Apple to use Intel chips

[Asher]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2005-05-23T085144Z_01_N23148464_RTRIDST_0_TECH-TECH-APPLE-INTEL-DC.XML

Apple explores use of Intel chips -report
Mon May 23, 2005 9:51 AM BST
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."

It was unclear whether such a move would signal a large-scale shift away from chips made by IBM, Apple's longtime supplier, the report said.

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said.

Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc. .

Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said.

Apple sells only about three million computers a year -- a small portion of the estimated 200 million sold globally.

But for Intel, winning over Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters and could associate the chipmaker with Apple's hugely popular iPod music player.

Apple's shares have nearly quadrupled since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.

Wow, who saw this one coming!

[Agathon]

Old news.

[Asher]

It would really throw a wrench into the fanboys talking up the G5's superiority.

[Agathon]

It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to most Apple users, who buy Apple for the OS.

And this just seems to be the latest in a long series of rumours.

[Fake Boris]

Any chance that they choose AMD instead?

[Asher]

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+Intel+Some+advantage%2C+lots+of+risk/2100-1006_3-5716696.html?tag=nefd.top

Apple to Intel: Some advantage, lots of risk
Published: May 23, 2005, 11:44 AM PDT
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Will Apple Computer go to Intel? It's easy to think about but tough to do, warn analysts.

The two companies have met recently to discuss an alliance that could lead to Apple computers running processors from Intel, according to the Wall Street Journal. While the idea has been floated for years, this time there appears to be a little more impetus for Apple to convert.

Apple also needs a low-power chip, similar to the processor in Intel's Centrino bundle, for the growing laptop market. IBM currently supplies processors for Apple's G5 desktops, but the chip runs on a maximum of 100 watts--quite a bit of power--and dissipates so much heat that laptops employing the chips haven't emerged.

But now comes the tough part. If Apple did port its OS and other applications so that the software would run on Intel chips, it opens the possibility that hackers and clone manufacturers could assemble their own Mac PCs with cheap, generic hardware and store-bought copies of Apple's software.

Apple's hardware is typically more expensive than the machines from rivals because it insists on unusual design twists, such as LCD screens (on the second iMac) that have a viewing angle of almost 180 degrees, which adds cost. Clones could undercut Apple easily.

Accepting clone manufacturers and selling them software would allow Apple to begin to make money off licensing, said IDC analyst Roger Kay. However, Apple CEO Steve Jobs doesn't like clones--he made the decision to snuff out a budding clone business after he returned to the company in 1996, according to several sources.

Stopping uninvited clones, meanwhile, could be tough. One anti-clone method could involve designing a BIOS--a piece of software that links the hardware to the OS--and programming it so that it recognizes authorized hardware. Unfortunately, such a setup could, and would, be spoofed.

"The cost (of spoofing the BIOS anti-clone system) would come to having a grad student stay up all night," said Kay. "The company might be successful in the short term, but in the escalating war of hackerdom it would be a never-ending job."

Apple could also get around the clone problem by devising its own chipset, said Kevin Krewell, editor in chief of the Microprocessor Report. But chipsets are expensive and complicated and almost as difficult (but not nearly as profitable) as microprocessors to develop. Most PC and server makers cut back on developing their own chipsets years ago.

Then there is the problem of porting all that software to work with the Intel chips. The Mac OS X is based on Unix, which runs on Intel chips, but bringing everything over would require time and expense. It is also unclear if Apple could port the Altivec processor instructions, which handle multimedia functions on IBM Power chips. Instead, Apple would likely have to find similar functions in Intel's multimedia instructions, or suffer a performance hit.

Krewell added that Apple machines wouldn't necessarily perform better on Intel chips. IBM can produce dual-core chips for Apple--it just produced a three-core chip for Microsoft's upcoming Xbox. The design of the Xbox chip, partly conceived by Microsoft, is owned by the software giant, but IBM could spin a similar chip for Apple. It also built the Cell processor, a Power processor with eight helper cores, for the PlayStation3. Both of these chips run at more than 3GHz, close to Intel's current speeds.
Why FCC is targeting VoIP 911 calls

Low power is also something IBM likely could conquer, said Krewell. If it has to, IBM could license technology to make it happen. Sony, for example, licensed energy efficiency technology from Transmeta for Cell. And IBM actually had a license for some Transmeta technology for years.

