June 11th, 2005
Behind the Apple-Intel Deal: IBM Was Surprised and Jobs Trashed The Cell Processor
This is interesting because everyone has been crowing about the Cell processor and Steve Jobs claims it will be worse than the PowerPC. (Come back for a look at the Cell tomorrow.) Sour grapes or could the cell be more hype than hope? Meanwhile it looks like Steve pulled the rug out from under Big Blue at the last possible second.
“Several executives close to the last-minute dealings between Apple and I.B.M. said that Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment - 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 - to inform Big Blue [IBM]. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple’s negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks. IBM claims pricing was the major issue, while Apple insists performance delivery was at the core of the switch.
“The New York Times also confirms that Apple has investigated other chips as well. Apple reportedly met with Sony regarding the Cell design but Jobs “was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC.”‘ Source: Mac Rumours via NY Times
Before You Go:
Check out our Massive New Guide: Everything You’ve Always Wanted to Know about the Cell Processor
Subscribe to our free Tech Newsletter and stay informed!
MacDaddy357 says:
That’s a bunch of bull! Apple is in bed with Hollywood, and Intel’s chips are crippled with the DRM restrictions that Hollywood wants to cram down everyone’s throats.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Eric Smith says:
If you got your head out of the sand, you’d notice that Intel said that there was no DRM built into their chips.
Friends dont let friends post on internet forums without checking their damned facts first.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Joe Mamma says:
I think you should use your tongue right here…
June 11th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Joe Mamma says:
That’s right…
June 11th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Rob says:
Steve Jobs is an arrogant asshole, but that’s why he has done so well.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
jcollins82 says:
Intel said there would be no “unannounced” DRM in their chips. However, they already said they are going to implement DRM in the near future. So, technically, they’re not lying when they say that.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Orion Blastar says:
Apple switching to Intel chips sounds to me like when Coca Cola made New Coke taste like Pepsi or Osborne Computers announced the new Osborne computer and people no longer wanted to buy the current Osborne system.
Big mistake and it will come back to bite Apple when all those PPC compiled programs will not run on Intel based Macs. Based on the PearPC PPC emulator for X86 systems, if it does run PPC Mac programs, they will be very very slow and not very usable.
This was a mistake that Be, Inc. did when it switched BeOS from PPC to Intel, software makers refused to or were unable to recompile programs for the new Intel X86 BeOS format. People got confused and bought PPC BeOS programs for their X86 BeOS systems, etc.
The only reason why the PPC Mac worked, was because it could emulate a 68K Mac at reasonable speeds. The Intel X86 Macs won’t emulate PPC instructions very well.
Plus the X86 version of OSX will only run on Intel Macs and not Intel X86 PC clones, this prevents Apple from gaining a large marketshare. Many people would love to run OSX X86 on their PCs, but Apple won’t allow that.
To use an old quote from the 1984 original Macintosh development, it is like trying to put 15 pounds of manure into a 5 pound bag.
Best of luck to Apple, but I am sticking with Linux myself.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Murphtall says:
umm, Orion Blister, universal binariers and xcodfe will allow for one button compile for X86 or cxompile for PPC verssions, olr both. one button. Intel based OSX apps will run on PPC macs with ONE BUTTON get your facts straight dude..
`KM
June 11th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
blarg says:
Dude, you need to read up on Rosetta, and watch the JobsKeynote. It was pretty freaking fast, runs at 80% of native PPC. It’s an on-the-fly recompilation thing, not an emulator. Running PPC binaries is not a problem. loser.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
kaiser says:
The reason that Apple didn’t go with the Cell is that it’s not a good general purpose CPU. It removes quite of the few luxuries that make modern CPUs easier to code for in favour of having raw speed, at the cost of more developer time.
Code has to be hand-tuned for the Cell, even things like cache management have to be handled by the programmer, not by the chip.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
t3knomanser says:
Murptall, with the Universal Binary, it’s even transparent to the end user, which is good. There is some bad news though. This won’t work if:
1) The app requires Altivec
2) The app requires a G4 or G5
Which really slams a great number of apps for this conversion. The big upshot is, however, with a system like WINE(http://www.winehq.org), we’ll be able to run Windows software on our Macs- I hope Apple does something with WINE like they did with FreeBSD- coopt the opensource community to turn it into something big and usable- because WINE is great in theory, sucks in practice.
As far as DRM goes, while Intel hasn’t expressly put DRM into their chips, they are certainly enablers- Intel chips have a unique ID ever since the P3- it hasn’t gone away, they just stopped talking about it. It wouldn’t be hard to hack out a DRM system that looks at that ID and uses it to lock stuff up.
