Intel Chips Will Get Apple to the Next Level, Jobs Tells CNBC
by , 2:50 PM EDT, June 6th, 2005
Saying it is not as big an announcement as many are calling it, Apple Computer co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs told CNBC Monday, its decision to switch to Intel's microprocessors over the next two years will "get us to where we want to be to build the kind of future products we want."
"It's not as dramatic as you're characterizing it," Mr. Jobs told anchor Ron Insana in describing Monday's announcement. But the dynamic executive couldn't deny that the decision will take time for Apple, its customers and developers to grasp.
"As we look out into the future, where we want to go is maybe a little bit different," he said. "We can envision some awesome products that we want to build for our customers in the next few years, and as we look out a year or two into the future, Intel's processor roadmap really aligns with where we really want to go much more than any other."
Mr. Jobs says Apple has another good year of Power PC-based Macs to come and that the switch will be a more "gradual transition," constantly moving his right hand in a waving motion from side to side. "Hopefully meeting with our developers a year from today, we'll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace. But it's going to take maybe a two-year transition."
Mr. Jobs was asked to describe how well the company is doing in Mac and iPod sales for the current quarter, but refused to give any specifics saying the company doesn't divulge results between quarterly reports.
In actual fact, Apple's decision not to discuss its preliminary results is a decision the company has made on its own and is not part of any federally mandated rule, or so-called 'quiet period', that prevents the company from commenting.
Mr. Jobs confirmed the company has now sold some 430 million songs through its online iTunes Music Store (iTMS) at the rate of over half a billion a year.
"This is something that a lot of people thought couldn't be done," Mr. Jobs said.
Mr. Jobs said he's "anxiously awaiting" results from Yahoo and its recently introduced subscription music service, but that iTMS and its marketshare continues to go up.
Apple will win big in one sense. Apple will not have to put energy into an alternative processor path that may or may not perform as well as other Intel based PCs. Apple will be able to get a free ride in this area and the MegaHertz "Processor War" will no longer be an issue.
By breaking with the Mot/IBM architectures, and embracing the Transitive (Rosetta) technology, Apple has opened the door to other more advanced architectures from Intel in the future --as well as from other suppliers (including IBM if warranted). Apple has positioned itself well. They might have made this switch earlier if IBM had not promised to win the MHz war. But IBM fell down on the job --leaving Steve with egg on his face (not a good thing to do to your customer). Apple also had to wait for the Transitive technology to mature.
I am sure this is marking the end of Apple's reliance on any single supplier or CPU architecture. This could also be a move by Apple to start positioning itself to challenge MS for the Desktop. They can't risk an open move like that yet, but the transitive technology could open the door to run windows apps "Natively" under the Mac OS X without slow emulation software. That would really kick Bill in the teeth --which I am sure Steve has been aching to do since Bill swiped windows from him.
Apple will win big in one sense. Apple will not have to put energy into an alternative processor path that may or may not perform as well as other Intel based PCs. Apple will be able to get a free ride in this area and the MegaHertz "Processor War" will no longer be an issue.
By breaking with the Mot/IBM architectures, and embracing the Transitive (Rosetta) technology, Apple has opened the door to other more advanced architectures from Intel in the future --as well as from other suppliers (including IBM if warranted). Apple has positioned itself well. They might have made this switch earlier if IBM had not promised to win the MHz war. But IBM fell down on the job --leaving Steve with egg on his face (not a good thing to do to your customer). Apple also had to wait for the Transitive technology to mature.
I am sure this is marking the end of Apple's reliance on any single supplier or CPU architecture. This could also be a move by Apple to start positioning itself to challenge MS for the Desktop. They can't risk an open move like that yet, but the transitive technology could open the door to run windows apps "Natively" under the Mac OS X without slow emulation software. That would really kick Bill in the teeth --which I am sure Steve has been aching to do since Bill swiped windows from him.
The problem is that just as Apple had a year and a half to concentrate of the superiority of Tiger over Longhorn instead we will have discussions on whether it would be a waste of trime and money to invest in the Mac platform at the moment. Unless the transitive technology is practically parrellel motion made good this will be a time of trying to hold on to its customers rather than winning new ones. Just imagine the commenst that PC salesman will be making now whenever anyone shows an interest in a Mac. Untill it is proved otherwsie I can only see this (as will the average customer) as a move from weakness rather than strength, the last thing that the Mac needs at this stage. Who is going to invest in a platform that is in its last days on the promise that the new one will work seemlessly with it when this move represents the culmination of a giant lie by Steve in the first place. At best we have a year and a half of stagnating chip design (beyond what is already apparent) at worst well who knows but only a mad man would have actually planed this anouncement at this stage if there was a choice methinks.
