Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Rumor Regurge: Apple Exploring Use of Intel Chips

This is topic Rumor Regurge: Apple Exploring Use of Intel Chips in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004073

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2005, 10:11 AM:

Reuters floated this news article today:

quote:
NEW YORK (Reuters)—Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."

It was unclear whether such a move would signal a large-scale shift away from chips made by IBM, Apple's longtime supplier, the report said.

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said.

Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc. Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said.

Apple sells only about three million computers a year—a small portion of the estimated 200 million sold globally.

But for Intel, winning over Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters and could associate the chipmaker with Apple's hugely popular iPod music player.

Apple's shares have nearly quadrupled since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.

Over the years I've seen previous "Apple is going Intel" rumors spreading --all of which proved to be untrue. Such rumors had been started in the past when Apple allowed clone-Macs to be made (for a brief couple years). Jean Louis Gasee put together the BeOS, which included both native Intel and Motorola versions (and may have been the successor to the classic Mac OS if Steve Jobs didn't return).

This time, I'm not sure I see what makes this latest rumor have any news-worthy credibility at all. A couple "insiders" say Apple and Intel are talking. Woo hoo...as if they haven't talked in the past. The talks could be over something completely different from the Macintosh line of computers. Just look at what Microsoft is doing with X-Box360: placing three custom 3.2GHz IBM PowerPC processors in a box previously home to a single Intel chip. For retail entertainment and gaming "appliances" one can change the architecture much more easily than changing the main CPU of a computing platform. But then maybe this switch from Microsoft for its X-Box360 may be one reason Intel is talking to Apple. Intel is effectively getting shut out of the console gaming business (both PS3 and XBox360 will have PowerPC CPUs at their cores). Maybe this is one way for Intel to hammer back at Microsoft.

Don't get me wrong, I can see plenty of giant financial advantages for Apple to consider making an Intel-based line of Macs. Apple probably sees how Dell is gobbling up more and more of the Windows PC market (meaning anything Intel/AMD based) all for itself. Dell is doing this with good reason. IMHO, its the only mainstream PC brand worth a damn. If you can't buy a Dell then you're better off building your own -or if you have a ton of money to spend you can call Alienware, VooDooPC or Falcon Northwest.

Apple could certainly wade into the PC market and knock Dell for a loop. Apple's marketability and brand identity is just as strong (if not even stronger) than Dell's. An Intel-based Mac could, in theory, dual boot the MacOS and Windows --making the "switch" campaign touted by Apple a far more realistic option.

Apple clearly has the best multimedia and video authoring environment for consumers, hobbyists and semi-professionals. Even a lot of professional video people use Final Cut Pro and its related applications for such work. I think consumer video editing is going to explode in popularity, especially when HD-capable camcorders get affordable. Apple could dominate the entire PC side of things immediately if one could install the MacOS on an Intel-based machine -or at least buy a Mac to run it that didn't cost $1000 to $2000 more than a similarly equipped WindowsPC. I think other companies see this possibility. Note how Avid bought the Pinnacle company and also Sonic for good measure. There is a lot of consolodation happening, but still there is nothing on the Windows side of the market that makes video and DVD authoring as simple and powerful as what Apple offers.

Speculation aside, as far as Apple and Intel-based Macs go, I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-23-2005, 12:35 PM:

The article just mentions "Intel chips", which is probably meant to imply CPUs. That would obviously be a major change for Apple. But Intel makes plenty of other chips that Apple might be interested in for cost reasons, like PCI bus controllers and practically everything else. If Apple has previously shunned all Intel products (I don't know whether they do or not) maybe this is just opening the door to get Apple to start using *something* from Intel.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-23-2005, 02:13 PM:

If this would mean a price drop and still having Apple maintain their quality computers for editing purposes and such, I'm all for it. I had to save up big time to purchase my G4 a few years ago. I'm contemplating upgrading to the G5 but the G4 is doing well enough for me now that I could probably wait till the next line of Macs come out.

