any mac user does

6/4/2005 11:29:02 PM

Well, [no]. A very good iMac costs $2K.

6/4/2005 11:30:32 PM

furthermore, the display will work with any computer.

6/4/2005 11:46:33 PM

whatever.

apple's not gonna do it so its a moot point

6/5/2005 12:10:27 AM

did someone announce that they're not gonna do it?

the only update to that cnet article is this: "update Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned."

i mean, maybe i'm missing something or just haven't looked hard enough for news that apple isn't gonna do it...so if that's true, give your source.

i read the thread and saw all kinds of stupid smeared all over my screen, but i don't recall seeing anyone post a link that says apple isn't gonna do it. correct me if i'm wrong

as far as my opinion on the matter goes, the ONLY way i'll give apple a fighting chance of running it's software on my PC is if i don't have to go out and buy a new one to run it...so more power to them if they do this. otherwise, i don't care.

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ]

6/5/2005 12:22:51 AM

All you people saying that Intel is gonna incur costs of millions are inherently dumb.

Just look at Intel's research spendings.

They spend billions on increasing the processor speed of P4 by 200Mhz.

Why not spend 2 million or more on capturing a new market.

And shame on people even replying to that trollish post about costs.

6/5/2005 1:47:59 AM

i have no source

i just have business sense

i challenge anyone else to meet my level of confidence and commit to retiring their username if apple doesn't announce on Monday that it, "plans to move... to Intel chips in... higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007"

6/5/2005 2:04:24 AM

I'd bet on them doing it for the laptops more than the desktops.

But I really don't see them doing it at all. This gets talked about at least once every two-five years.

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 2:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2005 2:08:10 AM

why wouldn't apple go the way of ibm and just become a software solution company and port all their stuff to both architectures. then ibm, motorolla, and apple could license companies like dell and compaq to make mac clones, like back in the early 90's.

6/5/2005 2:52:30 AM

So what is the actual benefit to Apple here?

Noen made the point that hardware doesn't have great margins, but the fact is, Apple sells a "whole product" to consumers. Techies may wet themselves over the prospect of a faster OS X for x86, but for the average consumer buying a Mac is about buying...a Mac. You know, with the cool design and such. Apple has retail stores where they showcase their design prowess in the creation of unique and cool form factors for PCs, and they sell that experience along with OS X and its applications.

So there's no way Apple could just dump the hardware division--they may be able to scale it back, but effectively they'd basically just be changing suppliers. And it's hard to tell, given all the variables (porting and such, basically religious issues), how much they'd REALLY save from that.

Software may be more profitable than hardware, but Apple sells "computing" to consumers--that is their brand. It's their image. For twenty years, the word "Apple" has meant "a Mac" in the minds of consumers, NOT an OS or a set of applications. This is basic Ries & Trout stuff. You can't change an established brand without taking a HUGE risk and spending billions of dollars. That is a fact.

They MAY be able to outsource the whole creation of the Mac hardware due to x86, but that gets into the realm of "outsourcing your core business," which is a bad idea for obvious reasons that aren't worth explaining here.

I seriously doubt Apple is doing anything (if they ARE doing anything) but negotiating a better price and faster delivery with IBM in a very public way. Sometimes you just have to poker-face to get your way.

6/5/2005 3:27:03 AM

what things do you think apple can squeeze out of ibm?

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 3:30 AM. Reason : s]

6/5/2005 3:29:57 AM

^

I don't know, but I'll use the blog posted above as a clue:

Quote :

"This rumor has gained traction because it’s fairly obvious that Apple is not happy with IBM’s G5 production. When the PowerMac G5 was introduced at WWDC 2003, Steve Jobs famously predicted they’d have systems running at 3 GHz within a year. It’s now two years later and Apple’s fastest system runs at only 2.7 GHz. That’s not to say a top-of-the-line PowerMac G5 isn’t a nice computer, but you certainly don’t hear any talk about them being the fastest PCs in the world anymore."

I'm sure Jobs and his executive team is more than capable of brinksmanship-style negotiations. There are plenty of account managers at IBM who will squirm in their seats and sweat at such rumors, and put the heat on engineering to get things done, faster.

