Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Ganesha · Jun 3, 2005, 11:48 PM

I'm betting it's just one cnet reporter trying a 1 day manipulation of stock prices.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 3, 2005, 11:48 PM

I wonder what Apple will do between the announcement and by the time they switch ALL of the hardware to Intel. I mean who in there right mind would buy a new Mac with IBM chips after that.

NeXTLoop · Jun 3, 2005, 11:55 PM

I still don't think it has anything to do with the Macintosh division. My money is the talks being about some other endevour that Apple is working on, possibly some type of tablet Mac, or OS X based PDA. There have been a number of patents filed/granted in the last few months that some news outlets have reported on that could lead someone to believe this could possibly be what it is.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 3, 2005, 11:56 PM

Perhaps it is just WiMax or whatever it's called.

techweenie1 · Jun 3, 2005, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I wonder what Apple will do between the announcement and by the time they switch ALL of the hardware to Intel. I mean who in there right mind would buy a new Mac with IBM chips after that.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

iKevin · 11:58 PM

=====Re: use AMD======

Heck no, then we'd be right back in the mhz gap problem . . . look at the current AMD processors. They're having to "PR - performance rate" them just to look like they're keeping up.

Kerrigan · Jun 3, 2005, 11:58 PM

Probably. So many of the rumours of the past month have come from the Wireless crap.

CollinG3G4 · Jun 4, 2005, 12:00 AM

I bet Jobs' cracks a joke about this nonsense during his keynote.

meelk · Jun 4, 2005, 12:10 AM

I'm betting its more likely this is apples first step away from hardware other than the ipod and into a software role. It will take a few years, but they will be software only if this comes to pass on monday.

higuy83 · Jun 4, 2005, 12:15 AM

Could someone unemotionally explain why switching to Intel would really be that big of a deal for the typical Apple customer?

Regardless of whether or not this rumor is true, have we ever known Apple to make big mistakes, especially lately? I think the answer is no... on the contrary, everything that they've been doing in the past few years has been the right move for the company. So, who are we to say what's right or wrong at this point when no details have been released?

As a huge Mac fan for the past decade, I am behind Apple's decision either way... I don't believe that Jobs would lead his company down a path that wasn't in its best interest.

-higuy83

meelk · Jun 4, 2005, 12:36 AM

or his stock options best interest

Chuckit · Jun 4, 2005, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

A VirtualPC will still be needed to run Windows and Windows apps, it will just do so without emulation. It would be very unprofessional for Adobe to say "Mac users: please purchase VirtualPC and our Windows version of Photoshop".

WINE Is Not an Emulator.

Chuckit · Jun 4, 2005, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by higuy83

Could someone unemotionally explain why switching to Intel would really be that big of a deal for the typical Apple customer?

CharlesS has explained it pretty well. It would be a big deal because all Mac software made before the switch would be incompatible with the new hardware and vice-versa. Is that "unemotional" enough for you?

JoshuaZ · Jun 4, 2005, 12:53 AM

I can't believe people are still falling for this one. There is no way apple is moving to x86 processors. Might as well just give up on their OS completely then.

kts2oo1 · Jun 4, 2005, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

The article is worded like it is a fact, not a rumour. I wonder who their source is. CNet stands to lose much credibility if they are wrong. One interesting point is, CNet is owned by Intel, if I remember correctly.

Wow... the amount of inaccuracies floating around these forums is incredible. First of all, CNet is not owned by Intel and never has been. At one point in time Intel was an investor in CNet. That all changed five years or more ago.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount this as rumor, guys. As much as I love my Aluminum, the bylines on those articles are all senior reporters with excellent reputations. These aren't the guys who write the rumor-pages.

d0ubled0wn · Jun 4, 2005, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by kts2oo1

Wow... the amount of inaccuracies floating around these forums is incredible. First of all, CNet is not owned by Intel and never has been. At one point in time Intel was an investor in CNet. That all changed five years or more ago.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount this as rumor, guys. As much as I love my Aluminum, the bylines on those articles are all senior reporters with excellent reputations. These aren't the guys who write the rumor-pages.