Overall, this switch could be a Good Thing, so long as Apple can weather the storm that’s going to ensue.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Some Other Farker says:
Eric Smith : If you applied some thinking you would notice that intel says there are no ‘unannounced’ drm features. There definatly are, not the least of which is the CPUID.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
dv says:
every major chip maker, yes even AMD, is working DRM into their roadmaps for future chips.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
dv says:
CPUID is so “announced” we’ve known about it for ten years and the ensuing bad press forced Intel to deactivate it by default before chips carrying it even hit the shelves.
June 11th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
shamalama says:
Macs are 1000000% faster and better, you can tell because the icons in OSX bounce when you click them (that’s positive-feedback to you and me). This switch is so that all the PC folks buy Macs instead, because they are clearly superior –when PC users realize they can run Mac or Windows on the same machine, they will all be like drones and buy buy buy, so get Apple stock now while it’s still low!
June 11th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Sellout says:
Sellout……
PC has won this debate as predicted…
All your bases belong to us……….
June 11th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
I am the eggman says:
Goo goo ga joob.
June 11th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Farkinator says:
Who cares?
June 11th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
mabian says:
Apple has slowly, inexorably incorporated standard hardware for years, i.e. PCI, USB, AGP, etc. About the only thing left was the CPU. But this deal may have a lot more to do with Intel fighting MS than Apple getting faster, cheaper processors. Why announce the deal so early? And why not go with AMD? AMD has clear advantages over Intel, especially in graphics and pricing—because Intel will buy Apple within two years. Once ALL the hardware becomes standard, few people will buy PCs running Loooooooonghorn.
I’ve stuck with MS since DOS 2.0. The last straw was XP. No way I would ever use XP. The last Wintel box here is running Win2000Pro. I went to a G5 now running Tiger. Sure it crashes but hardly ever. I don’t have to keep reinstalling the OS every 6 months. There are no DLLs. OS X is snappy, everything works effortlessly and it’s got a seductive, well-designed interface. I use a computer for fun, not drudgery. My work should BE fun.
As far as DRM on CPUs goes; all CPUs must have unique identifiers. This is pretty much for the same reason that all telephones must have unique identifiers. Everything’s got a number.
June 11th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
doodlehead says:
mabian, you may not have to reinstall your os every 6 months but you will have to buy a new copy of the operating system every 12 months. We’re at what, OS 10.4 now? $129 a pop? How long has OS X been out? Microsoft at least supports its products for umpteen years between releases, Apple gives you the shaft and forces you to buy a new version in order to fix the bugs that they created in the previous version.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Rob says:
The x86 is not a STANDARD processor. It could arguably be said to be INDUSTRY-standard, but it’s not standard.
AMD have the same volume issues as IBM, more or less.
MacOS certainly does have DLLs
(otherwise executables would be unacceptably large).
No, numbered processors, where the number is readable by the software, are by no means standard.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
MAC says:
Would you all rather drive a Lexus or a VW Bug? If you want a Bug then go with Windows, since that is all they are good for. But with a lexus, you get what you pay for. Apple is better, and you don’t have all the political cover-ups like Windows does. Such as not allowing for open-source applications etc. The only reason Windows did allow for SOME open-source coding is because the government forced them.
As far as the chip is concerned, I believe the only reason Apple is moving to Intel is because of the economy. People are too damn cheap to buy a good computer that works. They would rather fix stuff when it breaks, than to buy something that doesn’t. I don’t agree with the move to Intel, but business wise it would be a good move.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
fark-a-holic says:
AMD is supreme! the end.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
untrue says:
Select Apple developers were informed of the switch almost 6 months ago. I can’t believe nobody told IBM.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Peter says:
Couple of items here.
1) AMD, despite its good performance lately, was a bad option because Apple just GOT AWAY from supply problems with IBM; AMD has had arguably worse supply problems with their chips than IBM/Moto has. Intel is completely committed to the desktop and has billions invested in fabs. AMD does not.
2) CPUID’s are not only “useful” for DRM, they could also be used as part of a seed to generate GUID/UUID’s, etc.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
rob2 says:
You are all wrong. IBM has not been able to make the G5 run cool enough for a laptop. Freescale has not been able to increase performance and speed of the G4. 3 years ago, the G4 laptop topped at 800MHz, today it is only ~1.6. I bet they saw no improvement in the next few years. With >1/2 PC sales being portable, there is really no other choice than change chips. Mainly because they can with relative ease.