But it's all conjecture--my basic point is, I don't see a real benefit to switching. It's just risky. if you're Apple, however, you weigh the risks:

Risk 1: IBM has us by the balls, we fall way behind in processor speed, capabilities, etc.
Risk 2: Switch to x86, incur tons of overhead, but get a more reliable hardware platform that tracks with the broader PC market

By putting this rumor out in the open, Apple is making it very clear that they are looking at these risks very seriously. Still, given the potential hurdles, I'm sure they'd rather stick with IBM--that is just my gut feeling, though. Others here feel more strongly that OS X can just be magically ported to x86 in a New York minute.

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 3:37 AM. Reason : foo]

6/5/2005 3:37:16 AM

I doubt this is gonna be an x86 shift

6/5/2005 9:35:21 AM

Quote :

"Others here feel more strongly that OS X can just be magically ported to x86 in a New York minute."

Well, it can be. Why not? It's a Free BSD based operating system. But you're right, the brand would likely suffer a lot. A Mac is a Mac. EVERYTHING is wow. That's their brand. A computer your little brother assembled for you with an OS X running on it isn't a "Mac".

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Apple did fairly well financially, and consistently too. Granted, they'd like a better share of the market but this just sounds like too drastic of a change in strategy. Why risk it all?

6/5/2005 12:00:01 PM

Quote :

"There are plenty of account managers at IBM who will squirm in their seats and sweat at such rumors, and put the heat on engineering to get things done, faster."

is that so?

6/5/2005 12:06:57 PM

^^Apple has had two wildly successful periods which sandwich a period of futility, poor strategy, and poor design. They did great to start out with, but there were a lot of internal problems with the company, and Steve Jobs got squeezed out. The remaining executives did not have a concrete vision. They produced several generally unsuccessful lines and stretched the company too thin by trying to make everything including printers (which were largely re-branded Canons), digital cameras, and scanners. During much of this period, they were actually in the red. When Steve Jobs came back, the company started turning around with the release of the iMac and later the iPod. They seem to be doing quite well these days within their niche, but they are not making much if any headway in the market share wars.

6/5/2005 12:56:19 PM

"the market share wars"

as if its being fought in the trenches these days

wintel is like the us government

apple is like dale gribble

6/5/2005 1:05:22 PM

Quote :

"Well, it can be. Why not? It's a Free BSD based operating system."

Well, OK, as was mentioned before, they are maintaining an internal port of the OS. But what about drivers for all N gazillion x86 hardware devices they may suddenly want to support? Maybe they'll have a monolithic architecture that supports only a few devices--this being Apple.

Beyond that, if I'm a Mac developer--say, an ISV--now I am saddled with the expense of a port. This means buying their new Mac x86 hardware for all my developers, with associated license fees, adding testing overhead, marketing, etc. So they are significantly increasing the cost to develop for the Apple platform in the short-term. In theory everyone writes pristine code that can be ported at the press of a button, but...

And if you're a consumer who currently owns a Mac, do you necessarily get free upgrades of all your non-Mac x86 software? After all, the ISVs paid to port it, so who's going to bear that cost BUT the consumer?

Then there's just entropy--the actual bumpiness of moving the technology and the market from one platform to another. You really have to roll the new Mac out at just the right time, so you don't have competing product lines. That would assume getting the ISVs to move alongside you, at least the significant ones--so your fate is in some ways tied to theirs.

I don't know that any one factor is a dealbreaker, but moving to a new platform is a big step and a lot of little things can pile up and make it deadly.

Quote :

"Plus, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Apple did fairly well financially, and consistently too. Granted, they'd like a better share of the market but this just sounds like too drastic of a change in strategy. Why risk it all?"

Yes, but if you're a CEO, you're not just looking at how well you're doing _today_, so much as five years down the line--assuming you aren't a crappy CEO who just looks to make quarterly estimates as the end-all, be-all of his business strategy.