And as was pointed out, CNet is a publicly traded company. Printing a sensational story that could be false, with ramifications that could significantly alter the stock price of AAPL and INTC would be dangerous indeed.

vinster · Jun 4, 2005, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by kts2oo1

Wow... the amount of inaccuracies floating around these forums is incredible. First of all, CNet is not owned by Intel and never has been. At one point in time Intel was an investor in CNet. That all changed five years or more ago.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount this as rumor, guys. As much as I love my Aluminum, the bylines on those articles are all senior reporters with excellent reputations. These aren't the guys who write the rumor-pages.

c|net's been known to do these kind of things in the past, especially leading up to an announcement. Personally, I'm not a big fan of this organization and don't think they're very reputable at all.

I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if this turns out to be true, but until then I'm siding with reputable developers like CharleS and others who have been on these forums for about the same amount of time since intel pulled out of c|net.

vinster · Jun 4, 2005, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

And as was pointed out, CNet is a publicly traded company. Printing a sensational story that could be false, with ramifications that could significantly alter the stock price of AAPL and INTC would be dangerous indeed.

Oh, come on. Do you seriously think that this will have significant ramifications for c|net when it turns out to be false? The only ramifications will be for the dodgy author if the page doesn't get enough hits this weekend.

Sometimes I wish the Appleinsider forums were still around so this kind of banter could be diverted there.

d0ubled0wn · Jun 4, 2005, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by vinster

Oh, come on. Do you seriously think that this will have significant ramifications for c|net when it turns out to be false? The only ramifications will be for the dodgy author if the page doesn't get enough hits this weekend.

Sometimes I wish the Appleinsider forums were still around so this kind of banter could be diverted there.

Well, we are in the lounge… anything goes.

vinster · Jun 4, 2005, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

Well, we are in the lounge… anything goes.

True.

Kerrigan · Jun 4, 2005, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by vinster

CharlesS · Jun 4, 2005, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by vinster

I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if this turns out to be true, but until then I'm siding with reputable developers like CharleS and others who have been on these forums for about the same amount of time since intel pulled out of c|net.

Heh, you make it sound as if I know something. I can assure you that I don't.

I'm just stating my own educated guess based on the facts as I see them. I could be wrong, and Apple could announce that they will use Intel... but I'd be pretty surprised.

Chuckit · Jun 4, 2005, 03:07 AM

My favorite part about C|NET's "We've confirmed that it's happening" article is that it leads with the fact that Apple will definitely make the announcement Monday, and then spends the rest of the story explaining why such a move is boneheaded and that most reputable observers don't think it will happen.

And as for me, I'd be way more than pretty surprised. Fracturing the platform like that would be the single craziest business move ever. Given one story, "Apple switches to Intel," and another, "WWDC keynote given stark naked," I'd choose the second as more likely true. But hey, maybe the keynote will be given naked...

iDriveX · Jun 4, 2005, 03:34 AM

A lot of people here are familiar with things I have brought to the table regarding Apple rumors in prior years....It's a done deal. Get ready for it.

echosphere · Jun 4, 2005, 04:03 AM

For better or for worse, I think what iDriveX is saying is true.

Superchicken · Jun 4, 2005, 04:16 AM

Cnet does this ALL THE TIME. They're not really anti Apple, they just play arm chair CEO worse than I do

... and in some cases I think with less knowledge.

