User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

WSJ: Apple has held talks with Intel


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
WSJ: Apple has held talks with Intel
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next Thread Tools
acrockett149
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-05-23, 04:04

Apple has held talks to use Intel chips in its Macintosh line. Neither would confirm a change in the relationship, and it's unclear if Apple will shift away from IBM. 4:00 a.m.


I don't have access to the full journal article but I thought I would get it started.
 
ghoti
owner for sale by house
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
 
2005-05-23, 04:13

I, for one, don't welcome our new, monopolistic overlords ...
 
Henriok
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Send a message via AIM to Henriok  
2005-05-23, 04:20

We have know this for a couple of years. Both sides have confirmed talks in the past. Is this _new_ information or just a recap of historical fact?
 
Daveydweeb
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Keyboard And Chair
Send a message via AIM to Daveydweeb  
2005-05-23, 04:23

Link? Evidence?

...hot air?
 
staph
Microbial member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to staph  
2005-05-23, 04:59

Also reported here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23433
 
Gargoyle
http://ga.rgoyle.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In your dock hiding behind your finder icon!
 
2005-05-23, 05:33

I don't think this will happen, or if it does it will be for a new product, not the Macintosh line. Why?

Reason 1.) Intel chips are not fast enough to emulate G5 processors affectivley, thus backwards compatibility using emulation would perform something like virtual pc. Eeee!

Reason 2.) IBM are now in a very strong position. Supplying chips to MS, Sony and Nintendo for the next generation of games consoles, I think we can look forward to some good things from IBM in the future.

I think these talks have gone on, but are nothing more than someone at Apple doing their job properly and making sure they know exactly what each chip vendor has to offer.

OK, I have given up keeping this sig up to date. Lets just say I'm the guy that installs every latest version as soon as its available!
 
acrockett149
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-05-23, 05:34

http://online.wsj.com/public/us

I do not have access to the full Journal article.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/ap...tel-chips.html

Here is an article talking about the Journal article.
 
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-05-23, 05:44

Walt Mossberg (of WSJ) is hosting the All Things Digital conference this week - Steve Jobs is keynote speaker so he can ask him then.
 
acrockett149
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-05-23, 06:17

I am not sure if there is anything to be made of this. It is mostly likely routine checking in with major chip manufacturers, but with a company so secretive as Apple why would they allow this to get out to the WSJ? Because it is a shot across the bow for IBM. Apple saw all the announcements for the three gaming consoles and is telling IBM to get off their duff and produce for them.

Although the Pentium-M is a sweet chip!
 
VL-Tone
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
 
2005-05-23, 06:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrockett149
Apple saw all the announcements for the three gaming consoles and is telling IBM to get off their duff and produce for them.

Although the Pentium-M is a sweet chip!
That's not too far-fetched, but these consoles won't be available until the end of the year to the least, and it's very possible that Apple already has multi-core 3 Ghz G5's planned with IBM for september. In that case, I don't think Apple was pissed-off by the console announcements... (but I bet that MS will have a very limited supply of XBox 360s this Xmas). Still maybe you are right, and Apple is trying to send a message to IBM thru the media.

But seriously, the Pentium-M is only a sweet chip if you put allot of sugar on it.

VL-Tone
 
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-05-23, 07:14

I have reason to believe that OS X runs on X86 hardware, within the deep labs in Cupertino. I think this is a possibility. It's the only way to solve the gaming issue. Maybe this will be for a special edition gaming Mac?

"We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond." - Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
 
Franz Josef
Passing by
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, Europe
 
2005-05-23, 07:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiahtosh
I have reason to believe that OS X runs on X86 hardware, within the deep labs in Cupertino.
Hmm...very cryptic. I have heard these rumors for a long time - well before I rejoined the fold and bought a Mac. It's one of the fundamental questions which must keep the Apple team awake at night - whether to release OS X on X86's and compete head on with M$.

I guess you're not going to tell why you think OS X is currently running in the bowels of Cupertino on a Pentium...
 