Maybe Jobs sees the IBM relationship as a long-term threat to the health of his company. It wouldn't surprise me. Basically IBM is one big company supplying a niche product to one (relatively) tiny company. It's likely that Apple just doesn't have very much leverage with them. And if things are (supposedly) bad now vis a vis performance and production, how bad can they get over a five-year time span?

I honestly don't know--there are tons of factors in evaluating this decision that only an insider could know, but it's concievable to me that they're looking further down the road.

Quote :

"is that so?"

Like I said, it's all conjecture--but I am willing to bet that SOMEBODY makes money (probably a lot) off the Apple account at IBM. And he (they) probably doesn't want to lose out if Apple moves to x86.

6/5/2005 1:14:44 PM

^sorry to debunk the majority of your well-crafted post....but the hardware drivers are in freebsd...

6/5/2005 1:26:38 PM

^^^


You forgot one thing. Dale Gribble and those like him have a lot of guns and are very passionate.

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 1:37 PM. Reason : carets]

6/5/2005 1:36:31 PM

This thread is slowly losing smart comments.

6/5/2005 1:41:37 PM

Quote :

"But what would you say to someone who just bought a 30 inch monitor from Apple. That monitor REQUIRES a G5 and an expensive graphics card."

No, it requires a nVidia video card supporting dual link. You can run that monitor on Linux or Windows with appropriate driver support. It in no way needs a G5.

Quote :

"They spend billions on increasing the processor speed of P4 by 200Mhz. Why not spend 2 million or more on capturing a new market."

Exactly my point, it would cost them billions to enter a new market. It's hardly a trivial design, and if you know anything about Intel's production process, it's a nightmare to introduce new architectures.

Quote :

"You know, with the cool design and such. Apple has retail stores where they showcase their design prowess in the creation of unique and cool form factors for PCs, and they sell that experience along with OS X and its applications."

But those stores don't sell Macs. Not in terms of their profitability. Take a look at Apple's numbers. Their only piece of hardware that is selling is the iPod. G5's aren't selling in any quantity in the consumer market. Most of their sales are going to Educational Institutions.

Quote :

"Software may be more profitable than hardware, but Apple sells "computing" to consumers--that is their brand. It's their image. For twenty years, the word "Apple" has meant "a Mac" in the minds of consumers, NOT an OS or a set of applications. This is basic Ries & Trout stuff. You can't change an established brand without taking a HUGE risk and spending billions of dollars. That is a fact."

Quote :

"But what about drivers for all N gazillion x86 hardware devices they may suddenly want to support? Maybe they'll have a monolithic architecture that supports only a few devices--this being Apple."

The beautiful part is, they don't have to change their brand. Apple can continue to provide their hardware solutions, and that 2-4% of the market will still buy them for the reasons you just mentioned. But by providing the OS as a standalone AS WELL, it helps spread their marketshare, and if anything would help their hardware sales down the road. It in no way hurts Apple to provide service to another market.

I frankly think its a great idea to release OSX as a standalone with the basic driver support that it currently has.

The beauty is that Apple now has the advantage of YEARS of linux/bsd maturity to draw driver sets from. They can pretty easily port the sets over (if you have ever used Darwin, you'd already know this). And the great thing is that unlike Microsoft, they don't have to support hundreds of thousands of devices. They aren't locked into Legacy support, they don't have any reason to support obscure crazy shit.

People will GLADLY build systems to fit the requirements. They did it for years (and still do) for the various linux distributions.

It's funny that Apple has always been weary of doing this, for fear that people will just buy the cheapest shit they can get by with. But they have already proved themselves wrong, because their own iPod is more expensive, has a more expensive service behind it, and yet still dominates the market because it is a BETTER product.

Quote :

"Beyond that, if I'm a Mac developer--say, an ISV--now I am saddled with the expense of a port. This means buying their new Mac x86 hardware for all my developers, with associated license fees, adding testing overhead, marketing, etc. So they are significantly increasing the cost to develop for the Apple platform in the short-term. In theory everyone writes pristine code that can be ported at the press of a button, but... "

If you wrote proper code from the getgo, this is all but trivial. And the potential market increase would more than makeup for any overhead cost to enter into an x86 based market. You are effectively moving from a 5% to a 95% world market, I don't know a single software company in existance that wouldn't chomp at the bit to instantly increase their potential customer based by several thousand fold.

