AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005

Mac Daddy · May 23, 2009, 03:27 AM

An Advanced Micro Devices executive claims that Intel and Apple cut a deal in 2005 that made Intel an exclusive supplier of processors to Apple, preventing AMD from gaining Apple business.
No AMD CPUs are currently used in Apple computers

No AMD CPUs are currently used in Apple computers.

The claim, made in a phone interview with Tom McCoy, AMD's senior vice president of legal affairs, earlier this week, holds that Intel has had a longstanding deal to be Apple's sole supplier of microprocessors. To date, Apple has not used an AMD central processing unit (CPU) in any of its products. Currently, only Intel CPUs populate Apple's laptop, desktop, and server lineups.

This assertion by AMD comes in the wake of the EU decision last week to fine Intel $1.45 billion for violating antitrust legislation. Last week's EU decision centered on whether Intel used illegal tactics to deny processor business to AMD at PC makers.

McCoy said that a deal was struck when Apple moved from the PowerPC (IBM-Motorola) chip architecture to the x86 (Intel-AMD) architecture. The transition was announced by Steve Jobs at the Worldwide Developers Conference in 2005.
_______________
Source: CNET

BlueMak · May 23, 2009, 04:13 AM

I am sorry but, why is this supposed to be either wrong or illegal or both? Shouldn't Apple have every right to use any hardwre they want?

DJ BIG T · May 23, 2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

I am sorry but, why is this supposed to be either wrong or illegal or both? Shouldn't Apple have every right to use any hardwre they want?

i agree if apple wants amd im sure they would use them...

**dj_stick** · May 23, 2009, 06:11 AM

I don't think the article is stating it's wrong or illegal, towards the end it's mentioned that AMD may not even have had the capability to assist Apple porting from the PPC architecture over to x86/x86-64

clanman · May 23, 2009, 09:56 AM

Yeah, weird article. not sure what the real point of it is.

I don't use Apple, but I doubt they would use AMD as their processors. They tend to stick to quality components and Intel do lead the way. With their high prices they really do need the best components in the systems.

If AMD are complaining that its unethical then I think its daft, Apple are allowed to use whatever they want in their systems. Maybe they could introduce AMD in their cheaper netbook range (if that ever happens), just to shut them up and to keep the price down.

Jejking · May 23, 2009, 12:22 PM

Why would it be weird? In 2005, AMD reigned supreme with AMD Athlon64. Why would a giant like Apple chose for an inferior Intel Pentium 4-based platform? Core2Duo came at the end of 2006.

**dj_stick** · May 23, 2009, 12:34 PM

Apple was looking to the future, not at the then current lineup, Intel's Core (prior to Core2) architecture and future roadmap may have been a more attractive proposal than AMD's roadmap

IvanV · May 23, 2009, 01:51 PM

The fact that a supplier has a superior product coming is a good reason to make plans to buy from them. Yet, that in itself is no reason to oblige oneself not to purchase from anyone else for a period of time. Such promises usually come after the supplier gives an additional incentive and that's apparently exactly what happened. But when a company does some other company a favor asking that, in return, that other company disregard business offers from the first company's competitors for awhile, that does smell of uncompetitive behavior.

Still, my impression is that AMD simply tried to give their side of "Why Apple isn't using any AMD chips?", with just a slight hint of a possible lawsuit if the alleged exclusivity deal isn't ended soon.

BlueMak · May 23, 2009, 02:23 PM

I don't know man. It feels like someone is starting threats for why he is not your friend and some other guy is. Then he starts making accusations or hints about what else might be going between the two of you, only because you don't want his company.

IvanV · May 23, 2009, 02:43 PM

Agreed, it does feel a little distasteful, but AMD has been trying to play along nicely for ages, while Intel's behind the scenes deals (now officially confirmed by the EU Commission's ruling) with Dell, HP and pretty much any other relevant player in the market has practically kept AMD out of the arena, even when they had obviously superior products, eating not only into their profits, but certainly into their R&D budgets (something that almost surely influenced how things had been going for the past couple of years) and they probably feel like they have few options left.

Judas · May 23, 2009, 04:19 PM

I have to wondering about quality parts being the suggestion as while Intel's CPU are rock solid quite often... so are AMD's.... Both have their greivences in the similare numbers....

Just look at Intel's initial prescott... one of the scariest chips to ever use. IMO, not a quality product.