Now why this announcement was made so public, that is another story ripe for rumor and innuendo. Most of these details can be handled with NDAs.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Aaron says:
Apple announced it early because they have to release development kits ahead of time to allow for porting. Once the dev kits ship, the cat’s out of the bag. You might as well announce it with fanfare instead of letting it leak out from a thousand developers.
June 11th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Rutko says:
Its a TRAPple!!!
June 11th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
farkistan fark says:
noobs, mac was the first and best pc. know your history. read fark.com it’s vitamin rich.
June 11th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Stretch says:
I dunno. I mean, PC’s have kinda always been for people that want a good deal. Mac’s are for people that can afford the best. It’s a quality thing. A ford versus BMW type thing. And boy will a ford owner fall all over themselves justifing buying cheap crap. High end computers are a niche market. Just like ford outsells BMW. Just like there are more people that can afford cheap crap, and less that can afford the best. It’s really that simple. You can put a small block V8 in a cheap car. You can put that same engine in an engineering marvel. The processor doesn’t matter. It’s what you do with it. Apple has been secretly making OS X work with Intel processors for 5 years “Just in case”. Now, that’s the kind of innovation and foresight you have to pay for. Or I guess you can wait for longhorn. Your next ford.
June 11th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Captain Custom says:
In my view the main issue was laptops, and this was the point that Mr Jobs highlighted too.
Apple could have just jumped on the Power wagon properly, the Power 5/5+ is a killer CPU, read up on it. But there is no low power version available.
Similarly with the Cell, there is no low power version available.
The only fast mainstream CPU with low power versions available from several manufacturers is the x86 family. If Intel cannot deliver, go with VIA or AMD. The performance difference is very small and functionality 100%.
The proper course for Apple would have been to go with their own chip development, but this would require very deep cash coffers and a long lead time.
Moreover, how much extra capacity do the current chip foundries have anymore, when even ATI and NVidia have production problems with their suppliers (TSMC and others).
June 11th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
danp says:
Just because you use an Intel Processor, doesn’t mean you have to cripple it with a 15 year old architecture. I can imagine some nice aspects of what an Intel based mac might have … A nice big linear address space unencumbered by legacy DOS stuff. A system controller which would include hardware support for Big/Little Endian conversion (something that the PPC (G5) did not include) - which makes virtual PC pathetic even on the fastest of G5s… Maybe even a couple of Altivec type processors in the system controller… Its not like Altivec needs to be in the CPU… Its entirely possible that Apple will make these processors really sing…
The reason Intel is excited by this deal is that they will finally get an opportunity to show what their processors are capable of when put into an architecture designed in this millenium. Todays Processors running Windows on a typical PC chassis is like putting an 700 HP V8 into a covered wagon…
Intel is also driving towards multi-core in a hurry. And the Apple OS is designed from the ground up to use multiple processors…
Apple will have converted over to a new architecture and have their 5th release of OSX out by the time Steve Ballmer releases Longhorn - which has promised its users that it will crash 70% less often… A remarkable vision.
Good luck Apple. We need an alternative to the blight. Linux is good, but its not OSX.
June 11th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
TheBottomFarkingLine says:
It’s a business move. Apple’s business side has always limited the company in the computer industry. That’s why it’s making more money on iPods than iBooks.
Windows and the Intel/x86 architecture can be just as good, or better, than OSX, but no one will make it that way. It’s all business.
Razor blades can be made so that they don’t dull so quickly, but then the company wouldn’t make as much money. Perpetual upgrading is almost a necessity to stay solvent in today’s information industries.
And it doesn’t matter if you need to buy an M$ based compiler to code programs for their systems when you can simply go download them for free on any P2P network or just copy the discs from work, etc. Until something that is clearly above and beyond our current technology comes out, this battle will still be going on. Apple will still cater to the rich computer and graphics geeks who love trying to get games to run where they shouldn’t while people with real problems will buy PC’s and ask any of the 20 million unemployed tech workers to fix it for them when it breaks down in exchange for a few bucks so they can make rent that month.
June 12th, 2005 at 12:03 am
lo_pan says:
all apple users sit down to pee.
June 12th, 2005 at 12:32 am
iNsAn|tY says:
Lets all just remember what home computer still holds the record for most units ever sold.. All hail the C64!
June 12th, 2005 at 4:11 am
mabian says:
True enough that AMD has supply problems too. And sure OS X has DLLs, the point is that I don’t have to hunt down the orphans anymore—adding years to my life.
Upgrading every 18 months, or whatever, and abandoning the past is painful, I agree. But the upgrades are always an improvement. Going from Win2kpro to XP was not an improvement. It was a retrograde not an upgrade.