Quote :

"And if you're a consumer who currently owns a Mac, do you necessarily get free upgrades of all your non-Mac x86 software? After all, the ISVs paid to port it, so who's going to bear that cost BUT the consumer?"

Same argument people made when Apple dropped Classic for OSX. They provided the Classic environment emulation, but the vast majority just went out and bought the OSX versions of everything they could. There was almost no bitching and moaning from consumers.

And another big thing, there really aren't many monolithic ISV's left for OSX. And the one's that are there, namely the game studios like Epic and Id, Adobe and Alias, would LOVE to see Apple drop the PPC in favor of their native hardware platform.

I honestly can't think of a single vendor outside Apple itself that does it's native development on PPC. Every major piece of OSX software is already ported from x86 to PPC, so removing that would reduce costs for a lot of these guys.

Quote :

"Plus, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Apple did fairly well financially, and consistently too. Granted, they'd like a better share of the market but this just sounds like too drastic of a change in strategy. Why risk it all?"

Wrong, the iPod saved Apple again. They have never been a consistently well off company. As someone else previously mentioned, they have ridden intermittent huge waves of financial success and loooong periods of dismal sales, performance and little expansion.

6/5/2005 1:58:03 PM

alright Noen, put your money where your mouth is and pledge to retire your username if Apple doesn't announce on monday that its switching to Intel chips for its high end systems in 2007

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 2:54 PM. Reason : s]

6/5/2005 2:53:26 PM

2010 seems more like it.

6/5/2005 2:54:25 PM

^^uh, what the hell are you talking about?

I don't have any idea if they will ACTUALLY do it.

All my points are to the effect that moving to x86 would be a GREAT idea for Apple, both long and short term. And that moving away from dedicated hardware solutions would increase net revenues within the company.

I'm not one to really follow the rumor mill, I am simply commenting on the business side of it all.

6/5/2005 3:43:15 PM

http://www.go-l.com/

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2005 4:02:33 PM

chicken

6/5/2005 5:09:17 PM

Intel wouldn't just shit a new proc architecture just for Apple, of all corporations. Thats the dumbest business logic of any company. Ever.

If Apple switches to Intel processors, then that suggests that coming generations of Intel processors were a better alternative for Apple's needs then what IBM was offering to do with its PPC line.

I'm personally hoping that Apple finally realizes that Tiger actually has a great fucking chance at challenging Longhorn and that people would pay a slight premium for their systems (as they do now, as they will in abundance after the switch).

6/5/2005 6:01:37 PM

The Associated Press just picked up the story:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050605/apple_chips.html?.v=5

And the Wall Street Journal:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050605/tech_apple_intel.html?.v=1

[Edited on June 5, 2005 at 9:53 PM. Reason : WSJ]

6/5/2005 9:51:13 PM

Quote :

"SandSanta: Intel wouldn't just shit a new proc architecture just for Apple, of all corporations. Thats the dumbest business logic of any company. Ever."

Quote :

"TGD: Leave Apple out of the equation -- would Intel produce PPC chips for the gaming market?"

6/5/2005 10:10:03 PM

^^
NY Times now too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html

6/5/2005 10:18:52 PM

oh shit, the NYT adds credibility

6/5/2005 11:03:20 PM

Don't quote reply this thread to irrelevance like you do every argument in Soap Box, TGD.

For once in your life put that void between your ears and think.

The next generation consoles are all already using IBM PPC's.

What monumental failure of a corporation is going to build an entire microprocessor for only one customer with the hopes that their line will be picked up by consoles at least 4 years from now? Especially when its x86 market dominance is being threatened by superior products by AMD?

6/5/2005 11:51:24 PM

Seems like this rumor is spreading like wildfire, and it would be crazy if it did occur.

6/6/2005 12:11:06 AM

All I did was ask a fucking question, I'm not trying to engage in a debate.

IBM already tossed its PC business to Lenovo. And even with the strategic importance of the sector IBM's chip production accounts for only a small % of IBM's overall $texas. So what is so implacable that the thought of IBM and Intel working together on chip production for the gaming market isn't even plausible?

