[CaptainHaddock]

A lot of people were worried when Apple announced the switch, myself included. Some people mistakenly thought Apple would turn into a me-too peecee vendor; some thought that Steve Jobs was simply angry at IBM; and some thought Apple should have chosen AMD, if anyone.

I think John Gruber (www.daringfireball.net) has figured out why Apple and Intel want to work together, and why this partnership will probably succeed.

Intel is the world's biggest CPU company, with an enormous research and development budget. They love inventing new technologies, and they've got plenty of innovations that could completely redefine PC architecture. Unfortunately, the PC world - Dell, Microsoft, HP, and so on - wants evolution, not revolution. They don't want to get rid of their inadequate buses, decrepit BIOS, buggy power-saving implementations and ancient 8086-compatibility. They just want the same old crap, a little faster than last year.

Intel's advantage, however, is that they have the money and talent to innovate. Itanium, for example, was Intel's attempt to make a new processor that left the cruft behind and used completely new technologies like EFI. The PC makers would have none of it. "Why can't you just make a new version of the Pentium with 64-bit extensions like AMD does," they asked.

Gruber says:
For years Intel has been making cool prototype “PCs of the future”, but no one ever turns their ideas into actual products, instead making new revisions of the same PC designs, only faster. There is a herd mentality amongst PC makers, much like in any commodity business. There is nothing herd-like whatsoever to Apple’s mentality. With Apple, Intel has gained a partner that is unafraid to break new ground.

Apple has always been the company to push PC innovation: USB, Firewire, DVI, Bluetooth, Altivec, 64-bit processing, ... the list goes on. At last, they're going to be partnered with a chip-maker that can invent advanced technologies as quickly as Apple can promote them. Intel, for its part, gets a customer that will actually use and promote their new technologies. That's probably even more important to Intel than the 5 million extra CPU sales they'll earn with Apple as a customer.

At one point, PowerPC really was a superior chip. Maybe it still is. But I'm finally confident that Intel is really going to make it possible for Apple push the envelope. Mac users have always been proud to use the best, most cutting-edge technology, and that's not going to change.

[osxisfun]

I've read this elsewhere..

I like the phrase someone used in a different columm..

"Apple is going to be Intel's show pony."

(1st adaopter of tech. showcaser of all things uber cool or uber new from intel.)

There are a dozen other reasons we should add to the list though. I think the yonah chips pulled more than its share of weight to be realistic though.

[Mr. Blur]

....guess you missed the announcement at the top of each forum

[turtle777]

IBL.

-t

[osxisfun]

IBL with sugar on top!

[Superchicken]

I think this is kinda lucky. That said I think he thinks Intel is going to be designing the insides of Macs more than they are. Most likely I could see Intel being very influential, but just like Apple in the end controls how Darwin moves, Apple likewise will control exactly how the Mobos are made, and other parts. And Intel will not be able to force them to move to anything they don't want to. But instead Apple has probably agreed to showcase some new tech that other vendors aren't willing to because Apple can see how to take advantage of them.
As well, with the addition of the concept of universal binaries and tech this means that eventually if Intel wanted to do stuff like drop some x86 stuff and incorporate new stuff, this means Apple and their ISVs can take advantage of the new tech, which would push M$ to bother to or be left behind.

I also like what someone said a while ago that M$ hasn't figure out a way to make people want faster machines other than bloat. Which makes sense as to why Intel would be frustrated. On a Mac we have amazingly fast stuff, combined with some stuff that's not as fast because it can't be. Think Safari = Fast, iMovie = requires faster processor but is something that makes you want to upgrade. Apple always does their best to make their wares zippy, but in some cases you have to wait for a render bar, or you can only have so many software instruments in garageband. These sorts of things challenge the CPU without bloat.

I think Apple's design philosophy in general is something that Intel probably likes. As well as the fact that they can make sure that their power is not dictated by Microsoft. I bet they figure if they have to put up with AMD then Microsoft should have an annoying monkey to their 900 pound guerrilla as well

[Hawkeye_a]

I have to say that i was expecting there to be some news concerning a partnership between Intel and Apple for a rather long time....since when ? Since Windows (intel's biggest partner) announced it would be using PowerPCs in the XBox360. the alliances have changed rather dramatically in the last 6-8 months in the tech industry, and having Intel (as opposed to IBM/Motorola) on your side is a HUGE plus.