WaltC · May 24, 2009, 02:53 PM

There's no doubt in my mind that Apple went Intel because of all the goodies Intel provided Apple in exchange for doing so--goodies that AMD either would not or could not provide gratis. Apple got lots of freebies in several areas in the move to x86, which otherwise would have cost Apple a fortune, for agreeing to go with Intel as its exclusive cpu/chipset/motherboard provider.

As for the "quality" argument, that doesn't really hold water considering the number of years Apple did nothing but publicly trash Intel cpus in favor of the alternatives Apple was promoting at the time...

In the "quality" arena, AMD cpus are surely every bit as good if not leaps and bounds ahead of the PPC cpus Apple had used before converting to Intel x86.

I think Apple made its decision because of the enormous aid Intel could bring to the table during the Mac's transition to x86, *and* because at the time Apple considered moving to x86, Intel offered a far more cohesive *platform* for Apple to use than did AMD. That is, Intel could supply motherboards, core logic, and cpus, among other things, whereas at the time of Apple's transition (which took place behind the scenes for at least a couple of years before Apple even announced it was making the x86 switch) AMD was simply not as well positioned to provide all of these things to Apple in a neat little package. This deal with Intel was never exclusively about cpus, obviously.

Still, putting together a platform piecemeal is certainly not new or daunting for Apple as in the PPC days that's exactly what Apple did--contracting with various companies for the various components used in the Mac.

Also, Apple ties OS X to the hardware it sells and as such doesn't really compete with Microsoft in the OS arena. It's ironic that Windows will run on a Mac today but OS X won't run on anything besides an Intel Mac--legally, at least...

Building in lots of Intel-exclusive hooks into OS X is much easier and simpler for Apple than would be the case if Macs shipped with a variety of cpus, core logic, motherboards, etc.

I think the bottom line for me is that essentially the AMD guy is right: there's no way that Apple would have gone exclusively with Intel had Intel not made Apple an offer too good to refuse. I don't really see anything wrong with Apple's decision at the time because as I say AMD was not positioned to provide Apple with the complete platform that Apple needed. But looking ahead from today it's obvious that AMD now could meet those needs, and so Apple must be getting a real sweetheart deal to remain tied to Intel as Apple's exclusive provider for much of the hardware Apple sells in today's Mac.

May 23, 2009, 03:27 AM	#1
Mac Daddy DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 7,950 Rep Power: 65 System Specs	AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 An Advanced Micro Devices executive claims that Intel and Apple cut a deal in 2005 that made Intel an exclusive supplier of processors to Apple, preventing AMD from gaining Apple business. No AMD CPUs are currently used in Apple computers No AMD CPUs are currently used in Apple computers. The claim, made in a phone interview with Tom McCoy, AMD's senior vice president of legal affairs, earlier this week, holds that Intel has had a longstanding deal to be Apple's sole supplier of microprocessors. To date, Apple has not used an AMD central processing unit (CPU) in any of its products. Currently, only Intel CPUs populate Apple's laptop, desktop, and server lineups. This assertion by AMD comes in the wake of the EU decision last week to fine Intel $1.45 billion for violating antitrust legislation. Last week's EU decision centered on whether Intel used illegal tactics to deny processor business to AMD at PC makers. McCoy said that a deal was struck when Apple moved from the PowerPC (IBM-Motorola) chip architecture to the x86 (Intel-AMD) architecture. The transition was announced by Steve Jobs at the Worldwide Developers Conference in 2005. _______________ Source: CNET __________________ "My mom said the only reason men are alive is for lawn care and vehicle maintenance." - Tim Allen

May 23, 2009, 04:13 AM	#2
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 9,334 Rep Power: 168 System Specs	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 I am sorry but, why is this supposed to be either wrong or illegal or both? Shouldn't Apple have every right to use any hardwre they want? __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

May 23, 2009, 09:56 AM	#5
clanman DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 152 Rep Power: 20	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 Yeah, weird article. not sure what the real point of it is. I don't use Apple, but I doubt they would use AMD as their processors. They tend to stick to quality components and Intel do lead the way. With their high prices they really do need the best components in the systems. If AMD are complaining that its unethical then I think its daft, Apple are allowed to use whatever they want in their systems. Maybe they could introduce AMD in their cheaper netbook range (if that ever happens), just to shut them up and to keep the price down.

