Support NeoGAF

[shantyman]

Some interesting bits (this has no basis in fact but is a good read nonetheless):

People "in the know" love this idea, that Hollywood moguls are forcing Apple to switch to Intel because Intel processors have built-in DRM features that will keep us from pirating music and movies. Yes, Intel processors have such features, based primarily on the idea of a CPU ID that we all hated when it was announced years ago so Intel just stopped talking about it. The CPU ID is still in there, of course, and could be used to tie certain content to the specific chip in your computer.

But there are two problems with this argument. First, Apple is already in the music and video distribution businesses without this feature, which wouldn't be available across the whole product line for another two years and wouldn't be available across 90 percent of the installed base for probably another six years. Second, though nobody has ever mentioned it, I'm fairly sure that the PowerPC, too, has an individual CPU ID. Every high end microprocessor does, just as every network device has its unique MAC address.

So while DRM is nice, it probably isn't a driving force in this decision.

The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision. This is simply about business -- BIG business.

Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

 

[shantyman]

And the Motley Fool wrote this, which is a prediction I like:

Expect a deal with AMD. Not soon, of course. But Apple's announcement of the deal with Intel pointedly said nothing about exclusivity. Probes into Intel's business conduct in Japan and the European Union undoubtedly took any kind of exclusive deal off the table. And that leaves the door open for AMD. There's no reason for Apple to explore such a relationship now; there's too much money available from Intel and not enough from AMD. But it's worth noting that AMD appears to be at least 18 months ahead of Intel in one key area: dual-core chips for servers. Were Apple to upgrade the Xserve line, AMD would be a good source for processors. It's a short path from there to AMD-powered PowerBooks.

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05060925.htm

 

[AB 101]

AMD good at highend desktops and servers.

AMD sucks in the laptop area.


I think laptops was THE major thing that got Apple in the Intel camp.

But yeah, they could eventually gets some chips from them.

But doesn't AMD consistently lose money?

 

[SteveMeister]

Apple's not going to merge with anyone unless they BUY them, and I don't see Apple buying a CPU manufacturer.

Apple has said that they considered AMD, but that they cannot produce CPUs in the volume that Intel can and so they're going with Intel. I imagine that they'll stick with Intel unless Intel is unable to provide everything Apple needs, which I doubt will happen.

In short, I don't think that either of these predictions will become fact.

 

[shantyman]

Apple's not going to merge with anyone unless they BUY them, and I don't see Apple buying a CPU manufacturer.

Apple has said that they considered AMD, but that they cannot produce CPUs in the volume that Intel can and so they're going with Intel. I imagine that they'll stick with Intel unless Intel is unable to provide everything Apple needs, which I doubt will happen.

In short, I don't think that either of these predictions will become fact.

But he made the best point- it is not an exclusive deal with Intel. That in itself makes a big statement. I don't think Apple ever officially said AMD could not meet their needs.

I don't be lieve intel and Apple will merge, but it still makes some interesting points. Although, he seems woefully mistaken in suggesting the Cell would have been a good choice for Macs.

 

[Macam]

Cringley is an idiot and rumor monger. He has consistently been wrong in all his articles, and moreover, he bases conclusions on baseless assumptions. He needs his keyboard taken away, or at the very least, his Slashdotting privileges repealed. Why people even bother posting the links is beyond me.

As for AMD, Apple has investigated them beforehand, and while the Intel deal isn't necessarily exclusive, Intel has a number of advantages that AMD can't offer, so I think it's wishful thinking on the part of AMD fans (I'm one of them, mind you).

 

[Shogmaster]

Apple's not going to merge with anyone unless they BUY them, and I don't see Apple buying a CPU manufacturer.

Isn't that kinda like Daihatsu trying to buy Toyota? Intel is gigantic compared to Apple.

Cringley is an idiot and rumor monger. He has consistently been wrong in all his articles, and moreover, he bases conclusions on baseless assumptions. He needs his keyboard taken away, or at the very least, his Slashdotting privileges repealed. Why people even bother posting the links is beyond me.

Cringely is a great computing historian but horrible prognosticator. Accidental Empires and Triumph of the Nerds is pair of essential reading/viewing, but shit, he has been wrong so many times in such spectacular fashion in predicting what's to come, that I don't know why he keeps bothering (remember what he said about Nuon? :lol ).

He should stick to what he is good at: recanting what has come to pass.

 

[Phoenix]

Cringley is wrong... as usual.

