It'll be official on Monday: Apple switching to Intel chips

[Asher]

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html&OP=459eafbc/1jQ5DQ5E1iIQ2B-4IIpK1K,,u1,N1,N1pQ5DQ2ByVIQ3BI_t1,N0BBQ3BQ5DXypQ22Q3B

All of the chips that IBM makes Apple account for 2% of the output at just one of its fab plants (East Fishkill, NY).



Also:

For I.B.M., the end of the Apple partnership means the loss of a prestigious customer, but not one that is any longer very important to I.B.M.'s sales or profits. It further underlines how much I.B.M. and its strategy in recent years have moved away from the personal computer industry that it helped create. Last month, I.B.M. completed the sale of its personal computer business to Lenovo of China.

Even as a chip maker, I.B.M. has moved aggressively beyond the PC industry, focusing on making the processors for video game consoles from Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony, and specialized chips for other uses, like the Internet router computers made by Cisco Systems and cellphone technology by Qualcomm. I.B.M. also uses its Power microprocessors in many of its own server computers, which run corporate networks.

For years, according to industry analysts, the work for Apple has been barely a break-even business for I.B.M. When the two companies were negotiating a new contract recently, Mr. Jobs pushed for price discounts that I.B.M. refused to offer. For I.B.M., "the economics just didn't work," said one industry executive who was briefed on the negotiations. "And Apple is not so important a customer that you would take the financial hit to hold onto the relationship."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Hueij

IBM doesn't cotton well to criticism, particularly from allies. "We invented the cash register! We came up with fractals! We sponsor Christmas specials," is sort of IBM's attitude toward the rest of the world. Big Blue started to hang out with console makers and listen to old Springsteen records on the car stereo.

Making fun of Apple is okay, but working for IBM and posting this?

Hey, IBM are now a toymaker.

In other news, apart from a few Apple loons, most users don't care. I certainly don't.

[Gatekeeper]

Bah. I don't care what chips are in my Apple. What I care about is compatibility and, frankly, help or no help, it's something Mac consumers are going to be thinking hard about when considering their next purchases.

I, for one, will likely not get an iMac G5 now. Geez. Wait for Tiger to come out, and look what I get. "Oh, hey, now we're going to switch to a different chip maker, buty, hey, don't worry, we'll think about you PPC-based Mac users. Yeah, sure we will. Yep. You betcha."

In a way, thank goodness it happened *before* I plunked down cold, hard cash. Now I can sit on it again, and let it accrue interest. (Good God, my life is boring sometimes.)

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

I, for one, will likely not get an iMac G5 now. Geez. Wait for Tiger to come o[ut, and look what I get. "Oh, hey, now we're going to switch to a different chip maker, buty, hey, don't worry, we'll think about you PPC-based Mac users. Yeah, sure we will. Yep. You betcha."

It won't make much of a difference. Programs will be compiled as fat binaries for both architectures. There's no way software manufacturers could afford not to support any current new PPC mac for the next 4 years at least. There will be no compatibility problems with OS X compatible software.

But it will probably be worth waiting a year to see what the Intel ones are like. If you want to play Civ II fork out now, since the Intel machines will probably not be classic compatible (a problem for about 2% of the mac using population).

Frankly some of the comments on various sites border on the idiotic. One guy thinks that switching to Intel will mean the mac becomes vulnerable to the viruses that plague X86 PCs. I don't know what drugs that dude is on. Some Wintel users seem to think they can buy a Dell and install OS X on it. I don't consider myself as really well informed on the issue, but these people are '*****.

It's a new processor. Big deal. In 2 years no-one will care. Frankly, it looks to be less of a hassle than the move to OS X.

[Sikander]

Yea, don't worry. Get that white elephant while it's still hot (and not heavily discounted).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hey, IBM are now a toymaker.

In other news, apart from a few Apple loons, most users don't care. I certainly don't.

The funnier part is how IBM has intentionally restricted the performance of the PowerPC 970 to prevent it from cannibalizing the sales of their high-end, higher-profit margin servers.