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-05-23, 07:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle

Reason 2.) IBM are now in a very strong position. Supplying chips to MS, Sony and Nintendo for the next generation of games consoles, I think we can look forward to some good things from IBM in the future.
What room would all those game console chips leave for the PPC970? In the last year there has been no chipset change at all, a 200mhz speedbump, and the mobile version is nowhere to be found even though AMD has been able to fit the A64 (which uses a lot of 970 tech) into a Powerbook sized package for some time now. We all assumed this was incompetence. What if it was by choice?
 
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-05-23, 07:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Josef
Hmm...very cryptic. I have heard these rumors for a long time - well before I rejoined the fold and bought a Mac. It's one of the fundamental questions which must keep the Apple team awake at night - whether to release OS X on X86's and compete head on with M$.

I guess you're not going to tell why you think OS X is currently running in the bowels of Cupertino on a Pentium...
Same reason Microsoft probably has both XP and longhorn builds running on G5s. If something drastic happened like AMD and Intel switching to the PowerPC or IBM dropping the 970, neither would want to be caught with their pants down.

Last edited by BenRoethig : 2005-05-23 at 09:41.
 
thequicksilver
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England
Send a message via AIM to thequicksilver Send a message via MSN to thequicksilver Send a message via Skype™ to thequicksilver 
2005-05-23, 07:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Josef
I guess you're not going to tell why you think OS X is currently running in the bowels of Cupertino on a Pentium...
I think it's mostly a case of "it's only logical to assume so".

The infamous "Star Trek" project back in the 1990s ported OS 7 (IIRC) to Intel, though it never saw the commercial light of day. Next Step (what OS X is based on) worked on Intel. Darwin (OS X's kernel) exists for Intel.

Even if only as a proof of concept, it's quite probable that someone somewhere within Apple has ported some version of OS X to run in an Intel/AMD environment. Maybe it's only a rudimentary version of version 10.0 which was done as a feasibility test; maybe it's a radically different version made to test out the capabilities of the Pentium vs the Power PC, and maybe both have been developed concurrently with a deal with a major PC manufacturer (HP, Sony, etc) in mind.

Certainly the potential of a Sony deal has been going for a few years now, and with Jobs' comment about "maybe co-operating on music and computers one day" back in January, who would bet against it?

I typed this message on a white MacBook.
 
hyperb0le
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Send a message via AIM to hyperb0le  
2005-05-23, 07:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Same reason intel probably has both XP and longhorn builds running on G5s. If something drastic happened like AMD and Intel switching to the PowerPC or IBM dropping the 970, neither would want to be caught with their pants down.
I seriously doubt that Intel has developed a PPC version of a Microsoft product... :P

And every time this rumor resurfaces, people seem to forget that if Apple changed platforms, every single OS X app would have to at least be recompiled. Some apps would require more extensive changes. Apple would not (or should not) do that to its loyal development community.

"I understand small business growth. I was one." - George W. Bush
 
staph
Microbial member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to staph  
2005-05-23, 08:00

Well, Darwin runs on x86, Apple have publicly stated that they want to keep the code as potentially cross-platform and clean as possible, NextStep (and I assume Mac OS X) support multi-platform fat binaries… and NextStep ran on multiple processor architectures, including x86.

I very much doubt they'd ever release it — if they didn't release it during the dark days of the G4 stagnation, they're certainly not going to now. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
 
staph
Microbial member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to staph  
2005-05-23, 08:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperb0le
…people seem to forget that if Apple changed platforms, every single OS X app would have to at least be recompiled. Some apps would require more extensive changes. Apple would not (or should not) do that to its loyal development community.
You know Apple changed processor architectures before, without requiring recompilation, right? It might not be fast, but they've demonstrated a willingness to make big jumps like this in the past whilst maintaining basic backwards compatability.

Possibly they don't have the money to do that anymore. Who knows? It's purely hypothetical, 'cos it's not going to happen.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2005-05-23, 08:19

I doubt it would be for the desktop/portable line. Intel makes a lot more than just Pentium chips. Apple could be leveraging this for a new device in the future that is neither desktop nor portable. Intel is likely to have a microprocessor that meets this products needs.

