direction with nary a hint of their plans.
Heh! Apple could vigorously deny it, and then do it the next day. Wouldn't be a first.
But, I see no need for it. No expectation that AMD will surpass Intel anytime soon.
We seem to be back to the '90's, where AMD was always playing catch-up.
The headline is misleading. There's a big difference between "Apple to use AMD chips" and "Apple should use AMD chips."
More like; "AMD says; "Apple, please use our chips!"."
The Sunnyvale, California-based AMD is the world's second-largest chipmaker, behind only Intel.
According to what ? I thought it was IBM.
The headline is incredibly misleading. He's essentially saying he can imagine apple knocking on their door evebtually, not that they have.
But the thing is apple probably can never use AMD chips because they offer to few cmputer models, it'd be too confusing to consumers. They only offer 5 computer models, 1 or 2 with AMD chips just wouldn't make any sense.
"Hoping" that they will knock on their door, is more like it.
AMD has some top-notch stuff; I can't wait to see what comes of their interrogated chipsets in future products. But when Apple was looking to make the switch AMD's roadmap didn't leak as bright as Intel's. Their mobile processors, server, desktop, a mobile chip in a Mac mini from AMD would have meant fans as well. Their Performance-Per-Watt was a little higher than Intel?s.
"Interrogated" Chip sets?
Right now, AMD is behind in every area that serves Apple's purpose.
Late 2007, or early 2008, Intel will be going to integrated memory controllers as well. Until then, AMD will have nothing to offer Apple. And when that does happen at Intel, whatever AMD does have to offer will be moved a step back again.
Show us what models have a better performance per watt. I don't know of any that match Intel's Apple offerings. Or, that of total performance.
So yeah, I'm sure Apple already has Mac OS X running on AMD CPUs and is fully prepared for the situation where Intel's offerings aren't good enough for them (or AMDs are more attractive). Why wouldn't they be?
It's so funny to see the same Mac users who whine and complain about how Macs are so much better than PCs, and about how everyone should switch to Mac, dissing someone who's essentially doing the same thing in another area of technology.
Intel has gotten to the top position the same way Microsoft has -- not necessarily on the best technology, but often by locking business partners in so that they can't choose other technology even if they wanted to.
I see the AMD vs Intel battle as being similar in a lot of ways to Apple vs Microsoft.
Apple currently offers a specific level of Server tier. When they expand that area it is only reasonable that they will have offerings of both.
Apple is still a main member of the Hypertransport Consortium. The motherboard issues aren't difficult hurdles.
If Apple moves passed the 1U XServe and offers a 2U or 3U or a Blade configuration they will expand their vertical markets.
These areas AMD is gouging Intel. Take a look at Sun, HP, IBM. They all have AMD.
IF, and that is a big if, Apple ever moves to four socket, or higher, servers, it might be worth considering. But Apple has shown no inclination to do so.
By the time they do (if they ever do), it may not matter. Intel is moving to a better memory model. I think the issue will disappear about the time Apple might be ready.