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 05-23-2005, 04:23 PM:

Apple has been developing newer and better chips in conjunction with IBM for years, and in the past few months there's been just as many rumors and leaks about new chips from them that could take them well into the next year or two that I'd have to guess this is just another unfounded rumor. Apple's stuck with the same chipmaker for a LOOOONG time, and that's not going to change...and even if they did, their computer prices wouldn't drop, the chip isn't where the bulk of their computer prices come from - it comes from them making superior equipment out of better hardware.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-23-2005, 05:42 PM:

Don't forget that the Nintendo Rervolution is also going with PowerPC, and the Gamecube uses PowerPC as well. So that means for the next generation, ALL game systems will use PowerPC chips.

Let's face it, Intel makes crappy chips. If you have an Intel in your computer, you are less than a human being. PowerPC roolz Intel droolz.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2005, 07:23 PM:

Actually, Apple had been doing nearly all of its CPU business with Motorola. In recent years, they've shifted much of their purchases to what it used to consider its arch enemy, IBM. I can still recall some of the hateful talk from those days in the early to mid 1980s. This was also when Microsoft was one of the companies that helped get the Mac platform off the ground in terms of software titles (the first version of MS Word and MS Office was Mac-based). I definitely had a "whaa?" reaction when IBM announced its copper-based PowerPC CPUs.

Motorola could not deliver some of the newest G-series CPUs in volume. So they had to go with IBM. Lately IBM has had problems delivering new PowerPC CPUs for the G5 Macs. The 3GHz single core PowerPC has been scrapped. The Powerbook line cannot go G5 due to heat and power use problems (the current max is a 1.67GHz G4). Now Intel and AMD are locking horns with new dual core designs (and AMDs new one really kicks some ass). Intel is doing very well in the notebook market with its Centrino platform. AMD is coming out with a low voltage "Turion" line to compete.

quote: Joe Redifer
Let's face it, Intel makes crappy chips. If you have an Intel in your computer, you are less than a human being. PowerPC roolz Intel droolz.

I think the CPU in my new notebook is pretty damned nice (a 1.86GHz Pentium M with 2MB of L2 cache). I've got all the performance I need and battery life of nearly 6 hours.

Quite honestly, I couldn't give a shit how much better a PowerPC chip is than an Intel chip or an AMD chip. Most new CPUs have more than enough horsepower for most any task. In areas like gaming, graphics and multimedia authoring the bigger performance factors will be determined by your amount of RAM, type of hard discs and graphics accelerators.

The only thing that makes a computing platform great or not is the software available to it. The hardware really doesn't mean all that much. The software is what makes the hardware take off. Apple clearly has the edge on the video thing by virtue of their software, and not at all in how much faster the floating point performance is of a PowerPC chip.

Take a look at Linux. Years ago, many computer experts were predicting everyone would be using Linux -especially since it could run on Intel and AMD processors. Well, none of the big software companies, such as Adobe, etc. ever bothered making commercial applications for it. As a result, Linux is pretty much stuck in the affordable server computing market and as a platform of choice for hardcore computer programming types. But it sure has never gone mainstream. Even with as little as 3 million Macs sold per year, the Mac platform is quite a bit more "mainstream" than Linux. At least they have product that is ready to run.

Posted by Alan Dallas (Member # 2537) on 05-24-2005, 12:32 AM:

Didn't really take time to read all replies here, just scanned over them.

Anyway, the PowerPC CPU designed and Mfg by IBM uses Licensed Technology from AMD. That is the internal Bus system of the PowerPC CPU uses HyperTransport Bus Tech. from AMD. [Big Grin]

One could argue the PowerPC is a AMD CPU with a different Core Instruction set(as opposed to x86-64 Instuction sets of the Operteron/A64 lines).

Please dont confuse HyperTransport with HyperThreading... An Intel Technology.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-24-2005, 03:54 AM:

Isn't PowerPC RISC wheras all of that Pentium nonsense is CISC?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-24-2005, 07:00 AM:

I'm actually seeing Linux making more inroads...particularly in application specific equipment. I believe the DTS XD10 is Linux based, the new Dolby Cinema Store DCinema server is Linux based.