Of course I expect this thread to quickly de-evolve into discussion about Apple leaving IBM or "why didn't Apple choose the Athlon/Opteron series?"

But I think it's quite obvious that IBM has a great roadmap ahead and that any Intel interest from Apple is for a product that doesn't run OS X.

omgwtfbbq
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2005-05-23, 08:23

Quote:
You know Apple changed processor architectures before, without requiring recompilation
When because if you're talking about the Moto to PowerPC transistion that was accomplished by having an emulation layer but native apps still required recompilation.

This isn't for desktop processors folks. Moving to Intel would be a lateral move at best and really doesn't make sense since the P4 is no longer scaling like it has in the past. The future of desktop/portables is multicore with SMT. Those are IBM strongholds.

This is more likely to be a device that is hand held. Intel right now has a nice chip that is powering handheld devices. Look for Apple to possible make a move here someday.

omgwtfbbq
 
NaMo4184
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: H-Town
 
2005-05-23, 08:36

Going 2 x86 would be a step backwards in technology. I will say this clearly, AMD and Intel chips are not faster than IBM chips. Think about it this way. The requirements for long horn to run smoothly are recommend to be a 4-5 ghz processor. OS X is a long horn right now and it runs decent on an 800 Mhz G4.

Long horn will require new hardware. Intel (like everybody else) probably wants to get off of x86 hardware with the leap to ppc with long horn. And they want "real world" testing of of their chips. So why not sell to apple for now. They can take over apple's laptop needs (sorry freescale.. Not sorry IBM).

Everybody and their mama wants to get into bed with IBM there is no reason for apple to leave them.

Another alternative is that intel want to be in on the next console generation and they feel they need to work with PPC hardware to do so. So they want to make money on the side by selling to apple. they probably saw the G4s less than 200 Mhz bandwidth and laughed their asses off. I welcome more competition. Its always good for the consumer.

Finally remember this. Microsoft is no fool. I wasn't even remotely surprised when I heard that they can compile their operating system for any hardware. I bet Intel never thought they see that day though. If Intel want to be smart they should not rely solely on Microsoft to use their chips as Microsoft has proven he willingness to shop around.

John Coltrane's 'Giant Steps'
 
Cool Beans
 
 
2005-05-23, 08:42

HEARD ON THE STREET

Apple Explores Use
Of Chips From Intel
For Macintosh Line

By DON CLARK and NICK WINGFIELD
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 23, 2005; Page C1

Apple Computer Inc. has always blazed its own trail, a tack that has helped turn the company into a stock-market darling lately. But a pivotal step toward the mainstream could be in the offing.

The computer maker has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, industry executives say, a prospect that may shake up the world of computers and software.


The idea that Apple Computer might use Intel-based products, which provide processing power for personal computers that use Microsoft Corp. software, has long been the subject of industry speculation and off-and-on negotiations between Apple and Intel. Two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

Neither company would confirm any change in their relationship. Nor is it clear, if Apple does proceed with plans to work with Intel, whether it will make a large-scale shift away from chips made by International Business Machines Corp., its longtime supplier. Talks between Apple and Intel could founder, as they have before, or Apple could be engaging in negotiations with Intel to gain leverage over IBM.

Still, Apple's consideration of Intel chips reflects what others in Silicon Valley see as a crescendo of commercial considerations for both companies. For Apple, which has struggled to expand beyond a tiny sliver of the PC market, adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc.

Macintosh users, for example, could benefit by getting access to Intel's power-saving chips for laptop computers and other new chips that offer the equivalent of two electronic brains on a single piece of silicon. Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, also could be more competitive -- particularly if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers.

Using Intel chips also makes it at least theoretically possible that users could install Windows on Macintosh systems, though it is not clear that Apple will support software other than its Mac OS X operating system.


