Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us

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...

....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...

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.

In article <8o6dna9EvogdaQzfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, <cecil> wrote:

> Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us
>
> 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.

Looking at what Intel and IBM have in the pipe, the idea that Apple
would switch to Intel processors for its computer line is blatantly
absurd. It might have made sense in the dark days of Motorola
stagnation; it makes no sense at all now. In case anyone hasn't noticed,
the movement these days is in the opposite direction -- Microsoft has
picked PPC for its new Xbox.

Moreover, it's unlikely Apple could make the switch even if they wanted
to. Emulating the PPC is notoriously difficult, and any new system which
couldn't run old software without a recompile would surely be a flop;
there would be no way to orchestrate a smooth transition, and lots of
apps would probably just never make it across at all.

Assuming Apple and Intel are actually in talks, there are a lot of
possibilities much more likely than Apple adopting Intel chips for the
Mac. Apple could be looking for a chip for a media appliance or wireless
device or some other embedded application, for instance. Maybe they want
to use Intel's XScale processors in a new video iPod or something.
(These processors are based on the ARM architecture, which Apple used in
some Newton models.)

[snip]

--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

Shardar writes:
> David C. wrote:
>> Gregory Weston writes:
>>
>>> There's a pretty big jump from the report that Apple is talking to
>>> Intel about something chip-related to the notion that Intel CPUs
>>> will be in Macs near enough in the future to be relevant. I think
>>> it's much more likely that there's something brewing for, say, the
>>> iPod product line.
>>
>> My guess is that it will be something using the ARM-series processor.
>> These are extremely popular for embedded applications and PDAs. I
>> could see one being used in a set-top box, or a WiFi base station, or
>> intelligent peripheral.
>> As for an iPod use, that's interesting, but I don't know. The iPod's
>> chip (from PortalPlayer) has the audio decoding built-in. I don't
>> know of any Intel chip that offers this. It would surprise me if
>> Apple decided to move the iPod to a dual-CPU platform (PortalPlayer
>> to decode audio, something else for management and other apps.)
>> But my speculation's just as worthwhile as everybody else's -
>> meaning none at all.
>
> Wouldn't that be something eh? The Mac PC edition? It would certainly
> get loads of people converting I think.
> I'm all for it myself, if it happened good, my mac is still a mac,
> whether it runs ppc or whatever.

Were you referring to anything in the text you quoted?

Both Greg and I specifically stated that we believe Apple will _NOT_ be
making an x86-basd Mac.

-- David

Geoff Welsh <geoffdubya@some.rr.com> writes:
>
> Wow, everyone reallllly missed the point.
> Did everybody freak out like this when IBM started making chips for
> Apple, too?
> Fact is, which chip manufacturing company makes the chip designed by
> Apple, for Apple computers, running the Apple designed Macintosh
> operating system is irrelevant.....unless the price drops again ;-)

There's a big difference.

Nobody cares who makes a PPC chip - it will run PPC-based software
regardless of the manufacturer.

But do you really think Intel will make PPC chips? They won't. They
can't. They don't have any of the patents needed, nor do they have the
kind of in-depth knowledge of the architecture you'd need to design and
build them. IBM can do it because they were involved in the PPC chip
from day 1 - it was always a joint Motorola-IBM-Apple project.

Any chip from Intel is not going to be PPC. It will be x86, or ARM or
maybe something new.

Either way, the chip won't be able to run PPC binaries without emulation
software. And as projects like PearPC have shown, emulation of a PPC is
brutally difficult, and the results have terrible performance.

It's not like when Apple switched from 68K to PPC - when they did that,
the PPC chip was so much faster than the 68K that they could emulate it
at speeds equal to or faster than shipping 68K processors. There is no
way any new chip from any manufacturer is going to be able to emulate a
PPC 970 at the same performance level.

Without a fast software emulator, people buying this hypothetical
computer will need completely new apps. All those Mac-PPC apps won't
work.

Now, what users will want to replace all their apps in order to buy
this new computer? What developers are going to want to rebuild,
re-optimize and re-test everything for the new architecture? How many
will prefer to say "screw it" and just dump the Mac altogether?

Apple knows this. They're not stupid.