With switching from PPC (IBM/Moto) to x86 (Intel/AMD/VIA/Transmeta) you would require the entire OS to be recompiled, as well as all apps to be recompiled. Now this isn't that big of a deal. That said it would be logistical HELL to get consumers to realize that they needed to have that old PPC version or the new x86 one. Apps made for new Macs would be incompatible with old ones. Likewise old ones with new ones. We're talking much bigger problems than OS 9 to OS X. That people could just buy OS X. With this they'd need to buy entirely new machines. Imagine pissing off EVERYONE who has purchased anything beyond a 1.25Ghz PowerMac. Since most of those people were not planning on having to update any time soon.
Granted there are work arounds... For example you could bundle both the x86 version of an app and the PPC in one .app folder/file. That said lots of developers would be too lazy to do this. Essentially Apple would create an ENORMOUS problem. The only way to get it to work even reasonably would be if the x86 could emulate a PPC. Which they can't.
I imagine even that you could some how work around... but the work arounds would end up costing so much in R&D and other things that the benefits are very soon out weighed. The fact that people on forums can figure it out suggests that Stevey, Avie, and company have already thought of this, and likely nixed it.

Detrius · Jun 4, 2005, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

CharlesS has explained it pretty well. It would be a big deal because all Mac software made before the switch would be incompatible with the new hardware and vice-versa. Is that "unemotional" enough for you?

Charles may be a bigger developer than me, but I still have a differing opinion. If all of OS X were compiled to run on x86, then applications wouldn't be as slow as you would think. All of the API calls would be executed natively. OpenGL would still be accelerated... et cetera, et cetera. The portions of the applications that would not be native would be the portions that do the thinking. It would probably be about like the switch from 68k to PPC, except better. In that switch, the OS wasn't entirely ported, since much of it had been hand tweaked in assembly. Now, the core OS is open source and already cross platform. The core OS will definitely be 100% native.

In addition, due to projects like Wine, we would be able to run Windows applications natively--though they would still suck, due to a lack of UI considerations. People wouldn't stop developing for the Macintosh just because it has an x86 processor. In fact, I think this would make developing easier--as optimizations in code tend to be based on the hardware platform. We would actually get more games, as they would be easier to port.

I think with the new x86-64 platform, the intel side is finally a viable option. Before this, the entire platform was register starved, and therefore arcane. AMD (and therefore Intel) took this jump as a time that it would be possible to fix this fundamental ongoing flaw in the x86 design. As a result, the new 64 bit applications are faster than the 32 bit applications on the x86 side. Since Intel is SHIPPING dual-core processors, it's possible that the Intel platform is finally enough faster that it's time to jump ship.

Besides, we were promissed 3GHz G5s at this time last year. All we got was a 2.5GHz. Since then, we have only seen an even smaller jump to 2.7GHz. Supposedly, IBM has a dual-core G5 up its sleeves, but both AMD and Intel are already shipping their dual-core processors. If they weren't capable of providing a dual-core G5 for Apple to announce next week, then I'm sure Steve was mighty upset with them, considering they promised two years ago that we would have had more speed a year ago than we do now. I think the Power Macs were upgraded recently enough that a dual-core upgrade next week is highly unlikely. To top it off, the Powerbook still has a G4 in it.

At this point, I would not be surprised to see an x86-64 Apple path, as clearly, IBM has other priorities--like MS and Sony. They both got better processors than we did.

Detrius · Jun 4, 2005, 04:37 AM

one more thing... do you guys even remember the BIG detail about OS X's capabilities that made it such a great move for Apple? Cocoa applications are bundled as a folder. As such, a single application is capable of running natively on multiple hardware platforms. Customers would not have to worry about whether to download the Mac-x86 or Mac-PPC version. They would still just download the Mac version. The 20MB version of Safari that comes with 10.4 only has 1MB of platform dependent files--the actual binary that launches. Everything else in that remaining 19MB is processor independent. This would not be a logistical nightmare for customers, as a small 1MB upgrade would make their 20MB application Mac-x86-compatible.

Of course, it's not the same for Carbon applications... maybe a Carbon developer can shed more insight into whether or not this would be a big deal on that side.

sideus · Jun 4, 2005, 04:47 AM

Steve is probably getting pissed because he wants to replace his rendering farms at Pixar with Macs and can't due to IBM being the new Motorola.