Years ago, I thought Apple was dead when it abandoned its architecture and jumped to RISC chips. It pretty much forced its customers to adopt or die. Then the company jumped from OS 9 to a Linux-based OS and I again thought that the company would surely die. Why buy the next Apple if your software wouldn’t work onthe new OS? I didn’t get it. I was stuck in a legacy rut because I had lived with MS for so long. The main problem with Windows is its insistance on dragging the past along and stuffing it into yet another module—hence the pain and performance hit of bloatware.
Intel is sick of MS’s inability to keep pace with its hardware and its also sick of MS using AMD as a wedge to keep Intel back. And as someone above noted, using Intel chips to run Windows is like cramming a 700 HP engine in an ox cart.
Intel will not be limited to x86 architecture with OS X. In fact, it can jettison the whole x86 mess and start making modern computers. Intel needs Apple more than Apple needs Intel. I still predict that the two companies will become one. Intel will make a humongous offer to buy Apple, probably in two or three years.
June 12th, 2005 at 6:37 am
Aaron says:
I don’t believe this is sour grapes. IBM itself has proclaimed the Cell to NOT be a general-purpose processor.
Yes, the Cell processor would be a great idea — it is binary-level compatible with G3 software. It does not, however, have AltiVec/Velocity Engine instructions for G4/G5 applications.
I was as shocked as everyone else when Apple made the move to Intel. (Not to mention pissed.) However, looking at the Pentium-M and Intel’s 64-bit roadmap, this could be a good long-term strategy.
-Aaron-
June 12th, 2005 at 8:12 am
danp says:
Wow
I am growing so tired of these tired analogies…
1.) I do real work on a Mac - its why I use a mac, because I have real work to do. Its great to go through a high time pressure project without dealing with computer issues. Its about workflow.
2.) The BMW versus Ford thing is getting old… Its more like Honda versus Chevy… The difference in price between these systems is far less than it once was. Unless you actually believe the Dell ‘intro’ ad prices… By the time you configure your computer to do ‘real’ work, there isn’t much of a price difference. Certainly paid for by one less weekend spent removing spyware, and viruses.
3.) Pee standing up.
—-
Apple will do something innovative with the Intel Switch, and it doesn’t mean that an Apple product purchased today is a bad thing… I have a Dual G5, and it does what it needs to do faster than any Chevy on the market. It will be around until something can best it by a factor of 4… Most likely a multi-core Intel processor…
—
If you value your time, you would question your assumptions.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Ché says:
I must object to the VW-Lexus analogy.
its not only untrue - its contrary to the truth.
ignorance of how to use a PC does not give one a license to lie.
of course, it’s all academic - Apple will be an MP3-player producer in a couple of years.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:48 am
danp says:
Last comment on this thread…
IBM uses Intel Processors and PPC’s in its Server Product Line. Intel for the Windows/Linux based server business, and PPC’s for the high end server business.
If IBM can’t commit to its own processor for its own business, why should Apple?
No-one is going nuts about this. Its a freakin engine. Can’t wait for it to get a good transmission, chassis and suspension…
June 12th, 2005 at 10:28 am
Jordan Lund says:
Doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that there have been two big announcements this year:
Microsoft is dumping the Intel chips in favor of Power PC in the new Xbox and Apple doing the reverse.
Microsoft was even using G5 towers to power the Xbox 360 demos at E3.
Did we have a pole shift and I just missed it?
The alternative is that Jobs saw the aspect of the Xbox 360 to actually produce games for his machine and went “Screw that! We don’t want actual software being made!”
June 12th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Maia says:
Apple’s switch to Intel chips shouldn’t be that huge a suprise. Intel is developing chips that are dual core and meand to run on either platform without overheating. So you get two processors for the price of one soon. Centrino technology handles 802.11G at this point, many of the manufacturing facilities have gone to better production capabilities with the refitting of 6 fabs to 12 inch in the past 5 years. Intel can handle what is being asked of them. They (Intel) can handle more than what is being asked of them.
Identifiers exist in a lot of things, Intel has those on chips to prevent most of the faulty lots from ever reaching the public. It is no different from all the PC games you buy, all the software, each copy has it’s own identifier, and Microsoft loves making sure now that if the same game is installed on two systems under the same key, you aren’t playing multiplayer if it runs at all. One person was right with the fact taht we are all sets of numbers. We have Social Security numbers unique to the individual, our pets can be microchiped, you have an employee id at work, your phone number is directed and maintained for your use. you have personal e-mail addresses, you live at a street number. It is just one more identifier that has existed for years among us when we take all the others for granted as “they have always been there”. It is less of a personal intrusion of privacy than being strip seached at the airport because you just happened to have a one way ticket on a flight. From the business side of things, the companies are protecting thier bottom line, it is just keeping us honest on the other end. After all, 99% of the rules exist because of the 5% who can’t behave themselves.