I trust you guys are not being serious. Parallel ports haven't shipped for years on PCs. The Mac hardware and PC hardware are virtually indistinguishable except for the processors -- until today.
And clearly you missed the announcement from Apple some time ago that they are phasing out Firewire in favor of USB 2.
Your article first states, "Mr. Jobs was asked to describe how well the company is doing in Mac and iPod sales for the current quarter, but refused to give any specifics saying the company doesn't divulge results between quarterly reports."
It than says, "In actual fact, Apple's decision not to discuss its preliminary results is a decision the company has made on its own and is not part of any federally mandated rule, or so-called 'quiet period', that prevents the company from commenting."
The article acts if Apple claims the government is responsible for its "Quiet Period." Apple makes no such claim, and the first paragraph of your article does not even imply such. The quiet period is government by Apple's own business rules, and many companies have the same policy.
Cheer up iLemmings, Apple is now selling a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 for only $999, a lot better deal than Macs. If you're not a developer, you'll have to buy PC elsewhere so you're ready for the Apple OS Leopard release in 2006.
Why will it take so long to get an Intel-based Mac to market? How will it differ internally from the Developer kit Mac? And especially after we've already seen that AOpen mini copy.
Or is Apple just trying to give software developers enough time to convert all their software to universal binaries before it ships?
Or is Apple just underpromising and we can really expect something by Jan 2006?
Even though i first thought it was a difficult call for apple to make, i think Apple has every advantage possible...
say, against leading pc manufacturers such as DELL or HP, Apple not only has the trendiest products, but most importantly it has a proprietary OS which means they can fully support their computers.
And against Microsoft, well, apple is not taking over the pc market in one round, but Microsoft does not have a hardware platform, and therefore Windows has to be deployed on a massive variety of hardware configurations, thus making it unstable and very difficult to support end to end.
I would think this should bring a new category to the PC (x86) industry where manufacturers are no longer all-the-same-hardware/software with a different brands and logos on their identical PCs plus some technical support, but offer complete products thoroughly tested and specifically built (from bones to brains) with and for selected hardware components.
All this could make them stand apart from the homemade generic computers as well as creating some real diversity in the market (choosing between DELLs and HPs nowadays is a matter of aesthetics and who-has-the-best-tv-spot, that is not variety).
Finally, it brings to Mac users the last bits of the computer world they where missing, mainly games, and more generally access to the huge pool of PC Software around (Note: probably viruses could be named as well).
Let's hope Apple lives to the expectation and doesn't become another dull super-black-tower-PC vendor...
Guest wrote: Who is going to invest in a platform that is in its last days on the promise that the new one will work seemlessly with it when this move represents the culmination of a giant lie by Steve in the first place. At best we have a year and a half of stagnating chip design (beyond what is already apparent) at worst well who knows but only a mad man would have actually planed this anouncement at this stage if there was a choice methinks.
If it took changing 20 lines of code out of one million, and it took 20 minutes to do this without any training on what to do before hand to make Mathematica run on the new architecture, that must be a lot easier than changing to run on a "New Advanced yet to be announced" version of a Power PC. What this means is that supporting PPC or the new Apptel architecture will be largely transparent. The Rosetta translator will make it a snap. If you want to get the last 10% of speed out of it, you might need to put more effort into it, but if a little bit of speed is that important, wait a month for the next processor speed bump.
As far as buying a new PPC Mac now, I am planning on it soon. I need another mini for some automation stuff. I am not worried about it becoming obsolete in a year. Heck, every CPU I have ever bought was obsolete 3 months after I bought it anyway. And since it is no extra work for developers to support the older installed PPC base, I am not worried about not having the latest versions of programs available for me to use until I decide to upgrade my processor speed.
Mac sales will suffer until that Intel-based Mac arrives. Even though the risks involved with buying a current Mac are small (given emulation and universal binaries), the emotion involved in buying an end-of-life item is often insurmountable.
Any new PPC-based products will need to have significant improvements to spur sales. But why invest in such improvements if it's the end of the line? Maybe we'll get the dual-core G5 and dual-core G4s, but I don't expect to see much improvement in the support chips or things like PCI-Express.
