Apple's Move to x86: More Questions AnsweredThen came the "it's true" slide, and all

No_Style · Jun 7, 2005, 10:25 PM

Yesterday's WWDC keynote started like many other of Steve Jobs' keynotes, with an update on the iPod, Apple stores and Mac sales. But then came the turning point. After Steve was done talking about iPod, iTunes, OS X Tiger and the rest of Apple's product line, he said the magic words: "now, let's talk about transitions."

And so it began, the minute that the word "transitions" was put up on the projection screen, you could hear the silence in the packed keynote hall. No one could believe it, despite how strong the rumors seemed to be, despite the slide that was staring everyone in the face, it hadn't even begun to sink in.

Then came the "it's true" slide, and all possibilities of doubt, theories of Intel making PowerPC chips, Apple using Itanium, all of that went out the window. The two words said more than any two words ever have in the entire PC industry. From that one slide, we all knew that Apple would be switching to Intel processors, and it would be none other than Intel's x86 line of CPUs.

Some of you have asked if the crowd boo'd - they did not. You could hear gasps and even feel the looks of disbelief on many faces, but there wasn't a single boo in the audience. What's interesting about the Apple crowd is that they really trust this guy, they truly believe in Steve Jobs and in Apple. We've never been to a keynote by any major industry leader and seen the same sort of support; many will call it a reality distortion field, but regardless of what causes it, it is still a lot of support. It is the type of support that a company needs to be able to complete an entire architectural change in less than two years; it is the type of support that only Apple seems to have. Whether that support will always be there, should Apple grow in size, remains to be seen, but it's there now and Apple needs it.
_______________
Read More/Source: AnandTech

nForcer · Jun 8, 2005, 12:42 AM

"Why not AMD? Much of Apple's success is due to marketing and branding, not necessarily technological leadership. That should sound a lot like Intel these days, whose processors essentially lag behind AMD in terms of technology, but outsell AMD by huge margins, thanks to strong marketing and branding. The Intel brand is much stronger than AMD's, and that is the sort of partner that Apple is interested in."

------ouch

amdking · Jun 8, 2005, 03:56 PM

exactly how I feel about it, huge mistake switching to intel....it was stated that they moved cuz intel could achieve more work per watt with their CPU...well we know for sure this isnt gonna be a prescott core that apple is using. Probably a dothan like one, which is the only CPU I respect from intel.
Athlon 64 would be a much smarter choice for apple. But oh well =( so much for apple being unique now.

yoda133113 · Jun 8, 2005, 05:48 PM

well they could comtinue using the P4 for there large desktop computers it does do rather good at media encoding, and media creation which is Apples "thing" on the desktop (the high clock speed helps out these things greatly though the low operations per clock hurts the P4 in other ares).

For the mobiles/minis, which is where Apple is making an insane amount of money lately, the P-M is the best chip available, period, they can make smaller, longer lasting, more eficient, better performing laptops for their customer (definatly better than a latopified G4 that they have been using)

They are still unique, the only thing that has changed is the processor and the g5 was already not that impressive in comparison to the x86 processors anyway. They have been using the same other parts for the most part, but there uniqueness has always been there software (of late at least) anyway, this won't hurt them at all I don't think, they will be able to drop their prices considerably, and probably offer better faster computers to their customers. Plus with the way that IBM was catering to MS, Sony, and Big N maybe Apple wasn't happy with how IBM was helping them out.

I see this as all good for Apple. Good for Intel if for no other reason than marketing, and a little bad for IBM, but with all the boosts from the consoles they are going to hurt either.

nForcer · Jun 8, 2005, 08:55 PM

The 'ouch' I was refering to was the fact Apple clearly stated why they chose Intel over AMD - and the wording made it seem like AMD was inferior (which isn't really the case).

What I do see, however, is Apple making public they trust a company with faith and vision in their products regardless if they are "the best at the moment" or are "extraordinarly" revolutionary. "Do they work?" "Do they have long-term plans?" "Are these plans similar to ours?" - then Intel was chosen.

I'm sure AMD was given consideration but I'd be willing to bet they looked at the Apple-market and didn't want to focus upon it and lets admit, Intel can afford to take a loss of this doesn't work out, AMD may not be so lucky. Its neither a good or bad outcome for AMD.

AMD is part of the elite in the areas they are involved in - Apple wasn't planned to be one of them.

yoda133113 · Jun 8, 2005, 09:21 PM

nice post nforcer, actually I think a lot of the decision was the laptop stuff, the P-M could bring apples already high laptop sales even higher.

