Read this CNET article!

[glbronze]

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html?tag=fd_top

Analyst: Apple to lie down with Intel
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 2, 2002, 2:34 PM PT


Apple Computer will likely shift to using Intel chips, while circumstances exist that could well push Dell Computer and Sun Microsystems into a friendly embrace, predicted Bear Stearns analyst Andrew Neff.

Intense competition, softening demand, excess capacity and the fact that virtually every technology company shows some sort of exposed vulnerability will likely prompt a rash of changes in the market, according to Neff in the latest version of his "PC manifesto," a detailed report on the state of the market.

"The key for investors to is to realize that this isn't a game where companies die and simply go away," Neff wrote. "In reality, this is a rare occurrence. We believe it is a time for company managements to take steps toward concrete changes, as those that recognize the need for action first will get the best deals...The point being, there is no easy way out."



Neff's predictions in the 50-page report vary depending on the circumstances in which the companies find themselves.

Neff, for instance, predicted Apple, which uses chips from Motorola and IBM that currently top out at 1GHz, will switch to Intel, whose chips run at 2.5GHz, to get a performance boost and gain more customers. There's a better than 80 percent chance Apple will make the jump in two to four years, he said.

For its part, IBM is following a potentially profitable path by increasing its services business, but it will need to further de-emphasize hardware--a path the company already appears to be taking. In January, it shifted factories to Sanmina-SCI.

"We're not saying that IBM will ever exit hardware; but it is clearly de-emphasizing commodity hardware through its relative lack of investments," Neff wrote.

However, IBM is in the best position possible in the server and general business market because it can offer nearly any service or hardware a large organization would need.

To combat IBM, rivals Dell, Sun and EMC could forge tighter bonds with each other in an alliance that could combine their strengths. Although the historical record for alliances isn't great, these arrangements don't involve the gut-wrenching reorganizations and gargantuan costs of mergers.

The possibility of a Dell-Sun-EMC triumvirate coming into existence could in turn prompt HP to buy EMC. The merger would strengthen HP in storage and deprive Dell of its closest ally.

Dell's domain
Meanwhile, Dell remains the king of the PC world because of its low-cost manufacturing abilities, but it will have to increase its participation in the market for high-end servers and storage devices.

In this environment for desktops and notebooks, Dell will win, Neff noted. Dell's dominance is so clear that the company's main rivals for PC profits aren't other computer makers, but suppliers such as Microsoft and Intel. If tensions arise between these historically close allies, Dell could find itself talking more to Linux providers and to AMD.

HP, meanwhile, has problems in the PC realm. Rather than try to become a low-cost leader, the company instead tried to bulk up by buying Compaq. History in the computer market, though, shows that "the key is not scale, the key is low cost," he said in an interview."

HP can offer a broad array of services and technology, but the company's girth, achieved through mergers, makes it less stable. Often, companies that grow through mergers vacillate between quarters heavy in restructuring losses and quarters showing revenue growth obtained mostly through merger accounting. Ultimately, these strategies fail.

"The numbers can work for some time through serial restructuring but those combinations usually mask the underlying challenges of consolidation and sub-optimal economy," he wrote.

While Wall Street analysts have created a cottage industry out of making grandiose (and often ultimately incorrect) predictions and recommendations, Neff can boast of a fairly strong track record of the industry adopting at least some of his ideas.

In January 2001, he said that it would behoove HP to purchase Compaq. At the time, most analysts--and even some HP and Compaq execs--warned against buying PC companies, saying it was better to let them fade away. Around the same time, Neff also said that it would make sense for Dell and EMC to link up.

Months after the report, HP announced it was buying Compaq, while Dell and EMC forged a complex alliance that is leading to co-branded storage systems and cooperative sales and manufacturing ventures. (Neff, though, also recommended in the same reports that Dell buy IBM's PC division and/or Gateway.)

(Bear Stearns owns shares in Dell and Intel, and has a banking relationship with HP and Dell.)

[themacko]

The only way I could see Apple switching to Intel for chips, would be if Intel was able to start producing PowerPC chips ... because as we all know, they aren't going to x86. At least, we're 99% sure...

[toast]

I won't complain if this occurs.

PCs = power + sh!tty OS. If Apple reaches same power as PCs, then Apple will be renown for what they are: a good software company. Not for a good software company running on poor Motorola slugs.

So yes, if Apple can do this soon, it's a fine strategy. Of course OSX is over XP. But refusing to OSX the processor speed it deserves has pushed XP top of the sales.

Let's have the great AMD stuff in the nice, excellent-OS'ed Macs ! And Microsoft will DIE. Bahahahahahahahaha…

[chemistry_geek]

All the current Intel folk think that OS X on Intel will solve their OS problems. I don't think so. Even if Apple moves to the dark side and adopts one of the most inefficiently designed processors on Earth, PC's will not be able to run OS X. It ain't gonna happen folks. An Intel-powered Mac will still be a Mac, with Apple-proprietary hardware. The only things that will change will be the processor and the size of the heat sinks, oh, and your electric utility will probably double.