A switch to Intel also would raise cultural issues for Apple, which for years has maintained that the PowerPC architecture is better suited to the graphics-intensive tasks performed on most Macs. Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller has done many Macworld demos showing Photoshop and other programs running faster on a slower-clock-speed PowerPC chip than it does on a top-of-the line Pentium.

Most likely, the leak over the negotiations is a bargaining ploy by Apple, Krewell said.

"Apple is feeling ignored and feeling that IBM is paying too much attention to the gaming guys," he said. "This is just a maneuver by Apple to whack IBM. Do you know how you can tell that Apple isn't serious? Has Apple sued the Wall Street Journal for releasing trade secrets?"

Earlier this year, Apple sued a blog site for reporting product information before the product came out.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Any chance that they choose AMD instead?

They've been talking to Intel, and not AMD, AFAIK.

AMD's mobile chips also suck compared to Centrino, which is Apple's main concern IMO.

Hell, you could do a badass iMac with Centrino chips.

[Agathon]

Last time Apple was talking to AMD some people made big noises. A pity the truth was that it was for chips that powered the Airport stuff.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So will we have Apptel along with Wintel now?

[Nostromo]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050523-4932.html

Another perspective on this issue:

One of the most persistent rumors about Apple is that they are contemplating a switch from the PowerPC architecture to x86. That particular rumor popped up again today in a rather unlikely place--the front page of the "Money & Investing" section of the Wall Street Journal. According to the article, Apple and Intel have been in discussions over moving Apple's CPU business from IBM to Intel. From the article (which is available online only to WSJ subscribers):

The idea that Apple Computer might use Intel-based products... has long been the subject of industry speculation and off-and-on again negotiations between Apple and Intel. Two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

The article goes on to list the benefits of switching to Intel CPUs: better laptop chips, a dual-core CPU solution, better pricing--which could then be passed on to consumers--and even running Windows natively on Macintosh hardware. (I can't say I think the last item is much of a benefit.)

Apple has flirted with Intel before. In 1992, project Star Trek actually had System 7 running on Intel hardware, but Apple ultimately pulled the plug on it. Also, NeXT—the OS from which Mac OS X developed--ran on x86 hardware. The OpenStep APIs used in early builds of OS X were cross-platform, and there were x86 builds of OS X around the time of DP2. Rumor has it that Apple still keeps a build of OS X for x86 current.

So what should we make of the Journal's pronouncement that Apple is going to start getting CPUs from Intel? It's conceivable, but not likely for Apple's server, desktop, or laptop lines. In other words, Apple may be very well talking to Intel, but they're not likely to use Intel chips for anything that runs Mac OS X.

First of all, despite the fact that IBM has not yet reached the magic 3.0GHz mark with the PowerPC 970 chip, it has been making some serious headway in workstation CPUs as of late. The Xenon and Cell processors that will be used in the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 could also be the basis for a great workstation CPU. Both of the designs would need some refinement and tweaking to be used in a Macintosh, but that's not out of the question.

Moving to a different architecture would also be a huge undertaking. Even if Apple has a ready-made build of OS X, all of the applications for the platform would need to be recompiled at the very least. Having said that, I'd love a Centrino PowerBook running Mac OS X.

There's a much simpler explanation available. The Apple-Intel conversations that the WSJ is reporting likely have to do with Intel's Xscale CPU, a cool little chip that is fantastic for things like appliances and portable devices. Think gadgets and set-top boxes. If Apple is looking at branching out into other consumer electronics hardware, the Xscale would be a logical choice.

So is not out of the question—indeed, it is quite plausible—that Apple and Intel are having conversations about Apple using Intel chips in their product line. A wholesale architecture switch for desktops and laptops is neither the simplest nor the most likely explanation for the talks.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Asher

Hell, you could do a badass iMac with Centrino chips.

[Atahualpa]

So IBM is an incompetent chip-maker?

[Asher]

I wouldn't say they're incompetent, it's more apt to say that Apple is a tiny customer that whines a lot, and they're getting what they deserve.

As you may have guessed, IBM's chip designers have been extremely busy recently. They're spread thin, and Apple is the smallest customer.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is a smart move by Apple. Best to ditch IBM for a real company.

[Asher]

Both are stellar companies, but it does make more sense.

Intel's chips are more consumer-oriented, IBM's chips are increasingly backend-server-rack oriented.

There's not enough demand for IBM to allocate resources to a mobile G5 chip. They'd probably sell a couple hundred thousand units/year...what's the point?