This is a mistake that in my opinion will haunt Microsoft for a long time to come.

Cheers

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i'm optimistic.

maybe in the negotiations, Intel blew SJ out of the water with Intel's R&D concepts and we'll be seeing that in Pwermacs in the future. Or not. But I have no doubt they are working together to make the fastest machine possible to overcome the Rosetta lag.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

...

Gruber says:
For years Intel has been making cool prototype “PCs of the future”, but no one ever turns their ideas into actual products, instead making new revisions of the same PC designs, only faster. There is a herd mentality amongst PC makers, much like in any commodity business. There is nothing herd-like whatsoever to Apple’s mentality. With Apple, Intel has gained a partner that is unafraid to break new ground.

....

Gruber is quite simply wrong here. There are very good reasons why there are almost no revoltutionary computers: Margins, compatibility and customer pressure. If PC makers go out on a limb and make some wow design, and it has happened before, for example with the Porsche designed PC laptops of the late 90's (There's also one being sold by Best Buy VPR Matrix which is close to what an Intel Apple laptop would be) the chances are that it will simply not sell well due to a high price, and if it has some incompatible bus or part in it, that also hurts sales. But mostly it is simply that the margins are far too small for PC makers to invest heavily in design or research. Sony's Vaios are good looking machines, but they don't outsell Dell and that's where the bean counters and most consumers look: Price.

Oh, and IBL.

[d.fine]

If its true we could see some mighty impressive stuff in the not so distant future. I, for one, hope we do.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by theolein

But mostly it is simply that the margins are far too small for PC makers to invest heavily in design or research.

Yes, but Apple is no regular PC maker, and they do actually do R & D, unlike some PC makers, who just take some random parts and throw it all together in some ugly chassis, then install some loud fans, and you're good to go !

I want to see an expensive, Pro Mac/Intel Tower, that will blow everything else away. I want all of the bells and whistles. I expect and hope that the Apple machine uses superior/proprietary Intel processors, not found in other machines.

I will buy it.

The Macmini's and all are cool, for the low end, and the regular consumers, those who whine about money.

Apple needs to cater to the high end in the future also.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Yes, but Apple is no regular PC maker, and they do actually do R & D, unlike some PC makers, who just take some random parts and throw it all together in some ugly chassis, then install some loud fans, and you're good to go !

I want to see an expensive, Pro Mac/Intel Tower, that will blow everything else away. I want all of the bells and whistles. I expect and hope that the Apple machine uses superior/proprietary Intel processors, not found in other machines.

I will buy it.

The Macmini's and all are cool, for the low end, and the regular consumers, those who whine about money.

Apple needs to cater to the high end in the future also.

Well, I whine about money, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of other Mac people watch their money quite carefully as well. Being condescending to people who have little money is not a particularly nice attribute, don't you think. If Apple only sold computers to people who had money to throw around, Apple would have gone out of business a long time ago, I think.

In any case, the fact that Apple does extensive R & D is something that makes Apple stand out. Its designs are the best in the industry. Apart from the OS, Apple's designs will be what makes or breaks Apple in the Intel world. Apple will NOT be using Intel chips that no other manufacturer uses, or did you miss the point of Apple's switch to Intel completely? It was precicely because of Apple's use of proprietry processors that Apple got into the PPC troubles in the first place. Apple is not going again to use some chip that stagnates because no one else uses it.

The superiority complex of some Mac people is what almost killed the platform before and it is definitely that which makes them unpopular amongst the broader IT community. And that is regardless of whether Apple makes better products or not. Using a better product is NOT a reflection of a better person.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by theolein

Well, I whine about money, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of other Mac people watch their money quite carefully as well.

Don't get me wrong, I watch my money also, but I wouldn't mind paying for a super duper Mac.
And I'm talking about for business (high end audio, video, graphix), not consumer stuff.

[Superchicken]

Boys boys let's not get out the claws.

Seriously though I think we'd all like to see Apple make some ubber killer machines... if only to ogle them... I mean how many of us have for at least a few seconds thought if we could find an excuse to buy an Xserve?

[ZXspectrum]

sounds good...but why announce it a year before???

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by ZXspectrum

sounds good...but why announce it a year before???

to give the developers to make intel versions of their software..


I expect minis / powerbooks / ibooks to be intel but march of next year if not sooner.