# Intel and Steve Jobs rumor - interesting update.



## GulGnu (Feb 9, 2003)

Turns out the much-disputed looprumors photo of an apple logo at an intel conference was most likely true. (my jugement). The person who supplied the original photo has supplemented it with another one of Jobs actually speaking at the conference, as well as Job's Pixar moving to Intel hardware. There seems to be other sources confirming this info. The poster also supplies some additional info pointing towards Intel trying to get Apple on board.


www.looprumors.com

and

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=18052&perpage=25&pagenumber=6

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## sjb2016 (Feb 9, 2003)

I'm no detective, but things are getting curiouser and curiouser


----------



## twister (Feb 9, 2003)

so what's that mean?  X on intel?


----------



## GroundZeroX (Feb 9, 2003)

I don't see it happening. Apple has done so many things to make Intel chips look inferior, that they would be shooting themselves in the foot. One of the key things in business is the ability to separate one thing from another. While Pixar may have switched to Intel from the Sun platform, I don't see this as a reason for his other company to switch to Intel based CPU's. It would take a massive programming effort to go to Intel based processors, because while OS X would easily be ported, all the other Apps won't be so lucky. Another thing to keep in mind is the life-cycle that X86 still has in it. Intel is now pushing its Itanium processors which run on VLIW, to be the next generation of processors. I don't think X86 has more then 5 years left in it in the consumer market.


----------



## mfsri (Feb 9, 2003)

Intel is a company that makes chips. Why can't they make one processor for windows based systems and another for OS X systems?


----------



## GroundZeroX (Feb 9, 2003)

MFSRI, designing a chip isn't a simple task. this type of thing takes years of research and engineering to do. Intel is in the market of volume, and Apple doesn't sell high enough volume to justify the expense and time it takes to produce a chip for them.


----------



## Pengu (Feb 9, 2003)

While I doubt it's going to happen, there is of course a slim possibility that Intel is going to buy out Motorolla's share in the PPC consortium (Apple, IBM & Motorolla)


----------



## RyanLang (Feb 9, 2003)

Don't get me wrong, I know the high end graphics market and the desktop market are two totally different animals, but if you download the audio clip from looprumors and listen to Steve say "we ditched the suns and we now have a room full of pentiums" it just sounds very strange.  I'm just so used to Jobs insulting the pentium.


----------



## moav (Feb 9, 2003)

If you listen closely, Jobs catches himselfs and almost chokes, before taking a sip from his water bottle. (do we really believe that's just water in there)  I guess he couldn't even believe what he said.


----------



## kendall (Feb 9, 2003)

no, its probably kool-aid


----------



## senne (Feb 10, 2003)

maybe it is a fake, look at Jobs his pants, they're torn apart on his right "pipe" (left for us)








Maybe he IS  cut out of an Apple Keynote Presentation and is pasted on the Intel Presentation


----------



## sheepguy42 (Feb 10, 2003)

Notice too how the hands of the other two have more distortion than Jobs's hands.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 10, 2003)

From cnet (they don't usually lie about their sources, do they??)  
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983898.html?tag=fd_nbs_ent



> Later in January, Jobs delivered the morning keynote address at Intel's annual sales conference in Las Vegas. "Andy (Grove) always tries to bring someone in from the outside," said an Intel representative. "Andy has always thought of Steve as being a quite a creative force in the industry."
> 
> The Intel chairman and Apple's CEO are, in fact, old friends. Still, "I'm sure one of the reasons he did it was for the shock value," the representative said.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 10, 2003)

I would LOVE to see OS X on Intel, personally.  I don't see Intel as the big, bad monopolist/strong-armer/wolf/whatever that some people seem to see them as.  I mean, Motorola, RISC, AMD &etc. are the underdogs, sure, and as Apple lovers we love the underdog , but haven't we got enough underdoggedness already?  Intel competes fiercely with AMD & etc., but isn't that what the free market is all about and isn't that what we wish _our_ chip supplier would do (Motorola)?

There's no question that Intel is the performance king right now according to the articles that I've read in the past couples months.  (Except for Apple, of course. )  They also have vastly greater amounts of chip-related resources and, for that matter, money, than anyone else including AMD & IBM, don't they?

I don't know much about architectures & porting.  All I know is that I thought that OS X and applications developed for it were supposed to be infinitely more portable than OS 9 and that NEXT ran on multiple architectures simultaneouslly.  Is that correct or not?

OK, assuming 2 things:
1.  Apple could make its apps run on Intel & get developers to do whatever it takes to make their apps run on Intel
2.  Apple (or Intel) could tweak the motherboards & OS X just enough so that OS X wouldn't run on just any old x86

Why in the world _wouldn't_ we want Apple to move to Intel?  And if after 5 years 64-bit CPU's really do take over the world, Apple could simply move over to AMD and their backwards-compatible 64/32-bit CPU, without requiring hardly any additional work from developers or its own software team.  Right?

Forget about whether or not _you_ need 3 billion cycles per second to run iTunes and think about how many pro consumers, computer hobbyists, gamers, and even many normal consumers are holding back from switching because of the (at least perceived) 'performance gap'.  What could knocking down that barrier do for Apple's marketshare?  What would 15 or even 10% market share do for availability of Mac-compatible software and hardware?