For Intel, already the dominant supplier of the calculating engines inside computers, winning Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters. Under Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive officer and co-founder, Apple has consistently delivered innovative hardware designs and blazed a trail in digital music.

Apple sells only about three million computers a year -- a small portion of the 200 million or so machines sold globally -- so a new relationship with Intel wouldn't increase that company's sales much. But Intel, which has long courted Apple, could benefit by an association with Apple and its hit iPod device, which may be luring more Windows PC users to consider Apple computer products. It could also continue the perception of momentum that has made Apple shares nearly quadruple since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.

Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., has long used so-called PowerPC microprocessors that were jointly developed by IBM and Motorola Inc. and now primarily sold by IBM. Apple has also charted an independent path by creating and refining its critically acclaimed OS X operating system. The company often promotes that software's resistance to the computer viruses that have bedeviled Windows users, though some experts say Apple has mainly benefited because it is a smaller target for writers of malicious software.

The idea of creating a version of the Macintosh operating system for Intel chips -- a vital step in introducing Intel-based hardware -- goes back more than a decade. Engineers from software maker Novell Inc. and Apple collaborated on a secret effort, code-named Project Star Trek, that was designed to create a product that Apple could sell to rival PC makers. They completed a prototype in 1992, but Apple chose not to release it for fear of hurting its hardware business.

Apple has subsequently created, but not released, versions of its operating systems that work on Intel chips, former Apple engineers say. That work has been aided by the fact that Mac OS X descended from software that Apple purchased from Next Computer Inc., Mr. Jobs's former company, which had already created a version for Intel-based computers.

One of the two industry executives said Apple isn't likely to market OS X for other PCs. Besides hurting its own hardware business, such a path would put Apple in more direct competition with Microsoft, whose application programs are important to the success of the Macintosh. Instead, the company is likely to package its modified software with its own Intel-based hardware, though it is not clear how the company will prevent users from shifting the software to other machines, the executive said.

Assuming that plan goes forward, consumers would need to get new versions of their application programs for Intel-based Macs. Software companies would have to convert those products, though that procedure should be relatively simple for companies familiar with OS X, former Apple engineers say. The industry executive said Mr. Jobs could announce the new strategy as early as June 6 at its world-wide developers conference in San Francisco, a place the company typically informs software and hardware partners of future directions.

An Apple spokeswoman said she would characterize the possibility of adopting Intel chips "in the category of rumor and speculation."

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology. The latter would be a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, though the big computer maker has had success in convincing Microsoft, Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. to use PowerPC technology in their next-generation video machines. An IBM spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Jobs has often praised the performance of PowerPC chips versus products from Intel, of Santa Clara, Calif. But he hasn't been able to meet a public commitment he made in June 2003 to offer a Macintosh with a PowerPC chip operating at a speed of three gigahertz within 12 months. IBM hasn't delivered a chip that fast yet for the Macintosh; the fastest system in Apple's lineup now operates at 2.75 gigahertz. IBM's fastest chip, the G5, also consumes too much power to be added to Apple's portable computers.

Apple's bread-and-butter Mac business has shown signs of vigor lately. While growth in the broader PC industry remains sluggish, Apple last quarter sold 43% more Macs than it did in the year-earlier quarter, quadruple the pace of the industry as a whole.

Yet, in a sign of how small a player Apple remains in the PC market, the strong sales have translated into only minuscule market-share gains. Apple rose to 2.3% of new world-wide PC sales in the first three months of the year from 2% the prior quarter. Windows PCs account for the vast majority of the rest of the market.

--Charles Forelle and David Bank contributed to this article.

Write to Don Clark at don.clark@wsj.com3 and Nick Wingfield at nick.wingfield@wsj.com4

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...440188,00.html


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...140520,00.html
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...140520,00.html
(3) mailto:don.clark@wsj.com
(4) mailto:nick.wingfield@wsj.com
 
rickag
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2005-05-23, 08:47

Why would moving to Intel necessarily mean x86? How much of the intellectual property developed in the AIM Alliance days does Apple have and would be capable of using in a chip manufactured by a company outside of AIM? Aren't the cores used by both Intel and AMD risc-like?

