“IBM PowerPC chips could cover Apple’s entire product line… and could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple’s product lines, including portables such as the PowerBook, said Rod Adkins, vice president of development for IBM’s Systems and Technology Group, which produces IBM’s PowerPC chips. But instead he said the nature of Apple’s relationship with IBM, including the fact that it had another processor supplier in Freescale Semiconductor Inc., is what limited the IBM chip roadmap available to it, Adkins said,” John G. Spooner reports for eWeek. “‘They had Freescale primarily for the low-end and mobile solutions, and they really had IBM focus more on PowerBook, xServe and iMac. That’s where we collaborated deeply with Apple,’ Adkins said. But ‘There’s really nothing in the architecture that prevents having an end-to-end line that can serve [all of] their needs.'”
“Intel, as Adkins sees it, won out mainly based on its mobile chip technology and the way Intel chips fit into Apple’s software planes, even though he maintains that IBM has the capability to deliver a product such as a mobile PowerPC 970 chip,” Spooner reports.
Spooner reports, “It’s also possible Intel showed Jobs a new roadmap that, as Jobs suggested, gives Intel a major advantage in power and performance versus IBM PowerPCs, one analyst said. ‘The presumption is that Jobs was given some disclosure of a future road map that’s not yet been given to any chip analyst,’ said Richard Doherty, principal analyst at The Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y. ‘IBM’s [Adkins] is being truthful in what [he’s] saying,’ Doherty said. ‘As far as shipping chips, IBM’s ahead. And clearly from what jobs said on stage, there’s some turn in the [Intel] roadmap that puts them at par or ahead of IBM. But until that roadmap is made public by Apple or Intel, there’s no substantiation’ of what Jobs said [during his WWDC keynote].”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Trying to save face, but failing. You’ll hear a lot of sniping from all sides during the transition. IBM could’ve made a mobile PowerPC 970 chip? Hold on a sec while we run that concept through our 3GHz Power Mac G5…
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Is Apple morphing Mac into the ultimate PC capable of running Mac OS X, Windows, Linux? – June 20, 2005
The Washington Post: ‘In a year or two, the best Windows PC may come from Apple’ – June 19, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs – June 16, 2005
If Intel-based Macs can run Mac OS X and Windows, buying a Mac will be a no-brainer – June 15, 2005
Apple could use Trusted Platform Module chip to keep Mac OS X off non-Macs – June 14, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Microsoft and Dell must have a lot of bricks lying around today – June 07, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
Analyst: Apple-Intel rumor ‘hogwash’ (today marks 11th month that Jobs’ promised 3GHz G5 is late) – May 23, 2005
Shoulda, coulda, woulda! Sounds like sour grapes to me!
LIAR!!
this being first thing is getting out of hand.
yea, and sputnik is a real troll. and microsoft can make a quality OS. And there are WMD.
so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
results talk, everything else walks.
Crying over spilled milk.
i’m with you Mike.
hey, you want some of my crow?
yeah, so if they could, why didn’t they? i thought IBM wasn’t to be this big innovative company. instead, they under supplied us with chips they never had.
Cool! A software plane from Apple!
If they could, why didn’t they? They had how long?
Coulda. Woulda. Shoulda. I’m buying a new Powerbook next week. It isn’t a G5.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”angry” style=”border:0;” />
Pickapeppar sauce is much better on a pork roast or hamburger than crow.
OK, I’m callin’ BullSh*t on this one. What business declines significant advancements in its product lines (G5 PowerBook)? IBM is just trying to save face.
I believe they could have made a G5 PowerBook, but it would have been about 3″ thick.
They might have ‘collaborated deeply’ with Apple but the results were pretty shallow.
As MDN rightly points out, this is just face-saving.
“we could have”? Too little, too late, mate.
Mmmm, imitating Brando saying “I could’a been a contender, instead of a bum”
The MDN take is classic! Love it! My sentiments exactly.
IBM is falling down all over the place. In 10 years, they will be a name of the past. IBM is a dinosaur. Watch them fade into existence. It’s already happening.
Sounds like a guy trying to get his wife back as she’s walking out the door. “But honey, I coulda taken out the trash every week. I coulda lost this beer belly. I coulda paid more attention. Pleeeeeease come back!”
Sam,
You obviously don’t know anything about the computer business.
As much as I love Apple, they were small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. IBM was too busy with the Cell processor to really care about the G5 or Apple’s business.
But to say they are a dinosaur gives fodder to all the trolls out there.
Could have, would have, whatever. Where is the 3 GHZ chip? How long before you could have? 1,2,3,4,5, years later?
Coulda, shoulda, woulda……..too late.
Guess what IBM, if you really want us to beleive it, then DO it. It’s not too late. Remember, Universal Binaries. Remember TWO YEARS to transition.
Walk the walk if you’re gonna talk the talk.
MW better, as in, Apple is better off going Intel
Sure, IBM “could have” maybe by 2008 or so at their current development pace. Good riddance IBM…
Mike R. wrote:
“Pickapeppar sauce is much better on a pork roast or hamburger than crow.”
this, of course, really depends on how you prepare and cook the crow.
but i like to “Eat Different”.
I thought the interesting part about this is the fact that Apple and Intel have something up their sleeve that the rest of the industry doesn’t know about. What does Intel have in their future road map that would draw Apple to make the switch to their processor. I’ll bet its more than x86.
You kool-aid drinkers need to be more objective.
Richard Doherty, principal analyst at The Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y. “IBM’s [Adkins] is being truthful in what [he’s] saying…”
The fact is that Intel is not making low power CPUs via black magic. AMDs new offerings are on par with Pentium M in power consumption, and seem more advanced dual core designs. IBM almost certainly has more R&D resources at their disposal than AMD does, and the Power architecture is considered energy efficient already.
Jobs didn’t want to spend the money IBM would have asked for, or wait for the time IBM would have taken, to make the CPU Apple thinks it needs for it’s future. Both rationals seem short sighted to me. First, it makes more sense to invest money in your product’s future, as opposed to wasting it in covering lost sales momentum (as this transition is sure to cause). Second, waiting a year or so for a mobile CPU from IBM is no more aggregious than the time frame Apple’s already laid out for their Intel based products. In that case, you’re better off sticking with the CPU architecture that’s likely to be leading the industry BEYOND 1-2 years. Is there any serious belief that this is x86? No matter how good AMD (not Intel) makes it??
There should be much more concern over what this article is telling us. I’m really disappointed in the level of critical thinking being expressed here.