And talk about knocking down barriers -- think of Virtual PC on an x86!  Screaming fast!  No more chip emulation!  Absolutely no reason for would-be switchers to hold back because they are afraid of not being able to run their old Windows apps or not being able to run them fast enough.  It would be just inconvenient enough (i.e. you would have to purchase & install Windows as well as work through an emulator) to discourage software developers of 'skipping over' a native Mac OS X version, but  plenty for switchers who already _have_ a Windows license to come running over with no qualms at all!!

I don't truly need Intel, its 3GHz or even Motorola's 1GHz all that much right now, but I think Apple (and all of us as a result) could really, really, really benefit from all the side effects of "making the switch" themselves.


----------



## mfsri (Feb 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GroundZeroX _
> *MFSRI, designing a chip isn't a simple task. this type of thing takes years of research and engineering to do. *



Whats your point? Who's to say they have not been working on it for the past 5 years. Intel can make a XYZ chip to run windows and a ABC chip to run Mac OS.


----------



## Gregita (Feb 10, 2003)

Your posts and your arguments are excellently written, Jeb. I think you make a point- to some degree.

I'm still not sure what I think about Apple running on x86, but this post gave me some things to think about.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 10, 2003)

Thanks!


----------



## neutrino23 (Feb 10, 2003)

Strange story.

I listened to the sound clip on loop rumors. It doesn't sound like Steve to me. The word choices are wrong too. Moreover, the voice says they switced to a room full of Pentiums. Actually, it was a room full of Xeons. Steve would have known that.

Anyway Pixar using Xeons for a narrow application has nothing to do with Apple potentially switching to Intel processors. 

Personally, I think the only way this would happen is if both Motorola and IBM stopped making PPCs and no one else picked up the ball. It would be extremely disruptive for Apple to change to Intel processors. I think it is questionable as to whether Apple could survive such a shift.

Finally, I don't think it is necessary. Presumably IBM will come out with a chips that are comparable to anything Intel will make in the next few years. In addition, we are almost at the point where processor speed won't matter to anyone except for a few narrow applications. We have already reached that point for HDs. Except for storing video, a 100GB hard drive could almost hold a lifetime's worth of data. In a couple years we will be at the point where either an Intel or an IBM processor will be fast enough to compress MP3s, touch up digital photos, make DVDs, render 3D images for games and such and no one will care one way or the other. Things are moving very fast in this field. Don't be too focused on the problems of the day.


----------



## senne (Feb 11, 2003)

yeah, i wanted to say that too, of the voice of "Jobs". But i thought i would make myself stupid


----------



## GulGnu (Feb 11, 2003)

"Except for storing video, a 100GB hard drive could almost hold a lifetime's worth of data."

Hehe, I wish =P I keep filling my 120GB drive all the time... =/

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!


----------



## pyroboy (Feb 12, 2003)

If you look around at various news sites, you will get the idea that Intel is running into many problems that are similar to the issue with Motorola and the slow speed bumps with Power PC.

Intel is hoping to push people to 64 bit chips with Itanium. The only problem is that the world is centered around 32 bit. Intel's 64 bit processors run 32 bit code slower than older processors and the performance of the 64/32 bit hybrids has been lackluster.

I suppose 3 GHz looks pretty good when you look at out own 1 GHz speeds, but Intel's house currently and in the future is not as perfect as it may look. 

I applaud the fact that Apple is obviously looking around to see what other alternatives are available. However, I think the best solution could very well be the new IBM POWER+ processors. Yes, their debut will be a little slow, in the 2 GHz range, but as Intel is now pointng out to their own customers, MHz is not everything (strange, since that was their marketing pitch for the last what, 20 years). A 2 GHz processor with two built-in processors could be faster than a 4 GHz Pentium.

The real issue is will IBM be a stable supplier? Motorola should be a stable supplier able to get out faster and faster processors, but as we know now, their G4 project has not been as successful as we hoped. If IBM starts out stromg and fades in a year, Apple finds itself in the same bed they are in today.

If Apple switches to Intel/AMD, it could be a great thing. We will always have the same high speed processors that Dell/Compaq and others have, both the benefits and their drawbacks.

But Intel is not the only operation in town and they do not always make the best processors. IBM seems to do very well against them in the server market. Sun is having problems as of late, but SPARC has always been a solid processor. It's hard to believe because you think the line would be dead due to neglect, but Alpha processors continue to do very well, despite all the neglect Compaq has shown.

I wonder why Apple doesn't buy out the Motorola PowerPC operation? It would make some very good sense if they were in charge of their own destiny in this area. 

I am very excited to see what will happen this fall when IBM starts shipping the 970. It would be nice if Motorola was coming up with a competing processor, but I'll take what I can get.


----------



## substrate (Feb 12, 2003)

IBM has historically been pretty strong. They make the POWER series of processors which they use in their own high end servers. To make their servers they also have to design and fabricate a wide array of other ASICs. On top of that, IBM also works as a fabrication house implementing peoples designs in silicon.

I hope that Apple embraces the 970. Motorola is just going to continue losing ground against Intel. I would not be at all suprised if they actually dropped production of everything other than embedded processors. Motorola's real market is for embedded processors. They do well there.


----------

