Apple says could move to Intel, but happy with IBM
- Thread starter malexgreen
- Start date
If you search the forums, you'll find plenty of thoughts about why Apple should or should not, will or will not 'switch' or 'expand' to the X86 side.
I think it's good to hear it from Steve himself: Not gonna happen (anytime soon). I'm still glad that Steve has _also_ made clear that it would be quite easy to make the move, should it ever become a critical move for Apple to do.
A little off-topic: With Windows X86-64 (AMD 64bit Athlon processors) almost a year away, _this_ would have been the right time if ever. But we all know that IBM has good plans with the PowerPC 970 and successor processors (Power5's little sibling, probably called PowerPC 980).
I think it's good to hear it from Steve himself: Not gonna happen (anytime soon). I'm still glad that Steve has _also_ made clear that it would be quite easy to make the move, should it ever become a critical move for Apple to do.
A little off-topic: With Windows X86-64 (AMD 64bit Athlon processors) almost a year away, _this_ would have been the right time if ever. But we all know that IBM has good plans with the PowerPC 970 and successor processors (Power5's little sibling, probably called PowerPC 980).
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
malexgreen said:
What shot and whose bow are you talking about?
IBM? Until the G5, the only chips that Apple was getting from IBM was the G3s. The G4s were totally Motorola. When IBM was able to make G3s faster than Motorola's G4s, Apple wouldn't buy them (even when it looked like the Motorola's G4s would never get past 500 MHz). I think you may be reading too much into this.
Besides, if any ones bow has been shot over, it was Intel's bow by Microsoft. Else where on this board I pointed out that the PowerPC line sure seems to be the processor of choice in high end computing (with 13 of the top 25 super computers using PowerPC 604e, POWER3, POWER4 and now PowerPC 970 processors from IBM). Now Microsoft seems to be moving from Intel to IBM with their only line of hardware systems, the Xbox.
If anything, Apple should have done more to keep IBM in the picture over the last few years. At least they actually use their processors in their own computers. They had a reason to keep their development moving forward, Motorola really didn't (Motorola's other clients in the embedded market, not desktop/workstation/server systems).
I, personally, have always felt that a company that uses their own products is more likely to keep up quality then one that doesn't. Motorola hasn't made computers for years as I recall.
malexgreen
Contributor and PB User
Jason said:
As someone who works in the tech industry, I think Job's making this statement in a public forum is sort of a shot across the bow.
From IBM's standpoint, they should take away from this statement the fact that if their silicon road map slips, Apple won't wait around for them to recover like they waited around for Moto, to no avail.
The other shot is maybe fired at Microsoft, in that they are telling Microsoft that they are very flexible in what hardware platforms they can target for Mac OSX. So if a semi manufacturer goes under or become unable to supply in sufficient quantities, as many are now a days, they could be more flexible than MS, which is tied to x86 more closely than Mac OSX is tied to PPC.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
malexgreen said:
It is hard for me to miss the fact that you are reading a lot into this that isn't there. Apple, for the most part, left IBM for Motorola. IBM, who had their own uses for their processors, continued on with their development without skipping a step.
IBM doesn't need Apple to continue on with PowerPC. The PowerPC platform is just about the best in the industry right now. It got there using processors that have never been in any of Apple's computers (POWER3, POWER3-II, POWER4). Their road map has been Apple independent for the last 4 years, and at the same time has been very successful. Why do you think that Apple would want to throw there weight around with a company like IBM who has done fine without them.
As for your ease of switching, it isn't that easy. Apple had an operating system for x86 systems ready for market and pulled it at the last minute. Moving to x86 is just as easy/hard as a move to a true 64-bit PowerPC processor platform. Why didn't Apple just make everything 64-bit for the G5? (clue: it isn't that easy!)
You may want to see saber rattling in these statements, but nothing was said that wasn't already known by the parties involved. The dynamics of the situation haven't changed. This is really no news (except for those wanting Apple to move to x86 and are looking for any signs of hope).
malexgreen
Contributor and PB User
RacerX said:
Good point. But I think IBM does have something to lose if it loses Apple. As far as I know the microelectronics group within IBM is a big money hole, and their fab in NY is currently under utilized, which means they are losing money on the fab and need products to translate to fab capacity use. Although the PPC architecture could live without Apple, or IBM for that matter, as Moto uses the PPC in many useful embedded markets, I think IBM from a $ standpoint doesn't want to lose Apple's business.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Both IBM and Motorola compete in the embedded market with PowerPC processors, I personally think IBM is very far ahead of Motorola in that market which is why Motorola has been trying to sell their microprocessor division for quite some time now. Further, IBM uses their own chips in both workstations and servers. There R&D for the past 5 years with the PowerPC architecture has been completely Apple independent.
Apple never used a POWER3 processor in any of their systems. Apple never used a POWER3-II processor in any of their systems. Apple never used a POWER4 processor in any of their systems. Apple never used a PowerPC 405/440 processor in any of their systems. Apple stop buying PowerPC 604e processors from IBM back in 1997, yet IBM still makes them and systems that use them.