Whatever talks Apple may be having with Intel, it's definitely not going
to result in the Mac switching to an Intel processor for its CPU. It's
simply not going to happen, no matter how many bloggers say they think
it's a cool idea.

-- David

In article <8o6dna9EvogdaQzfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, <cecil> wrote:

> Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us
>
> Apple Explores Use Of Chips From Intel For Macintosh Line

There's a pretty big jump from the report that Apple is talking to Intel
about something chip-related to the notion that Intel CPUs will be in
Macs near enough in the future to be relevant. I think it's much more
likely that there's something brewing for, say, the iPod product line.

G [Newsgroup list trimmed somewhat to remove least-relevant groups.]

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-37ABB5.02125025052005@individual.net...
> In article <1198049p3ibdh96@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
>
> > Notwithstanding, the dumbest post I've ever read. Look at what the
console
> > market has done is somehow going to tell us what the PC market is going
to
> > do? You, sir, are an imbecile! If they make the move, they could gain
> > CONSIDERABLE marketshare. I don't see Windows moving over to the Cell
> > processor nor one of their hybrid PPC processors. They tried that in
the
> > past and failed miserably. The console game market has never embraced
PC
> > processors until MS used PIII's for the X-Box. It isn't like suddenly
the
> > console game market switched to non Intel chips.
>
> Huh? Nobody is talking about Windows moving to PPC -- the need to
> support all those existing x86 binaries doesn't make that a realistic
> possibility. I'm talking about Apple *staying* with PPC. And yes, I
> think the console market has a lot of relevance, particularly to Apple.
> What are Apple's two major markets? Consumers and professional content
> creation. The architectures being pursued by console vendors are almost
> taylor made for addressing the performance concerns users in these
> markets have.
>

Consumers and prefessional content creation? Uh, OK, but that doesn't mean
that it makes sense to move to a Cell processor platform. Those users may
still feel more comfortable doing their content creation in a standard PC
environment if the support from Apple was there. Their sysadmins may want
it as well. Their companies which pay them may want it. All of this for
many reasons including $$$. Those other processors are bound to fail in the
consumer PC market. Apple could gain a lot by jumping ship now and getting
the platform stable by the time Intel ships the really good products in
2006. It's not just a microprocessor. It's a platform. The new built in
management tools, the support, the hardware, etc. all come into play.

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <8o6dna9EvogdaQzfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, <cecil> wrote:
>
>
>>Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us
>>
>>Apple Explores Use Of Chips From Intel For Macintosh Line
>
>
> There's a pretty big jump from the report that Apple is talking to Intel
> about something chip-related to the notion that Intel CPUs will be in
> Macs near enough in the future to be relevant. I think it's much more
> likely that there's something brewing for, say, the iPod product line.
>

Who knows? But it specifies "Macintosh Line" -- which does not include
the iPod (I think).

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:42:41 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <8o6dna9EvogdaQzfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, <cecil> wrote:
>
>> Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us
>>
>> 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.
[...]
> Moreover, it's unlikely Apple could make the switch even if they wanted
> to. Emulating the PPC is notoriously difficult, and any new system which
> couldn't run old software without a recompile would surely be a flop;
> there would be no way to orchestrate a smooth transition, and lots of
> apps would probably just never make it across at all.

I don't think that Apple is going to switch to Intel CPU (or if Intel
starts producing PowerPC products ;-) ) but you're wrong saying PowerPC
emulation is so difficult. PowerPC is based on the RISC concept. Even if
it has a lot of instructions, a versatile and elaborated MMU model, ...,
it's far more simple to emulate than x86 or the venerable 68k. And
remember that Apple did have a full 68k emulation in MacOS, some years ago...
Then, if they'd like to do this switch, they could technically do. But if
they become some kind of PC assembler, they're gonna die and I think they
know this fact.
The only reason of Apple still being alive, imho, is that they don't do
the same products as all others PC makers.
[...]