Jun 7, 2005, 10:25 PM	#1
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	Apple's Move to x86: More Questions Answered Yesterday's WWDC keynote started like many other of Steve Jobs' keynotes, with an update on the iPod, Apple stores and Mac sales. But then came the turning point. After Steve was done talking about iPod, iTunes, OS X Tiger and the rest of Apple's product line, he said the magic words: "now, let's talk about transitions." And so it began, the minute that the word "transitions" was put up on the projection screen, you could hear the silence in the packed keynote hall. No one could believe it, despite how strong the rumors seemed to be, despite the slide that was staring everyone in the face, it hadn't even begun to sink in. Then came the "it's true" slide, and all possibilities of doubt, theories of Intel making PowerPC chips, Apple using Itanium, all of that went out the window. The two words said more than any two words ever have in the entire PC industry. From that one slide, we all knew that Apple would be switching to Intel processors, and it would be none other than Intel's x86 line of CPUs. Some of you have asked if the crowd boo'd - they did not. You could hear gasps and even feel the looks of disbelief on many faces, but there wasn't a single boo in the audience. What's interesting about the Apple crowd is that they really trust this guy, they truly believe in Steve Jobs and in Apple. We've never been to a keynote by any major industry leader and seen the same sort of support; many will call it a reality distortion field, but regardless of what causes it, it is still a lot of support. It is the type of support that a company needs to be able to complete an entire architectural change in less than two years; it is the type of support that only Apple seems to have. Whether that support will always be there, should Apple grow in size, remains to be seen, but it's there now and Apple needs it. _______________ Read More/Source: AnandTech __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here Last edited by No_Style; Jun 8, 2005 at 12:40 AM.

Jun 8, 2005, 05:48 PM	#4
yoda133113 DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 309 Rep Power: 0	well they could comtinue using the P4 for there large desktop computers it does do rather good at media encoding, and media creation which is Apples "thing" on the desktop (the high clock speed helps out these things greatly though the low operations per clock hurts the P4 in other ares). For the mobiles/minis, which is where Apple is making an insane amount of money lately, the P-M is the best chip available, period, they can make smaller, longer lasting, more eficient, better performing laptops for their customer (definatly better than a latopified G4 that they have been using) They are still unique, the only thing that has changed is the processor and the g5 was already not that impressive in comparison to the x86 processors anyway. They have been using the same other parts for the most part, but there uniqueness has always been there software (of late at least) anyway, this won't hurt them at all I don't think, they will be able to drop their prices considerably, and probably offer better faster computers to their customers. Plus with the way that IBM was catering to MS, Sony, and Big N maybe Apple wasn't happy with how IBM was helping them out. I see this as all good for Apple. Good for Intel if for no other reason than marketing, and a little bad for IBM, but with all the boosts from the consoles they are going to hurt either. __________________ [color=Yellow]Guild Wars Character: Corrupted Bubbles[/color] "The muffin isn't picky, Timmy. Nor is it tasty! But it is powerful. All hail the muffin!" Cosmo, Fairly Odd Parents "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts." Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan [color=Sienna]Gateway M680X P-M 750 1.86 GHz Alviso Mobility Radeon X700 128 MB 1 GB 400 MHz DDR2 60 GB 5400 RPM Hitachi HD QSI DVD+-RW DL 17" Widescreen [/color]

Jun 8, 2005, 09:21 PM	#6
yoda133113 DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 309 Rep Power: 0	nice post nforcer, actually I think a lot of the decision was the laptop stuff, the P-M could bring apples already high laptop sales even higher. __________________ [color=Yellow]Guild Wars Character: Corrupted Bubbles[/color] "The muffin isn't picky, Timmy. Nor is it tasty! But it is powerful. All hail the muffin!" Cosmo, Fairly Odd Parents "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts." Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan [color=Sienna]Gateway M680X P-M 750 1.86 GHz Alviso Mobility Radeon X700 128 MB 1 GB 400 MHz DDR2 60 GB 5400 RPM Hitachi HD QSI DVD+-RW DL 17" Widescreen [/color]

Jun 8, 2005, 12:42 AM	#2
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	"Why not AMD? Much of Apple's success is due to marketing and branding, not necessarily technological leadership. That should sound a lot like Intel these days, whose processors essentially lag behind AMD in terms of technology, but outsell AMD by huge margins, thanks to strong marketing and branding. The Intel brand is much stronger than AMD's, and that is the sort of partner that Apple is interested in." ------ouch

Jun 8, 2005, 03:56 PM	#3
amdking DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 51 Rep Power: 0	exactly how I feel about it, huge mistake switching to intel....it was stated that they moved cuz intel could achieve more work per watt with their CPU...well we know for sure this isnt gonna be a prescott core that apple is using. Probably a dothan like one, which is the only CPU I respect from intel. Athlon 64 would be a much smarter choice for apple. But oh well =( so much for apple being unique now.

Jun 8, 2005, 08:55 PM	#5
nForcer Twice the fun! Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,404 Rep Power: 0	The 'ouch' I was refering to was the fact Apple clearly stated why they chose Intel over AMD - and the wording made it seem like AMD was inferior (which isn't really the case). What I do see, however, is Apple making public they trust a company with faith and vision in their products regardless if they are "the best at the moment" or are "extraordinarly" revolutionary. "Do they work?" "Do they have long-term plans?" "Are these plans similar to ours?" - then Intel was chosen. I'm sure AMD was given consideration but I'd be willing to bet they looked at the Apple-market and didn't want to focus upon it and lets admit, Intel can afford to take a loss of this doesn't work out, AMD may not be so lucky. Its neither a good or bad outcome for AMD. AMD is part of the elite in the areas they are involved in - Apple wasn't planned to be one of them.