Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Randman · Jun 9, 2005, 01:57 PM

Lead story on Macminute.

Are Apple and Intel merging to take on Microsoft?
June 9 - 14:32 EDT In his latest column, Robert Cringely has an interesting take on the Apple/Intel news mania. The article poses five questions: "What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?"; "What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?"; "Where the heck is AMD?"; "Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?"; and "Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?" In the final analysis, Cringely's conclusion is that it is all about Microsoft. "That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company."

Story here.

turtle777 · Jun 9, 2005, 02:01 PM

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrghhhhhh. Yet another useless thread...
Weren't YOU complaining as well ?

All these questions have been addressed in good ArsTechnica articles.
What remains is a plethora of speculations and conspiracy theories...

BS BS BS BS BS BS ! You heard it here first.

-t

Luca Rescigno · Jun 9, 2005, 02:05 PM

Yeah, I was about to come in here and bash on the idiot who started this thread only to see it was you Randman! Oh well, I WILL follow through with my original plan... ya stupid noob.

Seriously though, merging? That doesn't make any sense. Why would Intel want to buy Apple? So they can sell Macs to directly compete with Microsoft, and risk losing business from much, much larger customers like Dell and HP?

osxisfun · Jun 9, 2005, 02:05 PM

I would say that apple just gave intel a nuke. and that nuke is going to hung over m$ unless they start treating intel better.

m$ still gives intel shite... then intel makes an OEM agreement with apple to ship the OS.

m$ takes a 20 billion hit.

i love it.

yet another reason why the move to intel was a good thing.

Randman · Jun 9, 2005, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrghhhhhh. Yet another useless thread...
Weren't YOU complaining as well ?

All these questions have been addressed in good ArsTechnica articles.

I thought this was one was interesting in its speculation. It's worth discussing, imo. And not everyone reads AT.

f1000 · Jun 9, 2005, 02:12 PM

Interesting post Randman. I had been pondering this possibility as well.

I'd like to see Intel use its clout to improve the computer user experience for the unwashed masses. The problem is I don't see Jobs being much of a follower. I also don't think he has the techical background to run a chip company, either.

Who would run this Liger of a company?

f1000 · Jun 9, 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Seriously though, merging? That doesn't make any sense. Why would Intel want to buy Apple? So they can sell Macs to directly compete with Microsoft, and risk losing business from much, much larger customers like Dell and HP?

Dell and HP make neither the CPU nor the OS. As long as their customers don't care, then why should Dell and HP stick with Windows?

Intel could offer Dell and HP both the CPU and the OS. Maybe parts of the OS could be hardcoded into silicon in order to improve performance and minimize unauthorized copying?

Randman · Jun 9, 2005, 02:24 PM

I'm not sure about the M$ angle but the HP theory sounded very interesting. Too bad Carly's not in charge there anymore but still ...

osxisfun · Jun 9, 2005, 02:30 PM

thank god she's gone. she was so overated.

if you recall it was steve that called her and had to convince her.

I see the new pramatic HP open to something like this in a big way.

starman · Jun 9, 2005, 02:31 PM

I don't get it. Why would Intel buy Apple? Despite how cool the shock value would be, in the long run, everything will even itself back out anyway.

Mike

osxisfun · Jun 9, 2005, 02:34 PM

read my post above.

(but i do not think its about buying. its about an option to OEM the os for intel leverage against m$)

f1000 · Jun 9, 2005, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I don't get it. Why would Intel buy Apple? Despite how cool the shock value would be, in the long run, everything will even itself back out anyway.

Mike

Microsoft is a very profitable company by virtue of its monopoly of the OS that runs most of the world's PCs.

If Intel could offer an alternative OS, it could take some of Microsoft's profits for itself. Intel could tweak the OS+CPU to eke out performance gains over Windows, and it could also use Microsoftian tactics to force the implementation of OS X on all Intel boxes.

It'd be far harder for Microsoft to come up with an alternative CPU strategy than it would be for Intel to come up with an alternative OS (which it would have obtained by buying out Apple).

Who knows...maybe Microsoft would respond by buying out AMD and injecting it with a massive cash infusion?

starman · Jun 9, 2005, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by f1000

Microsoft is a very profitable company by virtue of its monopoly of the OS that runs most of the world's PCs.

If Intel could offer an alternative OS, it could take some of Microsoft's profits for itself. Intel could tweak the OS+CPU to eke out performance gains over Windows, and it could also use Microsoftian tactics to force the implementation of OS X on all Intel boxes.

It'd be far harder for Microsoft to come up with an alternative CPU strategy than it would be for Intel to come up with an alternative OS (which it would have obtained by buying out Apple).

Who knows...maybe Microsoft would respond by buying out AMD and injecting it with a massive cash infusion?

Could be. I see your point, but that would eventually kill Apple and everything we love about them.

Mike

RonnieoftheRose · Jun 9, 2005, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by f1000

It'd be far harder for Microsoft to come up with an alternative CPU strategy than it would be for Intel to come up with an alternative OS (which it would have obtained by buying out Apple).
?