May 23, 2009, 12:22 PM	#6
Jejking HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 582 Rep Power: 0	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 Why would it be weird? In 2005, AMD reigned supreme with AMD Athlon64. Why would a giant like Apple chose for an inferior Intel Pentium 4-based platform? Core2Duo came at the end of 2006. __________________ Strike back with Team MAD against disease, it's worth the try

May 23, 2009, 01:51 PM	#8
IvanV HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,529 Rep Power: 102 System Specs	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 The fact that a supplier has a superior product coming is a good reason to make plans to buy from them. Yet, that in itself is no reason to oblige oneself not to purchase from anyone else for a period of time. Such promises usually come after the supplier gives an additional incentive and that's apparently exactly what happened. But when a company does some other company a favor asking that, in return, that other company disregard business offers from the first company's competitors for awhile, that does smell of uncompetitive behavior. Still, my impression is that AMD simply tried to give their side of "Why Apple isn't using any AMD chips?", with just a slight hint of a possible lawsuit if the alleged exclusivity deal isn't ended soon. __________________ Feed the porkers and don't touch the buttons!

May 23, 2009, 02:23 PM	#9
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 9,334 Rep Power: 168 System Specs	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 I don't know man. It feels like someone is starting threats for why he is not your friend and some other guy is. Then he starts making accusations or hints about what else might be going between the two of you, only because you don't want his company. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

May 23, 2009, 02:43 PM	#10
IvanV HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,529 Rep Power: 102 System Specs	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 Agreed, it does feel a little distasteful, but AMD has been trying to play along nicely for ages, while Intel's behind the scenes deals (now officially confirmed by the EU Commission's ruling) with Dell, HP and pretty much any other relevant player in the market has practically kept AMD out of the arena, even when they had obviously superior products, eating not only into their profits, but certainly into their R&D budgets (something that almost surely influenced how things had been going for the past couple of years) and they probably feel like they have few options left. __________________ Feed the porkers and don't touch the buttons!

May 24, 2009, 02:53 PM	#12
WaltC DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: May 2003 Location: Deep in Martian soil where it's warm and the air is good Posts: 245 Rep Power: 0	Re: AMD says Intel-only deal struck at Apple in 2005 There's no doubt in my mind that Apple went Intel because of all the goodies Intel provided Apple in exchange for doing so--goodies that AMD either would not or could not provide gratis. Apple got lots of freebies in several areas in the move to x86, which otherwise would have cost Apple a fortune, for agreeing to go with Intel as its exclusive cpu/chipset/motherboard provider. As for the "quality" argument, that doesn't really hold water considering the number of years Apple did nothing but publicly trash Intel cpus in favor of the alternatives Apple was promoting at the time... In the "quality" arena, AMD cpus are surely every bit as good if not leaps and bounds ahead of the PPC cpus Apple had used before converting to Intel x86. I think Apple made its decision because of the enormous aid Intel could bring to the table during the Mac's transition to x86, and because at the time Apple considered moving to x86, Intel offered a far more cohesive platform for Apple to use than did AMD. That is, Intel could supply motherboards, core logic, and cpus, among other things, whereas at the time of Apple's transition (which took place behind the scenes for at least a couple of years before Apple even announced it was making the x86 switch) AMD was simply not as well positioned to provide all of these things to Apple in a neat little package. This deal with Intel was never exclusively about cpus, obviously. Still, putting together a platform piecemeal is certainly not new or daunting for Apple as in the PPC days that's exactly what Apple did--contracting with various companies for the various components used in the Mac. Also, Apple ties OS X to the hardware it sells and as such doesn't really compete with Microsoft in the OS arena. It's ironic that Windows will run on a Mac today but OS X won't run on anything besides an Intel Mac--legally, at least... Building in lots of Intel-exclusive hooks into OS X is much easier and simpler for Apple than would be the case if Macs shipped with a variety of cpus, core logic, motherboards, etc. I think the bottom line for me is that essentially the AMD guy is right: there's no way that Apple would have gone exclusively with Intel had Intel not made Apple an offer too good to refuse. I don't really see anything wrong with Apple's decision at the time because as I say AMD was not positioned to provide Apple with the complete platform that Apple needed. But looking ahead from today it's obvious that AMD now could meet those needs, and so Apple must be getting a real sweetheart deal to remain tied to Intel as Apple's exclusive provider for much of the hardware Apple sells in today's Mac.