Ford vs Lexus, interesting idea, but Apple takes more of the Asian approach to long term planning than the average American Company. Long term is not 5-10 years, it is more like 50-100 depending on the industry involved. Jobs may be an ass, but he does have vision. That is why he keeps getting brought back. Besides, how can you “Think Different” if there is nothing but following the old traditions instead of forging ahead in a new direction?
I still have my 333 PowerPC from 1996 it still runs 9.1.2 (Don’t want to dole out the extra cash for newer desktop publishing software that doesn’t run on OSX). The darn thing runs better than the 500MHz Pentium II that holds only storage and can’t use anything more effective than MS 2000 Server.
June 12th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
RedBeard says:
I really don’t see the big deal, I have a dual G5 system so I won’t really need to upgrade until after the intel switch is complete. Trying to determine the motive behind this is a moot point unless you work at Apple or Intel and have some inside info (and I doubt that you would be divulging it if you did).
I am, however, sure that there is more to this than either company is letting on and that it has been in the works for quite a while now on both sides. I also believe that this move is purely business and not meant to be intel taking a shot at Microsoft. These are companies out make money, not to get back at the schoolyard bully. Lastly, I don’t think that this will cause a major shake up in market share (at least not in the short term), but it will attract more average computer users to the Apple brand because they will be more likely to recognize, and therefore be comfortable with, the intel name and product line. This enhanced recognition by John Everyman coupled with probable lower prices is reasonable cause to believe that Apple’s market share will gradually increase with the switch.
June 12th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Necronaught says:
Blah, blah, blah, pc jargon mac jargon blah blah blah not enough money..blah blah.
June 13th, 2005 at 7:11 am
Rob says:
To the person above wondering why IBM only uses PPC in their high-end server lines… it’s because they only HAVE Power4(+) and Power5, both very expensive, high reliability chips. The PPC970 is a less reliable Power4 with less cache and an AltiVec(AMX) unit, and IBM just make it for Mac. They don’t make motherboards for it themselves. It’s not even particularly well suited to being a server; it’s great strength lies in vector calculation.
June 13th, 2005 at 11:39 am
eric says:
Its like this.. Apple can only do what won’t hurt them.
Risk offending Microsoft and have all office features yanked from osx platform. Its that simple. Who cares who’s inbed with whom. Apple and Intel aren’t here to make us happy. They’re here to exploit our necc. for technology. They want to get rich and be power players. They honestly DO NOT care about the stereotypes or geeky tech savy nerds have to say about their business practices. If they did we wouldn’t have the ipod mini or macmini. Get over it . BTW osx is already running on intel based systems. Just harry homeowner will most likely never get to see it. I don’t care what you net nerds have to say about it. Its true!
June 16th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
John Titor says:
Hello I came back in time to find a paticular computer so i can save the world in the future! Its called a timex/sinclair 1000 and is the fastest computer known to man. Can Steve Jobbers please build us a replica . All this time hopping is making me fat. Oh thanx for the mini-mac its well suited to
play Zamphir Master of the panflute for our Farmer general.
June 16th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
p-unit says:
osx runs on intel based systems now? where?
June 18th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Xamphir says:
OSX runs on special intel-based computers that only developers have, but I’ve heard people say copies of the intel-based OSX have leaked out. The public release of OSX for intel machines will only work on Apple-produced machines. The OS will look for a special mother-board security chip as it boots up to prevent non Apple PCs from running the new OS. However, it does not prevent you from running Windows on the same machine… Microsoft’s poorly coded crash-tastic software will take care of that
November 18th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Norfelt Hatenscher says:
samarian tablets
Behind the Apple-Intel…
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Clayton says:
Dorks! You Mac boys are always defending you computers, because you have to justify why you bought something with alot less software, games, and a closed system, so when pc’s start smoking your system, you go out and buy a new one, where we don’t. I would rather get a pc anyday, sure there are bugs, and sure they look cool, but Mac is really a hardware company if you think about it, Mac will never ever de-throne Microsoft, some one else will before they do.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:23 am
cheap auto insurance for bad drivers says:
cheap auto insurance for bad drivers
cheap auto insurance for bad drivers
July 19th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
cheap phentermine yellow says:
cheap phentermine yellow
cheap phentermine yellow
July 19th, 2006 at 11:05 pm