Gee4orce · Jun 4, 2005, 04:47 AM

Why ? When the whole world and it's dog seems to be moving over to Power architecure, or it's Cell stablemate ? As far as I can see, the benefits (are there any ?) of moving to Intel are far outweighed by the drawbacks - like risking sinking the entire company as developers abandon the Mac entirely.

Those of us who remember the 60x00 switch to PowerPC know that swapping chips architecture is not something you do lightly. It took years - years for applications to be made available natively. There would be no short term performance gain in moving to Intel, and I can't see a long-tem one either.

The only reasonable interpretation I can see is that the artivle doesn't say 'Apple moving to Pentiums', it says 'Apple moving to Intel'. So to me that says the most likely interpretation is that Apple are asking Intel to fabricate the PowerPC G4 and G5s for Macs. So, from one point of view yes Apple will be using Intel chips - just not Intel chips as we know them.

sideus · Jun 4, 2005, 04:49 AM

Very true. Just because Intel may be in the new Power Macs, they may not be Pentiums.

- - e r i k - - · Jun 4, 2005, 05:44 AM

I don't understand what riles people up about this. This certainly didn't happen the last time Apple switched processors, or even when Apple's other "sworn enemy" (IBM) started making chips for Apple. A Mac is the Mac OS, not the CPU on which it runs.

The end of Mac as a separate platform... pfff! Give me a break!

Krypton · Jun 4, 2005, 05:55 AM

If Intel were to start producing PowerPC chips, there would be some incentive for IBM to work harder for Apple.

GSixZero · Jun 4, 2005, 06:12 AM

Steve leaked this story, and now he's all laughing at us.

Honestly, with all the 'problems' Apple has had with rumor sites in the last year, isn't it clear Apple would intentionally try to discredit them? Seems like anonymously leaking a huge story from confirmed sources would be a great way to torpedo the entire rumor culture.

sideus · Jun 4, 2005, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Steve leaked this story, and now he's all laughing at us.

Honestly, with all the 'problems' Apple has had with rumor sites in the last year, isn't it clear Apple would intentionally try to discredit them? Seems like anonymously leaking a huge story from confirmed sources would be a great way to torpedo the entire rumor culture.

version · Jun 4, 2005, 06:19 AM

This has to be one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. I don't mean Apple switching to Intel, but Maclots about to do a massive switch in position after years of childish Wintel jokes.

Can't wait to get a new Powerbook with an "Intel Inside" sticker on it.

chalk_outline · Jun 4, 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Steve leaked this story, and now he's all laughing at us.

Honestly, with all the 'problems' Apple has had with rumor sites in the last year, isn't it clear Apple would intentionally try to discredit them? Seems like anonymously leaking a huge story from confirmed sources would be a great way to torpedo the entire rumor culture.

The SEC might not be to happy about that.

Goldfinger · Jun 4, 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by sideus

Very true. Just because Intel may be in the new Power Macs, they may not be Pentiums.

I do indeed believe that if Apple indeed switches to x86 it would be the death of Apple. The real thing. But I would really like to see Intel making PPC chips, that would be cool. I don't really care who makes them as long as it's the company that can make the fastest chips. Now I do have a question about this: could Intel even produce PPC chips ? Can Apple give the "plans" for PPC chips to Intel, doesn't IBM own those ?

Millennium · Jun 4, 2005, 07:34 AM

This rumor circulates every year or so. Apple has used better chips than the Intels of their day at every point in their history. IBM chose x86 for its PC line because it sucked.

OwlBoy · Jun 4, 2005, 08:01 AM

PPC is too popular now with all the consoles using it.

Apple has to get out before it becomes too common. Err wait... why go x86 then?