I can definately see the advantage when one is doing something that is appication specific to using Linux since you only need to use the part of the operating system that you need and leave out the fluff and virus prone crap.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-24-2005, 07:18 AM:

PowerPC is indeed RISC (as is SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, etc.); Intel x86 is CISC. Not that the distinction matters much to end users. Some processors are better at certain types of calculations (usually floating-point vs. integer) than others, but outside of computation-intensive environments, it's largely a nonissue.

Macs aren't the only systems that use PowerPC processors--they are also used in IBM's RS/6000 products and also in many embedded systems (we have a terminal server at work which is PowerPC based and which runs Linux).

I have a hard time beliving that Apple would gain anything by switching to x86 processors. That would just invite direct comparisons to (generally) inferior PC hardware and make its stuff look overpriced. Apple would also seriously alienate its existing customers by creating complete incompatability with their existing product line.

I just can't see Apple switching to a different processor. There is just no reason to do so. The current Apple product line is very good and very reasonably priced.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-24-2005, 10:01 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I'm actually seeing Linux making more inroads...particularly in application specific equipment. I believe the DTS XD10 is Linux based, the new Dolby Cinema Store DCinema server is Linux based.

I can definately see the advantage when one is doing something that is appication specific to using Linux since you only need to use the part of the operating system that you need and leave out the fluff and virus prone crap.

The Kodak Digital Cinema Operating System is LINUX based:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/operatingSystem.jhtml

quote:
The KODAK Digital Cinema Operating System is the 'entry point' for you to step confidently into the digital cinema world.

This is a KODAK-designed in-theatre network of pre-show projectors and LINUX System-based servers. It is driven by unique KODAK Software and supported by Kodak's worldwide service team—with content managed and delivered by Kodak.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-24-2005, 02:12 PM:

I agree Linux has lots of uses in professional/commercial areas, particularly where a business is developing its own custom software. The latest "Star Wars" episode was put together mainly on a fleet of Dell PCs running Linux. But again, they were running custom made software. Linux is great for people who know how to compile their own code.

However, Linux is not a realistic option for people who simply want to run already established applications like MS Office, Adobe's graphics apps or even a lot of home entertainment titles and games. I'm not going to ever use Linux unless Adobe and other major graphics app developers port over versions of their apps to it. I really don't have any loyalty to any platform, CPU or any nonsense like that. I only care about being able to get my work done using the best applications available to me.

Back to the hardware thing, sure Intel's desktop CPUs may be "inferior" to a 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 or the latest SunSPARC chip and yadda yadda yadda. And everyone would love to tool around in a $250,000 Lamborghini as well. I'd like to have a new dual processor Mac. But I don't like the idea of having to spend a few thousand dollars on top of the expensive hardware price just to switch platforms. This is the main deal breaker for Apple's pleas for Windows users to switch.

Apple is going to get absolutely nowhere with all its "your PC sucks" negative advertising. The point they miss with such an angle of advertising is 95% of computer users really don't care. They're getting their work done using those inferior chips and inferior operating systems. They're not going to pay a giant price premium just to do the same shit on a machine that looks different.

This is why Apple has to sell people on its software rather than hardware. This is where Apple can actually make real claims of helping people get work done faster and more efficiently, particularly when it comes to editing home movies or producing a DVD with professional quality results. Apple has some killer applications not available on the PC platform. This was originally how they grabbed much of the graphics industry for itself. When companies like Quark, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. made Windows versions of all their apps, there was no longer any reason to spend the huge premium for a Mac system.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2005, 06:04 PM:

Going to bump up this thread.

CNet posted a report on June 3, claiming Steve Jobs will "drop a bombshell" during his speech Monday, June 6, at the WorldWide Developers Conference. The bombshell is that Apple will switch from IBM PowerPC chips over to Intel processors, starting in 2006 with the MacMini and iMac and then finishing the transition in 2007 with the PowerMac line. Not sure where the Powerbook line would fit in with this schedule.

I'm still a bit skeptical about this rumor. You know the saying, "I'll believe it when I see it." But if there was any good time for the switch to happen -now is as good a time as any.

The PowerPC 970 processor is definitely better than any Pentium 4. The chip architecture is so good that all three next gen gaming consoles are using CPUs based on the architecture. However, I don't see this as a good thing for Apple.