Intel could reach out into a new market, and IBM could get whatever technical expertise, cross-licensing of unreleated tech, or whatever else got thrown on the table without giving up much of anything in terms of profit.

No one said shit about Intel creating PPCs on just the "hope" that it would be picked up "four years from now". Christ you Wintel fanboys can get sensitive...

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ---]

6/6/2005 12:15:18 AM

Quote :

"But by providing the OS as a standalone AS WELL, it helps spread their marketshare, and if anything would help their hardware sales down the road. It in no way hurts Apple to provide service to another market."

Right. So like I said, this is basic Ries & Trout stuff. What you're suggesting is a bit like Burger King selling hamburger meat at the grocery store.

In consumers' minds, Apple = Mac = computer hardware. NOT OS. How does Apple market their OS to consumers exactly without building a whole new brand around it?

Maybe the propellerheads will snatch it up, but that does not make for substantial market share.

Quote :

"But they have already proved themselves wrong, because their own iPod is more expensive, has a more expensive service behind it, and yet still dominates the market because it is a BETTER product."

Yes but clearly the iPod market is different than the OS market. There's substantial lock-in with OSes; Microsoft has to support all that "Legacy" stuff because...uh...they're successful. As to OS X itself, they aren't exactly linking against the Win32 API.

So who's the market for this standalone OS besides, uh, propellerhead techies? The home market is all tied up in Windows, the corporate desktop market is DEFINITELY tied up in Windows, and the back-end market is between Win Server and Linux, as well as other *ixes. So Apple is going to ditch the only thing that moves their OS at all (hardware coolness), and just make it a standalone product to fight against entrenched competition?

Eh...

Quote :

"If you wrote proper code from the getgo, this is all but trivial"

Back in the real world...

Quote :

"I don't know a single software company in existance that wouldn't chomp at the bit to instantly increase their potential customer based by several thousand fold."

...even though the Mac OS X for x86 still competes against, uh, Windows? Yes, theoretically the market base is 95%. But back in reality, a certain company in Redmond is happily sitting on that 95% of the market, and they aren't letting go anytime soon.

My feeling is that, in reality, the two product lines just cannibalize each other and confuse consumers. And the ISVs are stuck with the dual headaches of porting and support.

Quote :

"They provided the Classic environment emulation, but the vast majority just went out and bought the OSX versions of everything they could."

Maybe because OS X is just a substantially better operating system and it had a cachet? Compare moving to x86, which doesn't promise, say, the newfound joys of pre-emptive multitasking.

Quote :

"And the one's that are there, namely the game studios like Epic and Id, Adobe and Alias, would LOVE to see Apple drop the PPC in favor of their native hardware platform. I honestly can't think of a single vendor outside Apple itself that does it's native development on PPC. Every major piece of OSX software is already ported from x86 to PPC, so removing that would reduce costs for a lot of these guys."

What!? There's more to porting the app than just the friggin instruction set. Like, uh, maybe the operating system? I'd say moving from Win32 to, say, anything *ix is the bulk of the work. Maybe they can optimize away their inline assembly and endianness porting, but still...

6/6/2005 1:47:54 AM

Ohhh and here we go!

Quote :

"IBM already tossed its PC business to Lenovo. And even with the strategic importance of the sector IBM's chip production accounts for only a small % of IBM's overall $texas. So what is so implacable that the thought of IBM and Intel working together on chip production for the gaming market isn't even plausible?"

HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M TOTALLY CLUELESS SO IM A THROW IN LENOVO AND HOPE THAT A CHINESE COMPUTER BUILDER HAS SOME SORT OF RELEVENCE TO MICROPROCESSORS KEHEHE

It's not possible because IBM has nothing to gain from the deal except to allow Intel, an architectural competitor to IBM/Sony's upcoming Cell, technical access to PPC information.

Quote :

"Intel could reach out into a new market, and IBM could get whatever technical expertise, cross-licensing of unreleated tech, or whatever else got thrown on the table without giving up much of anything in terms of profit."