That's not true. MS had NT4 for PPC. All companies that make operating systems maintain builds across different architectures, though not fully fledged operating systems. Sun has maintained builds on X86 and Sparc. Apple on PPC, X86 and who knows what else they have tried. MS has the NT kernal running on X86, Itanium, PPC, Strong Arm, MIPS and again who knows what else they have experimented on. If MS wanted they could have carried on from NT4 and had W2K and XP for Macs. They didn't because Macs had a very small base and Jobs struck certain deals with them that saw them own Apple stock and have faith that the Mac OS was going in a new direction that would sell more copies of Office for Mac.

Voch · Jun 9, 2005, 03:08 PM

I read the article and found a few, well, I guess I'd call 'em flaws...

Haven't we, the forum folks, pretty much dismissed the Cell processor as something that'd be useless on a desktop/notebook machine ("it's a gaming console chip")? And isn't IBM's processor roadmap very server-heavy and not very portable-friendly? And isn't 64-bitness just a way to access more RAM and crunch bigger numbers so it can be ignored for at least the first Intel-based Macs, especially for the consumer models? And doesn't Apple have tons of cash and iPod and iTunes sales to fall back on during the next year's purported hardware sales slump (I've seen some forum posts predicting hardware in Q1 2006, so that'd be just nine months anyway).

The more I think about this Intel thing the better I feel about it. The Cringley article just contradicted everything I've seen discussed here, in the ArsTechnica forums, etc.

My only qualms about the Intel move are if it affects the "Macness" in any way (the BIOS talk, the ability to boot yucky Windows that I'll never use). I'm thinking it opens some doors, too (the elegant-but-currently-slow VirtualPC on x86...I could use it for MAME audits). Admittedly I've been holding off on a portable upgrade and the Intel move by Apple may be what I've been waiting for...

Voch

f1000 · Jun 9, 2005, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

That's not true. MS had NT4 for PPC. All companies that make operating systems maintain builds across different architectures, though not fully fledged operating systems. Sun has maintained builds on X86 and Sparc. Apple on PPC, X86 and who knows what else they have tried. MS has the NT kernal running on X86, Itanium, PPC, Strong Arm, MIPS and again who knows what else they have experimented on. If MS wanted they could have carried on from NT4 and had W2K and XP for Macs. They didn't because Macs had a very small base and Jobs struck certain deals with them that saw them own Apple stock and have faith that the Mac OS was going in a new direction that would sell more copies of Office for Mac.

I didn't mean to imply that MS couldn't write its operating system for other chip architectures; what I meant was that these other architectures wouldn't offer viable competition to Intel. They certainly haven't so far.

Maccare · Jun 9, 2005, 03:26 PM

Intel would never drop Microsoft..... Microsoft is currently 80% of the market.... And Apple is 4% of the market.....

I don't many enterprise users will switch to Apple's OS..... (training, startup cost) plus Apple is marketing itself to home user.... Iphoto, Itunes, Iwork, Imovie.....

osxisfun · Jun 9, 2005, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Maccare

Intel would never drop Microsoft..... Microsoft is currently 80% of the market.... And Apple is 4% of the market.....

I don't many enterprise users will switch to Apple's OS..... (training, startup cost) plus Apple is marketing itself to home user.... Iphoto, Itunes, Iwork, Imovie.....

all they would have to do is drop OSX into some ROM on the motherboard

theolein · Jun 9, 2005, 03:38 PM

Very interesting read, but I think he's wrong about Intel buying Apple. For one, it would dilute Apple's brand, and brand is almost everything to Apple. But he might very well have a point about Apple doing OEM deals with selected partners, such as HP and perhaps Dell or Sony, or maybe just HP. Apple having a tiny few OEM deals for OSX would make big software house such as Adobe, Autodesk, etc, much more interested in writing good software and it would create a perennial wannabe club of aspiring OEMs which Apple could play out by making occasional rumour leaks to the press.

in fact, when I think about it, that would truly be the deal of the century. Apple allowing for instance just HP to put OSX on its computers. It wouldn't be the clone situation again, because the numbers of clones would be limited. It would keep Apple on its toes to produce the very best in hardware in order to compete, and it would finally give Microsoft some competition on x86 and force Microsoft to innovate for real.

But who knows. We'll see in any case as time goes by. Cringley is right on the money asking about the timing and the 64 bits and the Osbourne effect. Sadly, however, he's not often very good with pedictions, even if he is better than Dvorak

budster101 · Jun 9, 2005, 03:45 PM

Why doesn't Apple design their own chips?

osxisfun · Jun 9, 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

Why doesn't Apple design their own chips?

Billions and Billions and Billions of $ and no guarantee things would turn out better.

turtle777 · Jun 9, 2005, 04:04 PM

^^^ Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

-t

budster101 · Jun 9, 2005, 04:14 PM

They got the cash.

Xeo · Jun 9, 2005, 04:19 PM

Thread started after announcement in effect.