IBM is already making more money selling PowerPC chips in gaming consoles than in Macs. Sony PS2 sales have topped 90 million units -90 million consoles using the same identical CPU. Hundreds of millions of next gen consoles will be sold and IBM is only having to help develop 3 CPUs for them. The Apple platform needs at least several different speeds of G5 and G4 processors -all for a product line that sells 3 to 4 million units per year.

IBM has stated it doesn't see much of a business model in making several different PowerPC CPU models for what it considers a niche market. If I was an Apple executive I would be very concerned about being treated like a second class citizen by IBM. I would have concerns about more chip shortages and chip model cancellations in the future.

With Intel, Apple wouldn't be getting the fastest chips known to man. But Apple would have a partnership with a company whose business model is more tailored to making a wide range of CPUs for personal computers, notebooks and servers. Such a partnership may also allow Apple to get much more competitive in pricing.

This Apple CPU transition would come at a time when the entire PC platform is beginning a major transition itself. Windows applications, device drivers and more will have to be recompiled for 64-bit code to take advantage of new 64-bit CPUs and the 64-bit version of WindowsXP. This unstable time would give Apple more of a marketing opportunity to get PC users to switch platforms.

Rumors have persisted that Apple already has a working Intel-compiled version of MacOSX. The FreeBSD OS, of which OSX is a variant, already has an Intel version.

Apple has another trump card in the issue of computer security. New Windows-based viruses are even holding data hostage, presumably in return for payment. Identity theft is another growing problem. Everyone wants a secure computing environment. But few customers want to learn lots of IT stuff to be able to do it. Apple could make the process much more simple.

The biggest challenge to Apple, if this Intel rumor is true, will be getting its software developers to do what they did in the early to late 1990s -compile two different versions of their applications for OSX. Remember those days where apps had to have both "040" and PowerPC versions? I think Apple will have an easier time with such a deal if their Intel-based Macs can dual boot OSX and Windows. It would make it far easier for a PC user to "switch" and still be able to use his legacy software.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2005, 06:07 PM:

The Sony PS2 does not have a PowerPC processor. Only the Gamecube does.

The Intel chips for Apple will supposedly NOT be based on the crappy x86 line like PCs are now. All current apps and OS's are supposed to continue to run fine.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-04-2005, 08:03 PM:

Interesting comparison of G5 vs. x86, OS X vs. Linux here. There are chinks in Apple's armor.

From the final summarization page:

quote:
Workstation, yes; Server, no.
The G5 is a gigantic improvement over the previous CPU in the PowerMac, the G4e. The G5 is one of the most superscalar CPUs ever, and has all the characteristics that could give Apple the edge, especially now that the clock speed race between AMD and Intel is over. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.

First of all, the G5 needs a lower latency access to the memory because right now, the integer performance of the G5 leaves a lot to be desired. The Opteron and Xeon have a better integer engine, and especially the Pentium 4/Xeon has a better Branch predictor too. The Opteron's memory subsystem runs circles around the G5's.

Secondly, it is clear that the G5 FP performance, despite its access to 32 architectural registers, needs good optimisation. Only one of our [8] flops tests was " Altivectorized", which means that the GCC compiler needs to improve quite a bit before it can turn those many open source programs into super fast applications on the Mac. In contrast, the Intel compiler can vectorize all 8 tests.

Altivec or the velocity engine can make the G5 shine in workstation applications. A good example is Lightwave where the G5 takes on the best x86 competition in some situations, and remains behind in others.

The future looks promising in the workstation market for Apple, as the G5 has a lot of unused potential and the increasing market share of the Power Mac should tempt developers to put a little more effort in Mac optimisation.

The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.

Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine. I am no operating system expert, but with the data that we have today, I think that a PowerPC optimised Linux such as Yellow Dog is a better idea for the Xserve than Mac OS X server.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2005, 09:37 PM:

Who buys a Mac to be a server (besides my boss)? You use a Mac for Final Cut Pro and the like as well as downloading porn. It is a fact that the Mac downloads better porn than Windows machines.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2005, 09:51 PM:

I thought the PS2 had a PowerPC chip variant. My mistake. Still, the matter of all three next gen consoles being PowerPC based would stand to make Apple's CPU business a much smaller priority for IBM.

quote: Joe Redifer
The Intel chips for Apple will supposedly NOT be based on the crappy x86 line like PCs are now. All current apps and OS's are supposed to continue to run fine.