Oops, looks like I made the mistake of playing "what if" without knowing a god damn thing about a business

Intel already was in the gaming market with the Xbox. IBM doesn't need techinical expertise from Intel as they are pushing a totally different approach to computing in the form of Cell. GG.

Quote :

"No one said shit about Intel creating PPCs on just the "hope" that it would be picked up "four years from now". Christ you Wintel fanboys can get sensitive..."

I'll close with an ad hominem in hopes of derailing this argument before I get burried in my own bullshit even more then I already am

You didn't even mention IBM until I told you that all three next gen consoles were using PPC's. You also didn't know that Intel already was, and will be in the gaming market until Xbox is discontinued. And No, TGD. before you try and say "oh but I only ment Intel would expand into the PPC market", understand that PPC is and will remain and IBM trademark.

http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/trademark.html

6/6/2005 2:00:45 AM

dude, are you just fucking dense or do you actually have to make an effort to sound this retarded?

Quote :

"SandSanta: You didn't even mention IBM until I told you that all three next gen consoles were using PPC's. You also didn't know that Intel already was, and will be in the gaming market until Xbox is discontinued. And No, TGD. before you try and say "oh but I only ment Intel would expand into the PPC market", understand that PPC is and will remain and IBM trademark."

I don't know who deigned you fanboys the exclusive Lords of Technology, but since your English comprehension skills don't seems to be all that great, let's review. Specifically here earlier in the thread...

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=323150#6921865

Quote :

"TGD: The bigger issue in my mind would be successfully getting licenses from both IBM (for the main architecture) and Motorola/Freescale (for AltiVec)."

Quote :

"TGD: both the PS3 and XBox360 are using IBM PPC (Power5?) chips, 3 of them in every single XBox360 machine actually."

I used to work for Apple, I know just a little bit about the PPC...

And you say I'm trying to derail the argument

Quote :

"SandSanta: HEY LOOK AT ME, I'M TOTALLY CLUELESS SO IM A THROW IN LENOVO AND HOPE THAT A CHINESE COMPUTER BUILDER HAS SOME SORT OF RELEVENCE TO MICROPROCESSORS KEHEHE It's not possible because IBM has nothing to gain from the deal except to allow Intel, an architectural competitor to IBM/Sony's upcoming Cell, technical access to PPC information."

You did notice those were two totally separate sentences I wrote, right? Getting rid of their PC division is very relevant from a business standpoint: it wasn't making them any money, so they tossed it. It illustrates that IBM doesn't have much problem with walking away from something that isn't insanely profitable.

Chip production brings in maybe 1/20th of their total revenue; the main importance for IBM is the intellectual property. They wouldn't exactly be losing their core business if Intel gained technical access to PPC information.

Quote :

"SandSanta: Oops, looks like I made the mistake of playing "what if" without knowing a god damn thing about a business Intel already was in the gaming market with the Xbox. IBM doesn't need techinical expertise from Intel as they are pushing a totally different approach to computing in the form of Cell. GG."

Going back to the whole English comprehension thing, I was indeed referring to the PPC market in gaming (why the fuck would anyone, let alone me, give a shit about Intel's current position in gaming when they're going to be completely frozen out shortly?)

The GameCube already had a PPC in it, and the PS3 and XBox360 are going that way...surely if this is the gold mine you people are portraying it to be, Intel has a reason to ask for a partnership.


Not to "quote reply this thread to irrelevence like I do to every Soap Box thread," but...

Quote :

"TGD: Christ you Wintel fanboys can get sensitive..."

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 7:02 AM. Reason : ---]

6/6/2005 6:47:08 AM

tgd and smoker4 quote bombing a thread -- the only way it could get worse is if they were responding to each other.

6/6/2005 9:45:29 AM

Quote :

"You did notice those were two totally separate sentences I wrote, right? Getting rid of their PC division is very relevant from a business standpoint: it wasn't making them any money, so they tossed it. It illustrates that IBM doesn't have much problem with walking away from something that isn't insanely profitable. Chip production brings in maybe 1/20th of their total revenue; the main importance for IBM is the intellectual property. They wouldn't exactly be losing their core business if Intel gained technical access to PPC information."

