Attention: We have retired the ASP.NET Community Blogs. Learn more >

INTELligent Fruit...

The story of an Apple/Intel relationship is everywhere now so I assume it is a legit story. Apple will in some form be moving to chips from Intel. But what does that really mean? All stories have been essentially the same, long on speculation and short on details. Mid 2006 the switch will begin, that is about all the detail that exists at this point. Jobs is supposed to tell more at his WWDC keynote this morning but certainly the speech will create a cabal of questioning.
 
I find it interesting that no reports have specified something that I think is a bigger issue here than manufacturer; architecture. No report that maintains a 'source' specifies that the move involves the use of X86; there is speculative coupling of the tidbit that Apple has had OSX running on X86 in a lab for some time. This should not be news to anyone who has paid attention as OSX is rooted from an X86 build based on BSD. The move also does not seem to make sense, if Apple is going X86 then why go with Intel - AMD is kicking their butt in so many technical categories...!?
 
Why do we automatically assume that Apple would toe the Intel line, any agreement such as this will have a give and take. In most cases this is going to be economic but since we are all just guessing at this point I will insist that it is possible that Intel will manufacture a chip designed with an instruction set compatible with existing OSX apps. If they dont, could it also be possible that Intel will now exercise the HyperVisor virtualization technology to help the move? Maybe someone smarter than me could answer if these things are possible.
 
Could it be possible that Apple will make and sell PCs? Forget their software which has become a niche for the 13 people who use it, the bulk of their revenue is based on their hardware which quite frankly is both aestetically and technically excellent.
 
Could the chips be used as part of a new home entertainment appliance, an IPod for the living room?
 
Could the story just be a bunch of speculation run amock? The NYT reported on it so truthfulness and bias need to be examined.
 
How many people will walk out of the keynote in protest? Childish I know but we are talking about Apple fans.
 
Scoble: Is it possible that Jobs saw a sneak peek of Longhorn and decided to abandon Apple's traditional business model in Mid 2006 (tentative Longhorn release timeframe!) and start selling Longhorn ready PCs!!!!!! (note to flamers: that was a joke)

7 Comments

  • Amid all of it's "think different", Apple has a history of cozying up to large near-monopolies. Sometimes they will pay your bedts just to not become monopolies.



    I'm an AMD user, but Intel has much better advertizing (blue men and magic flying machines) than AMD. Does AMD even have TV ads?

  • I wasn't so sure initially, but it might actually make sense. Apple has a history of problems with CPU vendors meeting performance targets: it happened with the 68K, it happened with the G4, and now IBM has dropped the ball on the 3GHz G5. Similarly, the laptops are still stuck on the G4, as they have been for years. A switch to x86 (with two suppliers, no less) solves both of those problems immediately.



    From IBM's point of view, the desktop CPU business is expensive (fabs aren't cheap), risky, very competitive, and not in line with their push to a services model. I think they have huge reasons to get out of the PPC CPU business.



    My hunch is that after IBM missed the 3GHz G5 deadline, there was a big 'come to Jesus' meeting, and they ended up making a decision to essentially get out of the desktop CPU business. They'd have given Apple a timeframe and Apple would be forced into moving to something else (x86 is all there is). That's just a hunch, but it sounds reasonable.

  • After more reading and analysis today I am betting that the move is in fact to x86 arch and not just Intel. I believe someone like Transitive or XenSource will help facilitate the move. I also believe that Intel was chosen for DRM reasons.



    WWDC Keynote starts in a few minutes, hopefully we will start learning the truth soon.

  • One more hunch: the laptops will be first to switch.

  • Well, looks like you're right Keith.

  • "From IBM's point of view, the desktop CPU business is expensive (fabs aren't cheap), risky, very competitive, and not in line with their push to a services model. I think they have huge reasons to get out of the PPC CPU business. "



    *Ahem*, might I note that each of the three major next gen consoles--XBox360, PS3, and Revolution--are all using IBM PowerPC derived CPUs.



    So I don't think it is necessarily a case of IBM trying to get out of the CPU business.

  • "*Ahem*, might I note that each of the three major next gen consoles--XBox360, PS3, and Revolution--are all using IBM PowerPC derived CPUs.



    So I don't think it is necessarily a case of IBM trying to get out of the CPU business. "



    That's actually why I went out of my way to say "___desktop___ CPU business". In any event, you're likely right: Since I made my post I've read that the 970 chips use a whopping 2% of the capacity of IBM's East Fishkill fab...

Comments have been disabled for this content.