-Owl

dreilly1 · Jun 4, 2005, 09:34 AM

I think the most likely explanation is that Apple is going to license the PPC architecture to Intel as a second source for PPC chips. After all, Apple jointly owns a big chunk of the IP along with IBM and whatever Motorola' chip division is calling itself these days. Now that most of Apple's processors are coming from IBM, it only makes sense to introduce a separate supplier in order to keep IBM honest. (Although, personally, I thought Apple was going to strike a deal with AMD, since AMD has a good working relationship with IBM already and the licensing issues would probably be easier. I thought the big agreement between Apple and Intel would be over support chips like WiFi and Flash, and I still think that's how it might play out.)

However, there is an elephant in the corner of the room which we can't ignore: Steve's ego. OS X is gettting such good press lately for being easy to use and spyware-free that the thought of releasing OS X on the Intel platform and beating Microsoft at its own game on the platform it helped to create might be too much for him to pass up. But I think that would be a big mistake -- PPC has enough advantages over x86 right now that It makes sense for Apple to keep it. They helped develop it, after all. What chips has Microsoft helped to develop?

osxisfun · Jun 4, 2005, 10:50 AM

>I think the most likely explanation is that Apple is going to license the PPC architecture to Intel as a second source for PPC chips. After all, Apple jointly owns a big chunk of the IP along with IBM and whatever Motorola' chip division is calling itself these days.

If there is a switch i believe this is close to the form it will happen.

turtle777 · Jun 4, 2005, 11:06 AM

Well, that's it, Apple. I'm switching to , uhm, switching ....

The heck, I'M SWITCHING !

-t

turtle777 · Jun 4, 2005, 11:09 AM

Oh, I GOT IT, I know what this is all about.

Step 1: Spread the rumor, make all fanboys mad at Apple, make everyone else confused.
Step 2: Announce NO CHANGES
Step 3: Admit that it will take another 5 years to get decent speed increases on G5's and another 10 years for G5 processors to show up in laptops.
Step 4: Reap the benefit of everyone being more reliefed over Step 1 NOT happening than being mad over Step 3

Et voila, a great PR stunt !

-t

osxisfun · Jun 4, 2005, 11:19 AM

Intel buys freescale - works with apple to get powerpc IP.
Intel announces "worksation" chip coming in 2007 -- hybrid intel / powerpc tech
Apple uses regular intel chips in mini 2006
Apple uses centrinos in laptops 2006
Apple uses "workstation" chips in powermac 2007 - gets jump on other vendors

- late 2007 other vendors can use "workstation" chip - have option to bundle OSX

?

osxisfun · Jun 4, 2005, 11:31 AM

Tin Foil:

Apple takes stake in Intel
Intel & Apple announce closer os/hw realtionship
Microsoft furious; but over barrel
Intel & Apple take 20% of market by 2010

Cody Dawg · Jun 4, 2005, 11:39 AM

It would really be terrible for a lot of reasons.

I think I'd have to load up on the latest pre-Intel Mac models, as many as I could afford, because I might not buy any "Intel" Mac products again.

ARE YOU LISTENING, APPLE?

nath · Jun 4, 2005, 11:41 AM

My 2 pence:

New product. Newton reborn, 6-10 inch screen, viewable in portrait or landscape modes, wifi. Running on Intel (some variant of the ARM?).

NO INTEL INSIDE BADGE.

edit: I don't care what chip they use as long as my experience as an investor in lots of Apple PPC kit isn't infringed upon.

Zimphire · Jun 4, 2005, 11:43 AM

Steve is too paranoid and too much of control freak to let just anyone install OS X on just any box.

Come on guys... we are talking about Steve here.

A few times he has been around that track
So it's not just gonna happen like that

DAT WOULD BE B A N A N A S

nath · Jun 4, 2005, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Steve is too paranoid and too much of control freak to let just anyone install OS X on just any box.

That's not a necessary outcome to Apple using Intel chips. Remember hearing about all that DRM jazz Intel are looking to embed chip-side from here on in? That doesn't have to just be restricted to preventing people stealing WMA content.