They are going to need some other products to carry them through. So my hope is something big is coming on the iPod front.
Guest wrote: Why will it take so long to get an Intel-based Mac to market? How will it differ internally from the Developer kit Mac? And especially after we've already seen that AOpen mini copy.
Or is Apple just trying to give software developers enough time to convert all their software to universal binaries before it ships?
Or is Apple just underpromising and we can really expect something by Jan 2006?
I think part of it is that Apple is giving software developers time. But more importantly, I think it's because the chip that will run what is being nicknamed "Mactel" hasn't been released yet. I'm banking on 64-bit chips that Intel is already working on (ironically, to compete with AMD).
Speaking of AMD, for all those who wonder why didn't Apple chose AMD: Think of Intel as stock market index fund; by going with Intel, you can never beat the index (because Intel is the index), but you'll also never lag it. In short, it's a safe bet. AMD may occasionally beat the index (Intel), but the two mostly leap frog each other, and run neck-and-neck on a long term basis. Apple doesn't have to beat AMD to over negative GHz comparisons with the other side; they only have to run alongside Intel, and now they are guaranteed to do so.
Besides, once this transition is complete, Apple could easily offer Macs with AMD chips.
At the conference, it was mentioned that Intel-based Macs will be able to run Windows (though the OS will not be supported by Apple). I'd think any school board would see the wisdom of having a Mactel system that can easily be switched between Windoze and OSX. School boards potentially save money and make a more secure choice than is possible today, and Apple gains a huge share in the education market. I never thought I'd want to see Intel running a Mac operating system but in reality this looks like a good move with tremendous opportunities for Apple to increase the user base.
Apple isn't selling 3.6 ghz machines for $999 you dolt! They are lending them to developers as part of a developer's kit so the developers can can a head start. They must return the machines to Apple.
So the chip war is oficially "won." That just leaves the OS war, and M$ doesn't stand a chance against the Tiger and subsequent OSX releases. 2000 and XP are still pure crap and apparently, according to Windoze experts, Longhorn will be too. When are you getting a Mac?
RealityCheck wrote: Cheer up iLemmings, Apple is now selling a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 for only $999, a lot better deal than Macs. If you're not a developer, you'll have to buy PC elsewhere so you're ready for the Apple OS Leopard release in 2006.
Huh? Your rambling and not making sense. No link to Apple's Pentium deal for developers? Eat something RC, I think that your blood sugar is down, have your mommy fix you some cookies and milk.
I'm very surprised about how people can handle a major shift in their beliefs and mantras like these. After repeating a million times the PowerPC superior nature, a switch to intel chipsets are being faced like nothing at all.
Maybe the Apple users ability to question is null. After all, since they always saw their choice as a pure and perfect one, they can't go against it.
Macmaniacs. There's no better term to name them.
After some time, perhaps, they'll see their holy system being cracked, pirated and used on PCs.
Their hardware being clearly obsolete after a month or so, as PCs do. Patches, fails...
And there won't be time for a design shift (cube, mini or power). Not a trendy national ad campaign. And the Apple models won't be affordable nor competitive.
No space for technical discussion on how the MACs overcome the PCs. It would be unbearable.
It'll be time for a Apple stock crack.
Not a rising.
CloseViewName:spazum64Posts: 347Joined: 27 Dec 2001 Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:09 pmSubject:
Quote
RealityCheck wrote: Cheer up iLemmings, Apple is now selling a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 for only $999, a lot better deal than Macs. If you're not a developer, you'll have to buy PC elsewhere so you're ready for the Apple OS Leopard release in 2006.
A better deal than Macs? It IS a Mac, you utter moron; the CPU switch doesn't change anything important on the user end. The new Intel-based Macs are no less Macs than the new PowerPC-based ones were in the early 90s. And nobody will have to buy a PC elsewhere, because Apple is still going to be selling Macs that work and look exactly the same, and OS X will only run on them, not third-party hardware.
(To nitpick, technically they're not selling it either. They're renting these $999 computers until late 2006, so that developers can test ported/universal-binary programs natively.)
Also, you're a complete wimp. I notice that you usually only post one comment per article, and then you disappear once numerous people refute each of your stupid points. Either take it like a man, or get a life.
Can Apple really compete on an "Apples to Apples" (hehe) basis with Windows?... Apples selling proposition is diluted by running on the same/similar architecture to Windows. The degree of seperation is reduced to design alone (OS + form factor).
