Apple to switch?????

All that story proves is that "legitimate" news organizations aren't really legitimate anymore. They don't cite anything new, so I'm guessing it's based on the same well-debunked info we've been discussing in this thread from page 1.

Basically, I'll believe it when Apple says it, not a second sooner. If Apple makes any such announcement this year, I will eat a feast of hats and crow, seasoned well with my own words.
 
Nothing's "done". It's mainly a hyped up version of a rumour. Sure: It could happen. But I'll write a VERY angry commentary about it on macnews.net.tc should it really happen. Really: Apple lives in constant transition for SOOOOOOOOO long now. 68K -> PPC (this transition was ONLY really over with Mac OS X, when finally main parts of the OS weren't running in emulation any longer!) then OS 8/9 -> OS X. And *now* that Mac OS X is finally growing up, they want us to dive into yet ANOTHER transition? Well... I don't want to get too far into it. I still believe the intel talks, if they've even happened, are not about a move to intel processors.
 
you mean Intel x86 CPUs, right fryke? We already KNOW they use an intel chip in the xserve for LAN or something.

I can't see them dumping PPC for x86 now. PPC tackled the 64bit thing at its inception. x86 (from intel at least) has to run in emulation, to get a 64bit CPU to run 32 bit code... why dump a system that works well for one that has market share? Mercedes AMG wouldn't use Chevvy engines just because they sell more, do they?
 
I don't think the reason for a (partial?) move to intel would be market share. It would be the outlook for performance and price in the coming 2-3 years. IBM doesn't deliver - period. The 970 line of processors has not scaled as hoped, and this is bad for Apple. Also, IBM has no good processors for notebook computers. So Apple _there_ is still with FreeScale (ex Moto), which it basically told off when adopting the G5 by IBM. Apple certainly isn't thinking very short term here. So _if_ it turns out true, I think that it'll be for _some_ computer lines first. Maybe Apple can even keep using PPC for years to come in computers where it makes sense (performance- as well as price-wise).
 
Pengu said:
you mean Intel x86 CPUs, right fryke? We already KNOW they use an intel chip in the xserve for LAN or something.

I can't see them dumping PPC for x86 now. PPC tackled the 64bit thing at its inception. x86 (from intel at least) has to run in emulation, to get a 64bit CPU to run 32 bit code... why dump a system that works well for one that has market share? Mercedes AMG wouldn't use Chevy engines just because they sell more, do they?
Click to expand...

As I am named here, I'll take a few seconds to answer: Alfa moved to some obscure Autralian GM motor for their high end cars, changing their legendar 3.0 V6 for the aussie 3.2 V6. On paper its has more horse power, and it is less expensive because they sell more, but the truth is that the car doesn't really accelerate anymore and has no sound. Hopefully Apple will not make the same error.

Knowing Steve (I mean, having read about him for now more than 25 years), I expect him to do something unexpected. He is smart, but sometimes his ego is bigger than his brain and the result is... strange.

Back to number:
Apple does a good part of his income with iPod. The processor used by the iPod is absolutely irrelevant for us. If they want to change it, they can.... maybe Intel has a good low-power CPU for this application.

Apple does a good part of his income with Mac hardware. Changing is to x86 would put it in competition with lots of other hardware provider. Strange.

Apple does some income with OS-X. Porting it to x86 would significantly increase its market share. Direct competitor would be Linux on x86. This is a great move to increase market share but my kill part of the Mac hardware income.

Apple does some income with Mac only software (iLife, iWork and several pro apps). Porting these to Windows or Linux could increase the market share. Indeed porting these to x86 Linux could be a very smart move.

Apple does a limited number of Mac and PC software (QuickTime, iTunes).

And Apple does server hardware and software... here there is a possibility of extension to x86 too.

Conclusion ? Wait for tomorrow evening !
 
Yeah.. cars really are a bad analogy, but it's the one thing everyone can relate to.
 
Knowing that:
1) Intel makes CPUs with on-chip wireless support for WiFi and Bluetooth
2) Apple was looking for Bluetooth specialized engineers for his iPod hardware group
3) iPod is the product with the highest volume at Apple
4) Intel is looking for volume production

Why wouldn't Intel provide a single chip iPod solution ?
 
chevy said:
Knowing that:
1) Intel makes CPUs with on-chip wireless support for WiFi and Bluetooth
2) Apple was looking for Bluetooth specialized engineers for his iPod hardware group
3) iPod is the product with the highest volume at Apple
4) Intel is looking for volume production

Why wouldn't Intel provide a single chip iPod solution ?
Click to expand...

This is by far the 'theory' that makes most sense to me.
 
What about the fact that PortalPlayer has been very, very good at keeping up with the demand?

And that they already have established iPod/mp3 player instructions on the chip?

Why switch to Intel when you're getting what you need somewhere else?

I also don't want my iPod to run at 75°C.
 
Hey guys do you remember that time when there were Performa product that time and had use INTEL processor that time. Maybe possible that Apple want to switch to Intel for Mini Mac, eMac and or for ibook and Powerbook? Apple able to sell cheaper than Dell?

Again, I doubt Apple will switch to INTEL. Because see what reporter asked Steven Jobs:

That being said, it doesn't answer the many other questions that would stem from such a transition. Questions such as emulation layers, current PowerPC Mac sales, developer migration, end user confusion and more. As well, Steve Jobs was recently asked about the possibility of switching to Intel and reportedly "Jobs basically said no."

He answered the question "No" My question when was that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top