I haven't seen that in any of these rumor reports. Such a move would not make any sense for Apple and Intel either. Apple would be trading one proprietary platform for yet another closed platform -and have to develop software for both for a number of years. Such a thing is more do-able if Apple uses those crappy x86 chips. I don't see Intel coming up with an entirely different chip for this either. The Itanium CPU is different, but also very expensive.

More likely, I think Apple is going to use a combination of Pentium M, Pentium D and Xeon CPUs for any Intel-based Macs. There's a wide range of chips to use, from Pentium M processors for notebooks and Intel-based Mac Mini to multi-core Xeon processors for high end workstations and servers. The XeonMP will have as many as eight cores.

quote: Joe Redifer
Who buys a Mac to be a server (besides my boss)? You use a Mac for Final Cut Pro and the like as well as downloading porn. It is a fact that the Mac downloads better porn than Windows machines.

The Mac downloads "better porn" or "downloads porn better"? Will Jenna Jameson gain a cup size when viewed on a Mac? That would be a good selling point. I would certainly say the Mac is far safer to use for downloading porn. You don't have to worry so much about phone dialer bots, viruses and other crap being installed on your machine.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2005, 10:26 PM:

The Mac does not allow the downloading of nasty tramps like Jenna Jameson (seriously, she's fugly). Instead, it downloads much better women.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-04-2005, 11:07 PM:

Looks good to me! [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2005, 11:42 PM:

She smokes. Smokers are ugly. She also has fake tits. Fake tits are bad.

Also that picture makes it look as if she has a receding hairline.

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 06-05-2005, 04:11 PM:

I agree with Joe.
She looks nasty.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-05-2005, 05:04 PM:

Yep, Its goin to happen Monday. Does this mean that Apples will now turn to oranges?

Mark

_______________________________

Intel link

Apple Switching to Intel Chips By GREG SANDOVAL, AP Technology Writer
39 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A stormy, decade-long relationship between Apple Computer Inc. and IBM is over, according to published reports. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce Monday morning at the company's software developers conference in San Francisco that Apple will discontinue using microprocessor chips made by IBM in favor of Intel chips, according to CNET Networks Inc.'s News.com and The Wall Street Journal.

Officials from Apple, Intel Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. could not be reached Sunday to confirm the report.

For years, rumors of Apple's wish to jump to Intel have been circulating. But two weeks ago, analysts were skeptical when The Wall Street Journal reported that Intel and Apple were in negotiations.

One reason for the skepticism is that the move represents a significant risk for Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple.

Switching to Intel's x86 chips would force Apple's programmers to rewrite its software in order to adapt to the new processor.

"I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift," Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood told News.com. "Every time they do this, they lose more customers."

News.com reported that Apple would begin the transition to Intel with its lower-end computers, such as the Mac Mini, in mid-2006 and higher-end models a year later.

Apple's break with IBM stemmed from Jobs' wish that IBM make a larger variety of the PowerPC processors used in Macintosh systems. IBM balked because of concerns over the profitability of a low-volume business, News.com reported.

By wrestling away Apple's business from IBM, Intel tightens its stranglehold on the PC processor business. The company holds more than an 80 percent share of the market.

Although IBM suffers a setback with the loss of Apple, the company is expected to reap a financial windfall after signing up Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony Corp (SNE.N). to use PowerPC technology in future video-game machines.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-05-2005, 06:10 PM:

So wouldn't this mean that people don't have to buy Macs anymore? Couldn't they just install OS X on ANY PC?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-05-2005, 06:24 PM:

I think Apple could deploy some proprietary circuitry on customized motherboards that would be required to load an Intel version of MacOSX. It could be a different BIOS chip or something else like that. If Apple is the only source for that circuitry then they could still keep others from making Mac clones.

But then that's only to assume Apple doesn't want anyone making cloned hardware. Some computer industry experts have speculated that Apple would actually prefer to get out of the punishing hardware business and do more to sell software (like Microsoft). There's more profit in that area.

If the average computer user can boot up either Windows or MacOSX on his system, he's probably going to start migrating everything over to the Mac side for lots of different reasons.

Whatever happens, if new Intel-based Macs are to be sold they should be able to dual boot Windows. That's going to be the critical thing to get lots of people to switch. They need to be able to still use their legacy software and then be able to migrate their licenses over to the new OS.

All this stuff is still rumor (the reports from Reuters and the SBC/Yahoo link and other posts Saturday still point back to that report CNet filed Friday night). It will very interesting to hear what Steve Jobs says in his speech on Monday.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-05-2005, 08:12 PM:

I will be busy shooting some cool video Monday so please be sure to paraphrase what he says on here for me!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2005, 01:16 PM:

According to a business article just posted on the CNN website, the word is now official, Apple will transition its entire Mac line to run on Intel processors by 2007. It's kind of odd that the article concentrated more on decreasing sales of the iPod. This news regarding Intel is a bigger deal.

First there was the "Wintel PC." Now a "Mactel PC"?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-06-2005, 01:30 PM:

Hasn't most of Apple's sales and earnings growth over the last couple years been attributable to the iPod success? I saw a story that says iPod sales have flattened out and the channels are overstocked with inventory. So anything negative that happens with iPod is a big deal to Apple in the short term, if that's where most of their earnings come from right now.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2005, 02:20 PM:

Rumors are circulating that Apple has a number of new iPod products nearing release. Among those rumored items is a 2GB iPod Shuffle and an iPod Mini with a color screen. At any rate, the portable music player business is extremely competitive.

The deal breaker for me getting an iPod is not being able to replace the battery. Many portable music players lack this ability. When the battery loses its ability to hold a charge, you're screwed. You just have to buy a new player. That sucks ass. A few MP3 player models out there, such as the Creative Muvo player have replaceable rechargeable batteries. iRiver has a model that uses a AA battery.

Aside from the success of iPod, Apple still gets more than half its revenue stream from Mac system sales.

Here's a press release I found on Intel's website about the deal.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm

quote:
Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006

WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005—At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs' keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple's software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.

“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. “It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”

“We are thrilled to have the world's most innovative personal computer company as a customer,” said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. “Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come.”

“We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. “We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform.”

“We think this is a really smart move on Apple's part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com . Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating system, and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital music revolution with its iPod portable music players and iTunes online music store.

Intel, the world's largest chip maker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products. Additional information about Intel is available at www.intel.com/pressroom.

© 2005 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, Mac, Mac OS and Macintosh are trademarks of Apple.

Intel is a registered trademark of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries.

* Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.

This press release doesn't make any mention if a new "Mactel" box will be able to dual boot both MacOSX and Windows. It would be a really big selling point for the new systems if they could.

The press release also confirms the theory some have had that Apple already had a working Intel version of OSX.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-07-2005, 12:33 AM:

Also noteworthy is the new version of XCode which allows developers to not only port existing code to OS X for Intel, but create fully compiled "Universal Binary" applications that run seamlessly on both OS X for Intel and OS X for PPC. Reportedly, many existing cocoa apps will only have to change a few lines of code to be compiled. In addition, Mac OS X for windows will run a binary translator called "Rosetta" that will allow current mac programs to run seamlessly with OS X for Intel, albeit a tad slower. Expect to see most software released from this point forward to be encoded in Universal Binary, thus ensuring that when the new Intel based macs hit the stores, there will already be a good number of apps that run on it natively. For the long time mac user, the transition should be mostly transparent.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-07-2005, 09:28 AM:

quote: Mike Olpin
In addition, Mac OS X for windows will run...

That does not make any sense. You mean OSX for Intel?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2005, 01:02 PM:

There will be no "OSX for Windows." Furthermore, Intel based Macs will not be sold with any version of Windows installed. It is also pretty likely Apple will not "unbundle" OSX separately from Apple branded hardware. You will likely need a Mac to run it.