God I hope Apple goes with a Power4 variant. To throw away all that development in the PowerPC architecture is a sorriful waste. Whatever is going to happen, it's very likely that it is already in the works and there is NOTHING we could do to change it if we didn't like it. Oh well, it isn't worth being concerned about - resistance is futile. It's gonna be "Steve's Way" you know.

If Apple is thinking of moving to Intel, there is probably a lot of development in making a "porting" program to take PowerPC code and correctly and efficiently compile it for Intel, thereby making a switch to Intel very painless for developers. That is the only way Apple would not lose current developers. Makes life easy for everyone except us (the PowerPC camp).

[toast]

Originally posted by chemistry_geek
the size of the heat sinks, oh, and your electric utility will probably double.

Oh oh… true. Well, I'm ready for this if the speed increases.

[chemistry_geek]

IBM has an article here:

http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/jo.../462/nair.html

about a new "Cell" microprocessor that will power everything from cell phones, and consumer multimedia hardware to mainframes. Could this be an option for Apple? I'm not so sure, it is NOT based on the PowerPC architecture.

The more I think about this, Intel probably won't be the way that Apple will go.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by chemistry_geek
All the current Intel folk think that OS X on Intel will solve their OS problems. I don't think so. Even if Apple moves to the dark side and adopts one of the most inefficiently designed processors on Earth, PC's will not be able to run OS X. It ain't gonna happen folks. An Intel-powered Mac will still be a Mac, with Apple-proprietary hardware. The only things that will change will be the processor and the size of the heat sinks, oh, and your electric utility will probably double.

Although I agree with most of your post, what is proprietary about Apple hardware?

If Apple is thinking of moving to Intel, there is probably a lot of development in making a "porting" program to take PowerPC code and correctly and efficiently compile it for Intel, thereby making a switch to Intel very painless for developers. That is the only way Apple would not lose current developers. Makes life easy for everyone except us (the PowerPC camp).

You can save your tears. Apple ain't moving to Intel. Just think about it. If Apple introduced an Intel-based Mac this weekend, how much software would be available for its buyers? Except for Apple's own Intel ports of its iApps, none!

Apple was able to make the transition from the 680x0 to the PPC because the PPC was well-suited for Apple's 680x0 emulator. It has been able to make the transition from MacOS 9 to MacOS X using the Classic environment.

A PPC-to-Intel processor transition would be cold turkey. Windows users would have no reason to buy Intel-based Macs. PPC Mac users would have no reason to make another hardware transition, at least not hardware produced by Apple.

Extra credit: Explain in one sentence or more how Apple would stay in business until a sufficient quantity of PPC applications are ported to the Intel version of MacOS X.

[chemistry_geek]

Originally posted by MisterMe


Although I agree with most of your post, what is proprietary about Apple hardware?

[...]

Extra credit: Explain in one sentence or more how Apple would stay in business until a sufficient quantity of PPC applications are ported to the Intel version of MacOS X.

There are currently PowerPC mother boards for Linux, even IBM workstations. Try and see if you can get OS X to run on them. It won't work. There is just enough of the proprietary hardware on the board that the OS expects to be there. Don't believe me, open up your Mac and look for chips marked "©YEAR Apple". This will include the ROMS.

Extra Credit: Emulation my friend, emulation. This is exactly what Apple did for years when it moved from Motorola 680X0 chips to PowerPC chips. Do you know how long the Finder ran as 680X0 code in EMULATION mode on PowerPC chips? Years! If Intel technology pulls far ahead of PowerPC performance, a PowerPC could be emulated very easily without noticable difference from the users' perspective. Remember, we're all used to running on "slower" hardware. Moving up to a "speedy" Intel chip emulating a PowerPC chip will be painless for the users. For all intensive purposes, we wouldn't see a performance hit until we got to experience the real native performance of the Intel chip. This too happened when Apple finally removed all that 680X0 code from the Finder years ago. Remember FAT applications that contained 680X0 and PPC code? I still have some laying around in my PowerBook 520c. Throwing a conversion/emulation layer on top of the Darwin kernel wouldn't be difficult, especially if the Intel chip is lightening fast.

Also, several years ago there was the idea of making similar motherboards with different processor architectures...something about CHRP comes to mind...Common Hardware Reference Platform. Build one motherboard that can take different processor architectures. I think this was already done for a while by Apple. Again, my PowerBook 520c with a 68LC040 comes to mind...could be the GLARING RED STICKER on the LCD display that says "Ready for PowerPC upgrade" - a perfect example of a computer that uses two completely different processor architectures. I think IBM still makes these in their RS/6000 PowerPC workstations.