In article <119am9had2u3863@corp.supernews.com>,
"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-37ABB5.02125025052005@individual.net...
> > In article <1198049p3ibdh96@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Notwithstanding, the dumbest post I've ever read. Look at what
> > > the console market has done is somehow going to tell us what the
> > > PC market is going to do? You, sir, are an imbecile! If they
> > > make the move, they could gain CONSIDERABLE marketshare. I don't
> > > see Windows moving over to the Cell processor nor one of their
> > > hybrid PPC processors. They tried that in the past and failed
> > > miserably. The console game market has never embraced PC
> > > processors until MS used PIII's for the X-Box. It isn't like
> > > suddenly the console game market switched to non Intel chips.
> >
> > Huh? Nobody is talking about Windows moving to PPC -- the need to
> > support all those existing x86 binaries doesn't make that a
> > realistic possibility. I'm talking about Apple *staying* with PPC.
> > And yes, I think the console market has a lot of relevance,
> > particularly to Apple. What are Apple's two major markets?
> > Consumers and professional content creation. The architectures
> > being pursued by console vendors are almost taylor made for
> > addressing the performance concerns users in these markets have.
> >
>
> Consumers and prefessional content creation? Uh, OK, but that doesn't mean
> that it makes sense to move to a Cell processor platform. Those users may
> still feel more comfortable doing their content creation in a standard PC
> environment if the support from Apple was there. Their sysadmins may want
> it as well. Their companies which pay them may want it.

Huh? I don't understand. The Cell doesn't lack any features that prevent
it from hosting a "standard PC environment." It's not all vector
processing, you know -- it has a general-purpose core faster than most
CPUs currently on the market. It's more than capable of handling all the
day-to-day tasks of desktop computing -- which as I've pointed out
aren't all that taxing for modern hardware.

> All of this for many reasons including $$$. Those other processors
> are bound to fail in the consumer PC market. Apple could gain a lot
> by jumping ship now and getting the platform stable by the time Intel
> ships the really good products in 2006. It's not just a
> microprocessor. It's a platform. The new built in management tools,
> the support, the hardware, etc. all come into play.

And PPC is turning into much more than just a processor as well. There
are a lot of people using it, and IBM is promoting it very aggressively
-- look at the Cell-related announcements yesterday. IBM also seems more
willing than Intel to work with its major customers on customized
versions of the chip.

Why would Apple move from to x86 when everyone else (who has a choice)
is picking PPC these days?

--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

In article <jnpke.42783$887.28242@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng4******.com> wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> > In article <8o6dna9EvogdaQzfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, <cecil> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us
> >>
> >>Apple Explores Use Of Chips From Intel For Macintosh Line
> >
> >
> > There's a pretty big jump from the report that Apple is talking to Intel
> > about something chip-related to the notion that Intel CPUs will be in
> > Macs near enough in the future to be relevant. I think it's much more
> > likely that there's something brewing for, say, the iPod product line.
> >
>
> Who knows? But it specifies "Macintosh Line" -- which does not include
> the iPod (I think).

That's the headline, but the article doesn't actually offer any
supporting evidence. I think some people too easily fall into a mode of
thinking where Apple implies Mac and Intel implies CPU, but both
companies make a wide enough range of products that a discussion between
them isn't a real indication that there's any serious leaning toward
Intel-based Macs.

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

As in OS X will run on generic non Apple computers? Is Apple planning
on getting out of the system hardware business?

--
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> writes:
>
> There's a pretty big jump from the report that Apple is talking to
> Intel about something chip-related to the notion that Intel CPUs will
> be in Macs near enough in the future to be relevant. I think it's much
> more likely that there's something brewing for, say, the iPod product
> line.

My guess is that it will be something using the ARM-series processor.
These are extremely popular for embedded applications and PDAs. I could
see one being used in a set-top box, or a WiFi base station, or
intelligent peripheral.

As for an iPod use, that's interesting, but I don't know. The iPod's
chip (from PortalPlayer) has the audio decoding built-in. I don't know
of any Intel chip that offers this. It would surprise me if Apple
decided to move the iPod to a dual-CPU platform (PortalPlayer to decode
audio, something else for management and other apps.)

But my speculation's just as worthwhile as everybody else's - meaning
none at all.