This is your failure, sir. PPC is important to IBM because its the foundation of IBM/Sony's Cell Architecture which will effect at minimum, IBM's server business and at maximum everything in the PC/Electronics industry. That is, what would they say, strategic focus?

As for your "two sentances", and how "It illustrates that IBM doesn't have much problem with walking away from something that isn't insanely profitable." If the token hasn't dropped by now let me clue you in on the fact that I'm riding your ass because you're completely clueless to IBM's intent with PPC's.

The PC business is drastically different then the semiconductor business, console business, and direction IBM intends to go with Cell. IBM left the PC industry because it didn't want to focus on making consumer electronics when other companies could do it for cheaper and live with the ever shrinking margins it brought.

PPC's sir, are not consumer electronics but if IBM has its wish, they will be in every type of digital device in the near future.

Quote :

"Going back to the whole English comprehension thing, I was indeed referring to the PPC market in gaming (why the fuck would anyone, let alone me, give a shit about Intel's current position in gaming when they're going to be completely frozen out shortly?) The GameCube already had a PPC in it, and the PS3 and XBox360 are going that way...surely if this is the gold mine you people are portraying it to be, Intel has a reason to ask for a partnership. "

Off course Intel would like to make bank on gaming consoles you fucking dolt but the point here is why on earth IBM would allow in on its market when they're already set to make $texas on PPC's in Xbox360 and Nintendo Revolution, and possibly make $world if Cell Architecture arrives. Patents and licensing revenue pales in comparison to the direct profit they're about to reap.

Quote :

"Christ you Wintel fanboys can get sensitive..."

You want to blabber on like a fucking idiot about reading comprehension, point out how exactly I'm a wintel fanboy for saying you're huge moron for thinking IBM is going to just give Intel PPC and live off of royalties. In fact, if you again bothered to utilize that vast void between your ears, you'd pick up on the fact that I've been tooting IBM's horn a bit too much in my arguments with your stupidity.


<3 kisses

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 10:08 AM. Reason : I'll tell you what, if you're right I'll eat crow k?]

6/6/2005 9:57:49 AM

so SandSanta, are you stating on the record that IBM does not license its PPC technology to rival chip designers and manufacturers?

6/6/2005 10:31:20 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/ap_on_hi_te/apple_chips;_ylt=ApVGPfN6NX9WB9Y1q_MVDMMjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

6/6/2005 10:54:39 AM

^ from the article:

Quote :

"Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce"

that's not news

6/6/2005 11:24:24 AM

Everything is pointing to this happening, Apple using x86... It's kind of weird. We'll know for sure in about an hour though.

6/6/2005 11:50:39 AM

^^ ummm, that's what this whole thread is about. The rumor that it will happen. There's no news at all yet.
(and anyway, that's the same AP story that has been posted here a billion times already)

6/6/2005 11:53:56 AM

why are you telling me that - you're just repeating what i said

6/6/2005 11:55:19 AM

No, Excoriator, I'm stating no such thing.

I only hold the point that IBM has nothing to gain by sharing PPC fabrication with Intel for the console gaming market.

6/6/2005 11:56:01 AM

im sure you guys are aware of pearpc. since apple machines have such a huge pricetag, I'd be willing to be the g5 successor will just have a beast p4 that would emulate ppc fast enough to run old apple apps fast enough until x86 versions are written, kinda like the switch from motorolla chips to ppc.

6/6/2005 12:04:02 PM

http://www.macrumors.com will have a live feed of the event.

6/6/2005 12:05:04 PM

Quote :

"im sure you guys are aware of pearpc. since apple machines have such a huge pricetag, I'd be willing to be the g5 successor will just have a beast p4 that would emulate ppc fast enough to run old apple apps fast enough until x86 versions are written, kinda like the switch from motorolla chips to ppc. "

The G5 is 64bit and has a faster bus than the PIV. Apple isn't going to ditch the G5 for a less-abled PIV.

Also, PearPC isn't fast enough to satisfactorily run any Mac apps that people actually use.

6/6/2005 12:32:02 PM