All of Job's previous marketing hyperbole is now just rhetoric and makes me feel like a schmuk for ever buying into it
I think he's got his eyes on WiMax and media delivery.... but what about Altivec? the godsend of advanced computing? Can't do a very good emulation in software of a hardware co-processor... are they going to tell us all now that an Intel CPU can do Altivec, emulated in software, as fast (or a fraction slower) than the real deal?.... Makes me wonder if PPC's were ever anything at all....
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:33 pmSubject: Ok
Let's see how long it takes for cheep plastic enclosures and generic coloring! Will Apple get caught up in the chase for cheap that makes most if not all pc's junk? Time will tell
Come on guys,not to say that Steve is trying to get us all to join Microsoft world...all he is trying is to switch the processor and he ISN'T changing the OS! Moreover, the most of the hardware r still will be made by APple. Think this way if we have Intel based Mac. we might be able to buy cheap hardware only for PCs and also Macs would be like 30 - 50% cheaper! I am very sure in 1 - 2 years time Mac computers will be very competitive towards MS based computers. I believe in whatever Steve does as he is definately smarter than all of us because he is already righttt at the top and he has so much experience in computer world! So give him a chance guys! ;D
The real reason they decided to switch is because its going to take a 4 ghz 64 bit chip to run OSX (with opengl rendering the drop shadow for error dialogs). That, and laptops have over taken desktops. It must be a little disturbing to those iLemmings to see Apple give up on the G5 architecture before it was ever developed to maturity. Why trust them now? After all the arguments about performance and skewed benchmarks and the lack of a true comparison - Apple has come out and admitted that the G5 is inferior. Where is the G5 laptop? Consider this royal screwup - they won't have a powerful laptop for at least another year and thats whats selling the most. Its also nice to see their actions when the balance sheet comes in and they see the cost of thinking different.
I think this demonstrates more than anything the new Apple. Opportunism disguised as innovation. Propaganda instead of reliable developer specs. They aren't investing, researching or contributing; they are liquidating and leveraging for a position right next to the rest of the pigs in this business.
Hey it would be neat to finally get pairity with PC spyware. Maybe now I'll be able to understand what my (soon to be) fellow PC bretheren experience. Now this will be fun!
The Power PC was superior for the last 10 years and Intel only managed to catch up in the last 2-3 years.
I believe is the right move at the right time, maybe a bit late but still the right move.
The future belongs to portable computing, and that is what Intel offers with the Pentium M.
The Pentium IV at the moment might still lage a bit behind the G5 processor but this should be caught up in no time.
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:01 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: Hey it would be neat to finally get pairity with PC spyware. Maybe now I'll be able to understand what my (soon to be) fellow PC bretheren experience. Now this will be fun!
Isn't it still for Spyware and viruses impossible to run on a Mac?
(at least the ones out there at the moment not the future)
Because Spyware and Viruses exploit security holes in the OS and Browserand not the processor. I.e. I don't have any spyware since I use Firefox and not IE.
I think this comparisson might work.
A macintosh is a aluminium sports car running on a Ferrari engine, and now they are switching to BMW.
While a PC with Windows is a woodan car from 1894.
The woodworm and rain still cannot hurt the macintosh at all its still made of aluminium which cannot be penetrated by it. While the Windows PC is still made of wood.
1. Apple customers have been dealing with emulation slow downs for years. Finally when OSX was optimized for the G 4-5 processors, we will be running emulation again with Intel CPUs! Emulation = slower performance and the Intel Macs will definitely be slower than Windows machines with most Mac software for at least a couple of years.
2. Apple customers dealt with an obsolete CPU (68kx) and OS (9) and now we have another obsolete CPU? And the timing of this was terrible. Why should businesses and schools buy Macs now when the equipment will be obsolete in a year? Why should software companies develop for the Mac where to get all the Mac market share they now need an OS 9 version, an OS X PPC version, and an OS X Intel version?
3. Now that IBM is producing all the CPUs for game consoles with great performance specs, why couldn't Jobs work out a deal with IBM? This is crazy. Intel Macs will be cloned in the Far East you can be sure of that cutting into market share.
Guest wrote: Hey it would be neat to finally get pairity with PC spyware. Maybe now I'll be able to understand what my (soon to be) fellow PC bretheren experience. Now this will be fun!
Spyware is an OS problem. It has nothing to do with the chip.