-- David

In article <znu-80963C.03100926052005@individual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <119am9had2u3863@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:znu-37ABB5.02125025052005@individual.net...
> > > In article <1198049p3ibdh96@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Notwithstanding, the dumbest post I've ever read. Look at what
> > > > the console market has done is somehow going to tell us what the
> > > > PC market is going to do? You, sir, are an imbecile! If they
> > > > make the move, they could gain CONSIDERABLE marketshare. I don't
> > > > see Windows moving over to the Cell processor nor one of their
> > > > hybrid PPC processors. They tried that in the past and failed
> > > > miserably. The console game market has never embraced PC
> > > > processors until MS used PIII's for the X-Box. It isn't like
> > > > suddenly the console game market switched to non Intel chips.
> > >
> > > Huh? Nobody is talking about Windows moving to PPC -- the need to
> > > support all those existing x86 binaries doesn't make that a
> > > realistic possibility. I'm talking about Apple *staying* with PPC.
> > > And yes, I think the console market has a lot of relevance,
> > > particularly to Apple. What are Apple's two major markets?
> > > Consumers and professional content creation. The architectures
> > > being pursued by console vendors are almost taylor made for
> > > addressing the performance concerns users in these markets have.
> > >
> >
> > Consumers and prefessional content creation? Uh, OK, but that doesn't mean
> > that it makes sense to move to a Cell processor platform. Those users may
> > still feel more comfortable doing their content creation in a standard PC
> > environment if the support from Apple was there. Their sysadmins may want
> > it as well. Their companies which pay them may want it.
>
> Huh? I don't understand. The Cell doesn't lack any features that prevent
> it from hosting a "standard PC environment." It's not all vector
> processing, you know -- it has a general-purpose core faster than most
> CPUs currently on the market. It's more than capable of handling all the
> day-to-day tasks of desktop computing -- which as I've pointed out
> aren't all that taxing for modern hardware.

Another Cell-related announcement:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...050525/105050/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Corp. has revealed a prototype blade server board featuring the Cell
microprocessor jointly developed with the Sony Group and Toshiba Corp.
The company demonstrated the prototype in front of only a few clients at
a hotel room outside Los Angeles, US, at the 2005 Electronic
Entertainment Expo (E3), game tradeshow. "We demonstrated the prototype
to show that Cell continues to mature. The product is expected to have
several times higher performance compared to conventional servers," said
an IBM engineer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sure looks like Cell is going to have applications outside of game
consoles.

--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

David C. wrote:
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> writes:
>
>>There's a pretty big jump from the report that Apple is talking to
>>Intel about something chip-related to the notion that Intel CPUs will
>>be in Macs near enough in the future to be relevant. I think it's much
>>more likely that there's something brewing for, say, the iPod product
>>line.
>
>
> My guess is that it will be something using the ARM-series processor.
> These are extremely popular for embedded applications and PDAs. I could
> see one being used in a set-top box, or a WiFi base station, or
> intelligent peripheral.
>
> As for an iPod use, that's interesting, but I don't know. The iPod's
> chip (from PortalPlayer) has the audio decoding built-in. I don't know
> of any Intel chip that offers this. It would surprise me if Apple
> decided to move the iPod to a dual-CPU platform (PortalPlayer to decode
> audio, something else for management and other apps.)
>
> But my speculation's just as worthwhile as everybody else's - meaning
> none at all.
>
> -- David

Wouldn't that be something eh? The Mac PC edition? It would certainly
get loads of people converting I think.
I'm all for it myself, if it happened good, my mac is still a mac,
whether it runs ppc or whatever.

Shard....

> Another Cell-related announcement:
>
> http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...050525/105050/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBM Corp. has revealed a prototype blade server board featuring the Cell
> microprocessor jointly developed with the Sony Group and Toshiba Corp.
> The company demonstrated the prototype in front of only a few clients at
> a hotel room outside Los Angeles, US, at the 2005 Electronic
> Entertainment Expo (E3), game tradeshow. "We demonstrated the prototype
> to show that Cell continues to mature. The product is expected to have
> several times higher performance compared to conventional servers," said
> an IBM engineer.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It sure looks like Cell is going to have applications outside of game
> consoles.
>

Gosh, if it keeps up the good work, it will a replacement for the Itanium.