For whatever reason, the RAM latency on the G5 platform is insanely high (303 nanoseconds) compared to the Intel/AMD platform (130-153 nanoseconds). Yet, the G5 had the smallest cache as well to try to hide those latencies: 512KB vs 1MB on Intel/AMD.

It's a simple design choice where a rather trivial change would significantly boost performance...but that would hurt other IBM sales.

Apple's been getting screwed consistently in the deal, it's amazing it took them so long to figure it out.

[Asher]

That just looks funny.


Jobs tries to impress people with a die photo of the new 64-bit Intel Pentium D (dual-core P4)?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Corrected.

Why should one get cognitive dissonance from being a commie, cappy boy?

[Asher]

The first Intel chip Apple is likely to use in PowerMacs is "Presler":


Or the single-core version "Cedar Mill" in the lower-end PowerMacs (or maybe an iMac?)

Both of these are due Q1 2006, and are 65nm Pentium 4/Netburst derivatives.

On the laptop front, it's likely that Apple will use Intel's "Yonah" dual-core Pentium M chip on 65nm.

[Asher]

http://news.com.com/The+Apple+deal+What+others+are+saying/2100-1016_3-5734389.html?tag=nefd.top

"We believe the move is risky for Apple. By switching to a more mass market processor, Apple likely risks diluting its value proposition, as it has less control over the product road map."
--Steven Fortuna, Prudential Equity Group analyst

"There's more applications available for Windows than there are on Apple. All a chip change could do is probably slow that down because maybe there would be a big disruption with your ISV (independent software vendor) community...There's more training, knowledge, management on how to implement networks. What changes? I don't know."
--Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

"I will never buy Apple again, ever. If this is true, I am very sad. How will I get new software for my computer?"
--John Bresnahan, CNET News.com reader

"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned. I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers."
--Nathan Brookwood, Insight 64 analyst

"This is kind of like if your two best friends decided to get married and you don't know what it means. You feel sort of conflicted."
--Matthew Woolrums, conference attendee

[Atahualpa]

Dual-Core Pentium M will certainly deal major pwnage!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Why should one get cognitive dissonance from being a commie, cappy boy?

Cue a 500 post cap/com thread

[Agathon]

I predict no-one will care in two years. Apple will still be selling computers and probably doing better than now.

I can't see why people are worried about a chip. That is not why most people use Apple: it's the software stupid.

Apparently you will be able to install and boot Windows alongside the Mac OS on the Macintels if you really want to (acc. to Phil Schiller), so I guess that people who want to game and have a mac for work, like Lord Nuclear, now have an easy solution.

As for these comments.

"We believe the move is risky for Apple. By switching to a more mass market processor, Apple likely risks diluting its value proposition, as it has less control over the product road map."
--Steven Fortuna, Prudential Equity Group analyst

That's just daft. The whole point of changing was that they didn't have control over the product road map. In fact, Apple now has more control, since they can switch to AMD with little fuss, if Intel should fail to perform.

"There's more applications available for Windows than there are on Apple. All a chip change could do is probably slow that down because maybe there would be a big disruption with your ISV (independent software vendor) community...There's more training, knowledge, management on how to implement networks. What changes? I don't know."
--Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

It's not going to be that much of a big deal. Adobe and Microsoft have committed to the change. The others will follow. The change to Intel is less difficult than the change to OS X, so there won't be that much of a problem.

"I will never buy Apple again, ever. If this is true, I am very sad. How will I get new software for my computer?"
--John Bresnahan, CNET News.com reader

By going to the store and buying it. In fact, if Apple is to be believed, you can now install Windows alongside the Mac OS, so you instantly have access to a whole load of games that you didn't before. Where's the problem with that?

"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned. I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers."
--Nathan Brookwood, Insight 64 analyst

Chalk up another one for the Apple Death Knell counter.

"This is kind of like if your two best friends decided to get married and you don't know what it means. You feel sort of conflicted."
--Matthew Woolrums, conference attendee

That's funny.

[Asher]

What does your avatar say, aside from "Intel Inside"?

I'm curious, are you going to be an Intel fanboy now?

[Nostromo]

Given its Homer Simpson's head, I bet I ain't nice