There is nothing to be gained by an Apple and Intel merger. That being a requirement for any reasonable merger rumor to even be considered. A merger of the two would be disasterous for Intel as they'd either be starving one of their own divisions from profit, or they would be significantly decreasing their volume. Certainly companies like Dell, HP, etc. aren't going to keep buying the largest volume of chips from someone who is now a DIRECT competitor. Especially not with AMD sitting there.

Neither company is in a position to purchase the other financially either. Intel has a large market cap and a lot of debt, Apple has no debt - but doesn't have enough money either. So a purchase acquisition doesn't work either.

Apple went with Intel for the Pentium M, plain and simple. AMD doesn't have a competitor in this area. Apple also went with the far safer bet. Noone EVER got fired for choosing Intel. While you can speculate that AMD would have been a better move, it was a riskier one and any hiccups in the roadmap which is ALREADY a risky proposition would have been disasterous.

Next is a stupid point made by Cringley - the Cell isn't a general purpose CPU. Apple basing a machine on that would have been the height of stupidity. In addition, Apple would be competing directly with Sony for processors. I wonder which customer IBM would deliver to first. On top of that, development on Cell is pretty much done. While the architecture isn't a dead end, it isn't exactly going to have massive advancements after the PS3 launches... why would it? The primary customer only needs to get them out faster and at larger yields. So even if the Cell WAS a good enough processor, it still wouldn't make sense for Apple to adopt it.


Make no mistake - Apple is EXACTLY where they want to be. They will always be at hardware parity with their PC competitors in terms of any performance improvements. They won't have to deal with ATI and nVidia not having video hardware available. They won't have to have people freaking out about putting these new xServe machines in a server room. And at the same time they will be able to put out a 'luxury' machine that can run both OS X and Windows at the same time. So at the end of the day Apple will be able to sell a machine just like Dell "for a little bit more" that can actually DO more. Even if people don't end up running OS X on the boxes, Apple puts itself in a GREAT position as a seller of hardware in that they have greatly decreased the perceived risks involved in switching to the Mac platform.

Now if only they could get the BSD threading model better

 

[akascream]

The apple<->intel deal is pretty cool imo. It's interesting that with a new os, and new hardware, apple products will be a completely different beast.

 

[goodcow]

Apple has said that they considered AMD, but that they cannot produce CPUs in the volume that Intel can and so they're going with Intel.

AMD can't make Apple 1,000 processors a week?

 

[Phoenix]

AMD can't make Apple 1,000 processors a week?

I don't think the problem had anything to do with capacity. Both could easily handle capacity IMO. There is a pretty sound logic to Apple's moves. For one they are starting with the bottom of their product line. By starting with the low end of the product line and hitting the laptops, Apple still has the vast majority of the software needed to run on those platforms. This buys the developers some time to work through the kinks till WWDC next year where I expect to see the higher end machines rolling out with dual core 64-bit glory. At that point the software would be available and Apple would be ready to take advantage of dual core processors.

If Apple went with AMD today, they'd pretty much be about where they are with IBM. They'd have a processor that is actually beyond what they really need for their portables and cheaper machines, it would be hot as hell, it would consume a lot of power, and it STILL wouldn't be the best mobile processor they could get - which is actually the Pentium M. If they could actually get a Mobile G5 - I think Apple would be in a different situation, but what they really need is a long term product plan that is hit more often than not. Intel is pretty much like clockwork when it comes to new processors. Apple can plan their product line around this. The same wasn't true of Motorola, Freescale, or IBM.

 

[The Bookerman]

BIG QUESTION HERE!


Why didn't Apple switch to the cell processor?

Think about it. it's an amazing processor architechture...

Can run over 3 ghz....

it's brand new....

can bitch slap anything Intel and AMD has right now.

Seriously, it makes no sense... unless Sony didn't want them to use the processors?

 

[Phoenix]

BIG QUESTION HERE!


Why didn't Apple switch to the cell processor?

Think about it. it's an amazing processor architechture...

Can run over 3 ghz....

it's brand new....

can bitch slap anything Intel and AMD has right now.

Seriously, it makes no sense... unless Sony didn't want them to use the processors?

Lets go through the basics.... the Cell isn't a general purpose processor, it doesn't support Altivec, its hot as hell, is consumes an assload of power, and once the PS3 is launched its lifecycle ends. So it would buy Apple what - 6 more months before they have to look for something else?

More information here:
http://www.ga-forum.com/showpost.php?p=1496169&postcount=8