No one wants to lose a customer. But Apple hasn't been providing IBM all that much business in the last 5 years. And IBM just kept on innovating (the real thing and not Microsoft's buzz word). Apple threw more business at Motorola then they could handle at times (at one point IBM made G4s for Apple when Motorola couldn't make enough), and yet they had a hard time doing anything new with their processor line.
It would be in bad taste for Apple to threaten IBM. And I'm not sure IBM would care all that much anyways as they have their own goals with this technology and Apple has been out of the picture before. Motorola is the company hurting in this area, not IBM. Both Apple and IBM are going to continue on with the PowerPC architecture, Motorola is the company which may soon be out of the picture.
In all reality, the PowerPC architecture is IBM's child, not Apple's and not Motorola's. When Apple was designing the 61/71/8100 series computers, Apple left open which processor they planned on using, Motorola's 68060 or IBM's PowerPC 601. In the end, Motorola couldn't get their processor into production in time (not much of a surprise for those of us who have watch Motorola over the years). Part of the reason for even getting Motorola involved in PowerPC at all was so that it didn't look like Apple was moving to IBM (the pre-Microsoft villain).
And Apple's work on an operating system for Intel hardware has not been a secret (Rhapsody/Darwin) and wasn't a surprise to anyone who could have saw it as a "shot over the bow".
Apple was not threatening IBM, in fact Apple should have dumped Motorola as soon as they had problems making G4s faster than 500 MHz (and IBM was able to produce 600+ MHz G4s at the same time).
It shouldn't be under estimated how important IBM is to the PowerPC architecture. And by the same token, we shouldn't over estimate the importance of Motorola (who maybe out of the picture soon than you would think).
Apple never used a POWER3 processor in any of their systems. Apple never used a POWER3-II processor in any of their systems. Apple never used a POWER4 processor in any of their systems. Apple never used a PowerPC 405/440 processor in any of their systems. Apple stop buying PowerPC 604e processors from IBM back in 1997, yet IBM still makes them and systems that use them.
No one wants to lose a customer. But Apple hasn't been providing IBM all that much business in the last 5 years. And IBM just kept on innovating (the real thing and not Microsoft's buzz word). Apple threw more business at Motorola then they could handle at times (at one point IBM made G4s for Apple when Motorola couldn't make enough), and yet they had a hard time doing anything new with their processor line.
It would be in bad taste for Apple to threaten IBM. And I'm not sure IBM would care all that much anyways as they have their own goals with this technology and Apple has been out of the picture before. Motorola is the company hurting in this area, not IBM. Both Apple and IBM are going to continue on with the PowerPC architecture, Motorola is the company which may soon be out of the picture.
In all reality, the PowerPC architecture is IBM's child, not Apple's and not Motorola's. When Apple was designing the 61/71/8100 series computers, Apple left open which processor they planned on using, Motorola's 68060 or IBM's PowerPC 601. In the end, Motorola couldn't get their processor into production in time (not much of a surprise for those of us who have watch Motorola over the years). Part of the reason for even getting Motorola involved in PowerPC at all was so that it didn't look like Apple was moving to IBM (the pre-Microsoft villain).
And Apple's work on an operating system for Intel hardware has not been a secret (Rhapsody/Darwin) and wasn't a surprise to anyone who could have saw it as a "shot over the bow".
Apple was not threatening IBM, in fact Apple should have dumped Motorola as soon as they had problems making G4s faster than 500 MHz (and IBM was able to produce 600+ MHz G4s at the same time).
It shouldn't be under estimated how important IBM is to the PowerPC architecture. And by the same token, we shouldn't over estimate the importance of Motorola (who maybe out of the picture soon than you would think).
Cat
Registered
RacerX: I completely agree that IBM doesn't need Apple from a financial point of view. Yet i think that Apple is providing them with a lot of exposure and good press: Apple makes those hip computers with the IBM chips after all. While IBM has countless PPC supercomputer on the list, Apple got the third place with Big Mac. While IBM makes the chips, it was Apple who publicized them as Intel-killers with the G3. So even if from a purely financial point of view, Apple as customer is expendable for IBM, I think that Apple can be important to IBM on other fronts. I agree that with all the re-branding (PPC 970 - G5) things get confusing for the average customer, but neither Apple nor IBM seem to be targetting the very low, ultra cheap mass-market (let's say, Dell territory). People who buy their (expensive) computers because they need Power (pun intended) do know in general where the processors comes from, resulting in good press for IBM and exposure in a merket that they don't target directly as primary (like e.g. creative professionals).
Erhm... However: Nobody is even TALKING about Apple dropping IBM. Racer's right: You're all reading far too much into the statements. Apple has made it very, very clear that they're comfortable with IBM, the G5 and the roadmap for future PowerPC processors from IBM.
At the same time, Apple seems to be comfortable with the G4 from Motorola for the other products for now. And so are we, aren't we? Sure, a G5 in every product would be nice, but for now, the G4's the better mobile processor.
At the same time, Apple seems to be comfortable with the G4 from Motorola for the other products for now. And so are we, aren't we? Sure, a G5 in every product would be nice, but for now, the G4's the better mobile processor.