However, Steve Jobs said it will be possible for users to install a copy of Windows on these new Macs (presumably WinXP or "Longhorn"). So they will be able to dual boot both OSX and Windows.

Intel is working on virtualization technology that may allow OSX to run Windows programs directly. The Rosetta technology is similar to the method used by DEC Alpha processors years ago to rewrite x86 WinNT code to Alpha native code. Rosetta just recompiles PPC code into x86 Intel code on the fly.

Some articles have talked about developers using processor independent "fat binaries" for OSX Intel and OSX PPC software ports. I think a major component of that is the "cocoa" programming library. Unfortunately a lot of OSX development is done using the "carbon" library, which is specific to the PowerPC processor.

Adobe made a public statement yesterday that it will develop both Intel-native OSX and PowerPC-native OSX versions of their future products (which would stand to include all those Macromedia applications they're aquiring).

The other added wrinkle to this is the additional transition from 32-bit code to 64-bit code. Developers compiling applications for the Intel version of OSX will also have to make their software ports compatible with 64-bit operation.

Overall, this is very do-able. Apple already has experience in dealing with this kind of transition (the switch from 16-bit Motorola 68000 processors to 32-bit PowerPC in the early 1990s). I think this transition may actually happen more easily. Apple is making a lot of money selling iPods and high end multimedia software. And Apple has potential to expand its market greatly with this transition.

Microsoft will be put behind the proverbial eight-ball, especially if Apple eventually unbundles OSX and allows it to be installed on lots of x86 hardware. This really could happen if they garner lots of independent developer support. I think Linux could get hammered hard on this deal as well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-07-2005, 05:04 PM:

I don't think OSX should be able to run Windows programs directly... or VIRUS! Actully I think Windows itself is a virus.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-07-2005, 05:55 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
Hasn't most of Apple's sales and earnings growth over the last couple years been attributable to the iPod success? I saw a story that says iPod sales have flattened out and the channels are overstocked with inventory. So anything negative that happens with iPod is a big deal to Apple in the short term, if that's where most of their earnings come from right now.

They've really ripped people off with the iPods. It should (and will) sell for a lot less because they'll make plenty of money on the music. Just watch -- in two years, you'll be able to buy an iPod for 40 bucks. The real money is in iTunes.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-07-2005, 06:16 PM:

Compared to other large capacity MP3 players, Ipod's aren't that more expensive.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 06-07-2005, 07:16 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
They've really ripped people off with the iPods. It should (and will) sell for a lot less because they'll make plenty of money on the music. Just watch -- in two years, you'll be able to buy an iPod for 40 bucks. The real money is in iTunes.

Do you have some facts to back that up? I doubt it because Apple doesn't break out profits by division, only revenue. Apple hasn't yet made any substantial profit on iTunes because most of the revenue goes back to the record companies. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's gross take is around 25-30 cents per song and don't forget the infrastructure and marketing costs associated with iTunes.

iPod prices will drop over the years, but only because the cost of mini-drives and flash memory is dropping.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-07-2005, 07:45 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
That does not make any sense. You mean OSX for Intel?

Of course thats what I meant.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2005, 10:54 PM:

There are two things I don't like about iPods:
1. Apparently the only way to replace the battery is buying a new iPod. That sucks ass.
2. You have to use their iTunes software and are limited in the types of files that can play (not to mention restricted in how you back up the tunes you buy).

But that's just me. Lots of people don't seem bothered by those limitations. I would prefer to be able to replace the battery and be able to play any regular MP3 or CD quality WAV files I have.

quote:
I don't think OSX should be able to run Windows programs directly... or VIRUS!

Well, providing this kind of emulation system can even be made practical at all, I'm sure OSX will keep any Windows app locked away in its own "virtual machine." Still, viruses are a huge concern. And if OSX gains a bunch of popularity through this Apple-Intel deal, it will become a larger target for malware.

But this brings up another possible strength of having a "Mactel PC" with OSX and Windows dual bootable: if the Windows installation gets hosed with some kind of malware you may be able to remove the problem easily in OSX. This would be especially true if the hard disc partitions are readable for either OS. It might be better than trying to klutz around in Windows Safe Mode.