Still, I'm highly sceptical Apple would use cpu's manufactured by Intel, AMD would seem more likely, but still improbable.

Just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
 
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-05-23, 08:49

Ah, a rehashed FUD article.

There's absolutely nothing new here that we haven't seen time and again over the past five years. Move along, people.
 
Gargoyle
http://ga.rgoyle.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In your dock hiding behind your finder icon!
 
2005-05-23, 08:55

Quote:
Originally Posted by NaMo4184
Another alternative is that intel want to be in on the next console generation and they feel they need to work with PPC hardware to do so. So they want to make money on the side by selling to apple. they probably saw the G4s less than 200 Mhz bandwidth and laughed their asses off. I welcome more competition. Its always good for the consumer.
I think we keep forgetting this fact - Intel make chips! Sure, they have a long and happy past with MS and Windows etc.. etc... but with all the anti-trust stuff with MS and the continuing growth of unix derivatives it is only sensible for intel to make sure they have a future.

Didn't Apple say the G5 was devolped with IBM. Not by IBM. Perhaps there was a deal whereby IBM get to make the chips for the first 3 years and Apple get the plans to do whatever they want after that. There is noting to say that an intel plant wont be capable of turfing out 4Ghz G5 chips in 2006!

I think BenRoethig's comment about intel building longhorn is an example of how some people seem to forget that intel is not an MS subsidury.

OK, I have given up keeping this sig up to date. Lets just say I'm the guy that installs every latest version as soon as its available!
 
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-05-23, 09:05

Apple sells more products with Intel chips in one quarter than they do IBM and Motorola chips, combined, in one full year.
 
Gargoyle
http://ga.rgoyle.com
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In your dock hiding behind your finder icon!
 
2005-05-23, 09:10

Ohhh does that mean there is an intel chip in the iPod?

Damn, what a waste of 500th post!
 
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-05-23, 09:16

You guys also know that Apple uses AMD chips in some of its products too, right?
 
error406
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
 
2005-05-23, 09:21

I don't buy it, it's not gonna happen.

However, I wouldn't object to it, on the contrary, as long as it's not an exclusive. Linux and BSD run just as well on PPC as on Intel/AMD, so why shouldn't OSX? There will always be a way to make the Intel-version run on Apple's computers only (there are also non-Apple systems out there with PPC). It would ensure that we Apple-users would always have the best hardware.
(Yes, I'm one of those guys desperately waiting for a faster Powerbook....)

Besides, personally, I think it's unthinkable that they don't have x86 hardware running OSX already, if only as a fun experiment. I mean, these guys are ordinary techies like me, they're starting out with an OS (BSD) that already runs on x86, and with compilers that can compile everything for x86. What would you do?
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2005-05-23, 09:31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
You guys also know that Apple uses AMD chips in some of its products too, right?
Yup their PCI-X bridge with Hypertransport is all AMD.

I agree Brad...we get this rumor on an annual basis and it's tiring. Even more than ever since the P4 netburst architecture is running out of steam before it hits 4Ghz. Or how about us moving to a dual-core pentium 4 where the cores can't even communicate with each other without the FSB. They're both on the same freakin' die!

Article like this merely prove to us how some Mac users don't understand the merits of their platform.

omgwtfbbq
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation about Sony and Apple Corpus_Callosum Speculation and Rumors 59 2005-04-24 13:06
Apple sues editor-in-chief of ThinkSecret cambridgebrian Speculation and Rumors 162 2005-01-20 11:04
What is it with Apples Jules26 Apple Products 79 2005-01-18 04:33
Think Secret opens the MWSF floodgates (iLife, mini Mac, iWork, flash iPod) Frank777 Speculation and Rumors 340 2005-01-11 18:00
Apple livid over Toshiba iPod leak curiousuburb Speculation and Rumors 11 2004-06-05 17:49


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova