Apple will switch to Intel in 2006 (CONFIRMED!!!!one)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-06-03 10:46pm

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.

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

Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)

The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue. More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.

Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.

One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.

The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.

IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.

"I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.
Is your laptop a pain in the neck?
A century later, Einstein's first ideas still hold power
SBC ups the ante in broadband war
Is the new .xxx domain a good idea?
Sun's last big gamble
Previous Next

Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene/L.

Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.

Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.

This doesn't make sense- I don't trust these "sources"...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-03 11:31pm

Nothing to see here. Move along ...

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-06-04 12:52am

Would this mean that a Mac box could run Windows OS without one of those damned emulators that gives you a 90% performance loss? Or that software publishers would have an easier time porting to the Mac, prompting then to do it quicker and more often? Because otherwise I just don't see the point.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-06-04 02:08am

If Apple actually makes its own "switch" then it would be truly pathetic. After years of promoting IBM chips as being hugely superior to anything Intel and AMD offered this is just another nail in Apple's credibility coffin.

Granted, it's very unlikely, but they were talking with Intel execs very recently, and to even allow these rumors to be made this public must be embarrassing to IBM and Intel.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-04 02:22am

Uh ... Intel makes a lot more than Pentiums, folks. If you look at the motherboard in a Mac, chances are you'll see AMD and Intel chips in there somewhere. There's nothing embarrassing about talking to Intel about.

If Apple was talking to them about something, it was probably about licensing Intel's WiFi technology for the iPod. And if they WERE going to use Intel chips in their machines, they'd be strictly relegated to the server end, and Intel-based products running OS X Server would complement the PowerPC ones.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-06-04 02:42am

Durandal wrote:Uh ... Intel makes a lot more than Pentiums, folks. If you look at the motherboard in a Mac, chances are you'll see AMD and Intel chips in there somewhere. There's nothing embarrassing about talking to Intel about.

Except when you're talking about switching to Intel's CPU's after spending years talking up a rival CPU makers' products as being "vastly superior" to Intel's line.

If Apple was talking to them about something, it was probably about licensing Intel's WiFi technology for the iPod. And if they WERE going to use Intel chips in their machines, they'd be strictly relegated to the server end, and Intel-based products running OS X Server would complement the PowerPC ones.

No, Apple stated they were talking about building computers based on Intel's line of CPU's.

Granted, they may be server-end computers, but still....

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2005-06-04 02:46am

All the rumors are laying out in such a way that is strongly implying that Apple will indeed switch from PPC to x86 (OSX on intel hardware in the lab, promotion of OSX by Intel's CEO, etc). I believe this news. It'll be interesting to see the Maclots' reaction as it could be very colorful.

EDIT: RISC lovers' reaction could be even more interesting.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-04 04:26am

My expectations:

A) Intel is developing a PowerPC processor for Apple.
B) The recently rumored/apple design patented iTablet is coming, and is using Intel's ARM processors or XScale. Or an iPod Video using Intel's processors.

No way they would switch to x86. Please no.

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2005-06-04 04:42am

A) Intel is developing a PowerPC processor for Apple.

I think this is quite unlikely: Apple had problems getting competitive CPUs during the last few years because of their small market share (~2% of the PC market worlfwide IIRC).

Look at the G4: When Intel and AMD started the Gigahertz Race in 2000, Motorola's CPUs fell behind. It took Moto until 2002 to come out with a 1GHz G4. At this time, the P4 was about to hit the 3GHz mark, and AMD's K7 architecture was starting to reach 2GHz.

The problem was that Moto wasn't willing to spend the R&D effort to keep the G4 competitive, because of Apple's small market share.

Then Apple switched to an IBM PPC970 variant. IBM promised to reach 3GHz in 2004, but we all know this didn't happen.

If Intel develops a PowerPC CPU, they have to pay licence fees to IBM for using the design (AFAIK), and they have a small revenue because of Apple's small market share.

Therefore I think it's unlikely. More likely is that Apple switches to x86.

See it this way: For the x86 architecture, you always get competitive CPUs from one vendor or the other.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-04 04:59am

After years of promoting IBM chips as being hugely superior to anything Intel and AMD offered this is just another nail in Apple's credibility coffin.

Companies change. Maybe Apple is sensing a change in the wind.

BloodAngel · Post by **BloodAngel** » 2005-06-04 08:47am

Quadlok wrote:Would this mean that a Mac box could run Windows OS without one of those damned emulators that gives you a 90% performance loss? Or that software publishers would have an easier time porting to the Mac, prompting then to do it quicker and more often? Because otherwise I just don't see the point.

I'm not a CS major, but basing from what one of my profs told me the only wall would be in terms of platform (like Linux <-> Windows). The emulator would only need to simulate the operating system, and not the processor architecture itself. So you'd probably have something like WINE.

Of course, this is assuming that Apple starts using x86...

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2005-06-04 10:04am

*looks at his calendar*

Yep, Apple's World Wide Developer's Conference starts Monday. Probably just a coincidence. Now I'm no analyst but considering the recent launch of the Mac Mini and Tiger (not to mention the speed bump the Power Macs and eMacs received recently), the rumor as is makes no sense. We will know for certain Monday, but even some of the details don't make sense. Apple starting a transition with the low-end models? WTF?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2005-06-04 12:49pm

If this is true, I don't think it will end well for Apple. If they switch to the same architecture as the PCs, there will be too little difference between them. Mac software will be emulable by PCs, and there won't be software that runs better on Macs anyway because the architectures will be the same. It will cause a shakeup to the small but loyal customer base that may not be willing to pay inflated prices for Apples anymore.

If Apple switches to x86, I think it would be the worst decision they've ever made.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-04 01:40pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Durandal wrote:Uh ... Intel makes a lot more than Pentiums, folks. If you look at the motherboard in a Mac, chances are you'll see AMD and Intel chips in there somewhere. There's nothing embarrassing about talking to Intel about.
Except when you're talking about switching to Intel's CPU's after spending years talking up a rival CPU makers' products as being "vastly superior" to Intel's line.

Oh please. Apple touts OS X as being superior to Windows; does that mean that Apple should be embarrassed if they help out the Microsoft MBU with Office?

Companies talk to each other all the time behind closed doors in spite of each other's marketing. Intel has a lot of technologies that Apple could license, especially for the iPod. And Intel would be stupid not to want a slice of that pie.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-06-04 01:52pm

Durandal wrote:Oh please. Apple touts OS X as being superior to Windows; does that mean that Apple should be embarrassed if they help out the Microsoft MBU with Office?

That's a blatant false analogy.

Companies talk to each other all the time behind closed doors in spite of each other's marketing. Intel has a lot of technologies that Apple could license, especially for the iPod. And Intel would be stupid not to want a slice of that pie.

And... still no response to the fact that Apple said they were trying to build computers with a "dramatically inferior processor."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-04 01:56pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Durandal wrote:Oh please. Apple touts OS X as being superior to Windows; does that mean that Apple should be embarrassed if they help out the Microsoft MBU with Office?
That's a blatant false analogy.

Not when broadly applied to your scenario that any company talking to a competitor which it trashes in its marketing is an embarrassing situation.

And... still no response to the fact that Apple said they were trying to build computers with a "dramatically inferior processor."

So what? That's marketing, genius. It's how a company communicates with customers, not how companies communicate with each other. You might not like it, I might not like it, but it's part of what a company does. Apple has lambasted Sony on the digital music front for quite a while now, but did that stop the Sony CEO from appearing on-stage with Steve Jobs to hype HD camera technology with Apple's HD-ready editing software? Was that "embarrassing" for Sony or Apple?

That's because corporations care about money. If Apple had a proposition for Intel that could make Intel lots of money, do you think Intel's going to send them away based on their feelings being hurt by Apple's marketing?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-06-04 02:11pm

Durandal wrote:Not when broadly applied to your scenario that any company talking to a competitor which it trashes in its marketing is an embarrassing situation.

Not my position at all. I think it's embarrassing when one company talks to another company about using a product that it claims is "woefully inferior" to what it already has.

And... still no response to the fact that Apple said they were trying to build computers with a "dramatically inferior processor."
So what? That's marketing, genius. It's how a company communicates with customers, not how companies communicate with each other. You might not like it, I might not like it, but it's part of what a company does. Apple has lambasted Sony on the digital music front for quite a while now, but did that stop the Sony CEO from appearing on-stage with Steve Jobs to hype HD camera technology with Apple's HD-ready editing software? Was that "embarrassing" for Sony or Apple?

No. It has nothing to do with anything, since that involved completely separate products and completely separate technologies. What's bad about this one for Apple is that they're discussing a switch to the exact same line of processors that they've spent the last 15 years telling us suck. This is the equivalent of Apple saying, "Microsoft's OS's all suck compared to Tiger. Hey, let's switch all of our computers to XP Pro."

That's because corporations care about money. If Apple had a proposition for Intel that could make Intel lots of money, do you think Intel's going to send them away based on their feelings being hurt by Apple's marketing?

Of course not. I don't think Intel's done anything wrong, here, at all. I think that Apple had better have a darn good excuse for this--much better than "We're trying to lower costs" and "IBM hasn't been a reliable supplier."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-04 03:55pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Not my position at all. I think it's embarrassing when one company talks to another company about using a product that it claims is "woefully inferior" to what it already has.

... Which is called marketing.

No. It has nothing to do with anything, since that involved completely separate products and completely separate technologies. What's bad about this one for Apple is that they're discussing a switch to the exact same line of processors that they've spent the last 15 years telling us suck. This is the equivalent of Apple saying, "Microsoft's OS's all suck compared to Tiger. Hey, let's switch all of our computers to XP Pro."

I don't know if you know this, but Apple's spent the past 15 years competing with the Wintel world. Part of competing is trashing the competition.

Of course not. I don't think Intel's done anything wrong, here, at all. I think that Apple had better have a darn good excuse for this--much better than "We're trying to lower costs" and "IBM hasn't been a reliable supplier."

They don't need an excuse because they're not going to switch their lines to x86 processors. It'd be a monumentally stupid move.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-06-05 12:46am

Durandal wrote:I don't know if you know this, but Apple's spent the past 15 years competing with the Wintel world. Part of competing is trashing the competition.

And, you see nothing embarrassing about the tacit admission that their marketing department has been totally lying for the last 15 years.

They don't need an excuse because they're not going to switch their lines to x86 processors. It'd be a monumentally stupid move.

So, essentially your position is that it's not embarrassing for them because marketing departments are expected to lie, and that you don't believe the rumors, anyway.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-05 03:13am

We'll see in two days.

BabelHuber · Post by **BabelHuber** » 2005-06-05 11:01am

They don't need an excuse because they're not going to switch their lines to x86 processors. It'd be a monumentally stupid move.

I think that it wouldn't be a stupid move if IBM doesn't have something up its sleeves:

See here the workstation and server performance of the G5/OS X combo compared to Xeon and Opteron CPUs:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

The Opteron here is the clear performance winner, even though only 2.4GHz Opterons were tested (2.6GHz versions are already available).

The G5 seems to have a decent workstation performance, but its server performance is rather pathetic (probably this is a weakness of OS X).

This month, AMD and Intel are planning to start selling Dual Core CPUs (test here: http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q ... dex.x?pg=1).

IBM needs to have an answer to the dual Athlons/Opterons, otherwise Apple won't look good performance-wise in a few months.

And we all know that Intel currently is working hard to replace its Netburst architecture. The new chips which are expected to arrive next year could take back the performance crown from AMD.

If IBM isn't willing to spend the necessary ressources to keep up, Apple has a problem.

Perhaps this is why Apple sees no other choice than switching to x86.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-06-05 01:12pm

We don't actually know why performance was so poor, however. Is it the OS? Different I/O management? Would Linux on PPC perform better? Does GCC produce inferior code on the G5 vs. IA32/AMD64?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-06-05 01:23pm

They should let Macs run on POWER4's

Yeah, I know, not practical due to costs.

Anyway, the Anandtech article should have tested YDL Linux on the Mac as well as OSX.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-05 03:13pm

The AnandTech article posited the theory that the G5 performed badly on the database tests because of OS X's kernel architecture. They should've tested that theory with a Yellow Dog Linux install. They did not. The author said he wanted to get a clearer picture of how well the G5 performed, yet he didn't take obvious steps to get that picture.

Master of Ossus wrote:And, you see nothing embarrassing about the tacit admission that their marketing department has been totally lying for the last 15 years.

What did they lie about? Since when can benchmarks be classified as absolute truth or absolute falsehood?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-05 10:33pm

Of course it'd be a stupid move. Customer confusion. The emulation problems would be monumentous. You buy software off eBay, like Photoshop CS 2 for Mac, and you don't know if its for Mac-x86 and Mac-PowerPC. Piracy would be RAMPANT. But customer confusion is the worst part.