Still, anything bad can happen. Gotta back up those files, and use something like Norton Ghost.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-07-2005, 11:38 PM:

Is the battery in the Ipod notorious for burning out quickly?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-08-2005, 12:28 AM:

That's what the recent class action lawsuit settlement against Apple was about. The suit claimed the early iPod batteries were not charging fully and dying prematurely. The settlement means Apple will be issuing $50 battery vouchers and extented warantees to each of the approx 2,000,000 early iPod buyers.

On the chip front, it'll be fun to watch how DRM issues will be handled. Intel chips have DRM built in as part of the chip architecture, something the PowerPC chips never had. Up 'til now MoBos and/or BIOS suppressed the built-in Intel DRM functions. We'll see if pressure from the various DRM advocates force a change to this historically benign DRM stance.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2005, 02:11 AM:

quote: Martin Brooks
Do you have some facts to back that up?

Nope, just common sense, knowledge of past history, and the experience of being in the music biz for over 30 years. Every new "player" technology gets cheap after it hits the mass market and all the "early adopters" have paid top dollar. But the price of the music doesn't change all that much, especially when inflation is taken into account. You don't think Apple got into the iTunes business for the fun of it, do you?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-08-2005, 12:54 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
The settlement means Apple will be issuing $50 battery vouchers and extented warantees to each of the approx 2,000,000 early iPod buyers.

What good is a $50 battery voucher if you can't replace the battery in an iPod? I suppose if they called the voucher what is really is, a $50 coupon for another iPod, then maybe a bunch of those people in the settlement group might have become angry.

Any product that uses a rechargeable battery should be designed in a manner that the battery is replaceable. I don't care how fantastic some battery technology may be -ALL rechargeable batteries eventually lose their ability to hold a charge. Many Li-Ion types are only good for 150-300 charge cycles.

Until Apple sells an iPod with a replaceable battery I will not even consider one at all. 100% deal breaker.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-08-2005, 01:01 PM:

The battery in an ipod can be replaced. What you are supposed to do is to return it to Apple who will send you another ipod in exchange; you don't get your original one back. The cost used to be very high, almost as much as a new ipod, but has been reduced; I think it's something like $99 now.

There are at least three different battery types used by the various models of ipod, but all are available, and, with care, can be replaced by the user. There are plenty of websites advertising the batteries, usually with instructions, and tool for opening the ipod case. cost usually seems to be about $50.

Depending on use, typical battery life is said to be about eighteen months. I've only had mine about two months, so I don't know.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Any product that uses a rechargeable battery should be designed in a manner that the battery is replaceable. I don't care how fantastic some battery technology may be -ALL rechargeable batteries eventually lose their ability to hold a charge. Many Li-Ion types are only good for 150-300 charge cycles.

Yes, I agree with this. I hate batteries; they're heavy, they're expensive, they run down at just the wrong moment, they don't like working in the cold, and, if you're really unlucky, they leak, though the modern ones don't often do that. If you want a good way to reduce the reliability of a device, have it rely on battery power.

The ipod battery is said to be a lithium polymer type, whatever that is, I've never heard of it before. There are just too many different battery types now. Life is said to be about 300-500 cycles.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2005, 01:21 PM:

See, there it is. The $50 battery voucher tells you what the iPod is actually worth. This is a common electronic indudtry thing -- you get an "order form" where you send the item in for a "free battery" or "free service." They charge you a "handling and shipping charge" but what you're actually doing is "buying" a unit that may or may not have been "refurbished." This is nothing new.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-08-2005, 01:24 PM:

That's still a kludge if you have to send one iPod back to Apple just to get another as a replacement. My first thought is the phrase: "allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery."

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-08-2005, 03:25 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I would prefer to be able to replace the battery and be able to play any regular MP3 or CD quality WAV files I have.

iPods can play both Mp3s and WAVs without any modification to the player or the files. Also, I have replaced the batery in my 1st generation iPod with no difficulty whatsoever. I may replace the one in my 3rd gen soon as well.

Also, in terms of the official batery swap out program, I imagine it would be similar to Palm's. They send you the replacement unit first, then you put the old unit into the same box, and place the return shipping label on it.