MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Vacuous "analysis" of a vaporous rumor.

But at least we can make fun of Enderle.

looks like rumor to me...

Magic word: ...comes... as in here comes another rumor

This rumor has been around for years, its bogus. It's more likely Apple will go CELL processors next.

mdn: "...earthquake-proof iMac G5s and use Paris Hilton to advertise the new safety feature."

?????????????????????
Guess that humor is above my pay level...
eye don´t get it...

Wow. He uses complete sentences. But he lacks any semblence of a clue.

Apple has no supply issues so great that a complete change of their business model is in order. Just think how fun it would be for Apple to support two vastly different architectures. Constantly creating two (or more) versions of every software title.

Yup. That makes good sense - IF you're as braindead as Enderle.

Gackle,

just read the last 2 Related MacDailyNews articles. All will be clear after you've stopped laughing. Enderle's BS is legendary around here.

Enjoy.

Anyone considered...just for a second...the possibility that Apple is talking to Intel because it might be in a position that it *has* to talk to Intel. ie, that Motorola/Freescale has, of course, nothing that offers Apple any future path while IBM--perhaps--in developing PowerPC for the game market has diverted resources that otherwise would have gone to advancing PowerPC development for the Mac. In other words, that Apple very soon--or now--will have their processor vendor devoted to PowerPC for its own servers first, for videogames and other home products second, and for Macs if there are any engineers looking for extra overtime.

It can't have escaped Steve's notice that long, long, long after he promised 3 GHz Macs would be shipped, he still hasn't held a 3 GHz G5 in his hand for his $3,000 top-of-the-line Power Mac while Microsoft and Sony are both carrying on about the > 3GHz PowerPC chips they're putting in their $300 videogames. It might occur to Steve that some of those resources IBM devoted to Xbox and Cell could have been used to deliver the Power Mac he promised, instead of making him look like a schmuck.

Don't you think it would tremendously stupid, at this point, for Steve to *not* talk to Intel--at the very least to get IBM's attention?

The Jerk makes a good point

Opinionated Jerk makes a good point (not Enderle)

Does anyone else find it humorous that his title is "principal analyst at Enderle Group, a technology research and consulting firm?"

How big do you suppose that firm is?

To Gackle:
The joke is obscure even if you're a regular reader of MDN. Enderle had criticized the iMac G5 for being unstable merely by the way it looks:

"I’m not a fan of the current iMac, the PC in a monitor has been done before and the new offering has relatively poor ergonomics (when compared to the old iMac), is less distinctive, and is far less stable.  I live in California, earthquake country, and the old iMac was one of the most stable products in its class, the new one places the weight too high and relies on a base that is too narrow making it likely that it would fall.  Falling glass can be a huge hazard in a home late at night when you are trying to get the kids and family to safety during an earthquake," Rob Enderle writes for DesignTechnica.

The Paris Hilton reference is in regards to something Enderle said about the iPod Halo Effect being a myth:

"The iPod benefits the entire Apple product line, but Apple could have done the same thing by having Paris Hilton, or some other celebrity, visit the Apple stores."

MW: "you", as in "If Enderle says it's so, you know it must be wrong!"

The Enderle quote, "What happens then is that Intel gets the high-margin parts, which are the PowerPC processors that go to Apple, and IBM ends up with all the no-margin, high-volume game parts.", seems to imply that Intel would then make a PowerPC chip for Apple (G6?). If this was the case then Apple and Intel could both win.

Weird, if Apple were in such dire straights that it needed to jump chip foundries with completely different architectures, why in hell would the stock go up?

Sure, a change to x86 would be a less painful exercise than it would be for other vendors (Sun has done it, too), but still not trivial.

If IBM and FreeScale have no more gas in the tank to update processor speeds and CPU cores, than this isn't a great thing for Apple.

The WSJ saying Mac prices would plummet demonstrates an lack of understanding of what Apple makes.

Enderle will next come out with Sun/Apple/Intel triad conspiracy...

The main point of all this is as follows: who cares? If Apple hardware/software runs on Intel, and gives us a faster user experience, then what does it matter? If, by using Intel, Apple can offer lower prices and better performance, then I'm all for it. And yes, Apple would be foolish not to talk to Intel.

Frankly, Apple's computers could run on horses&*t for all I care--as long as they're fast, quiet, and still run OS X.

The reasoning is, if Apple went to Intel, then OS X would run on any Intel box and the market for OS X would expand exponentially and Apple would achieve a much more rapid potential for growth and there would be a challenger for the Windows hegemony for the first time... blah blah blah. But this discounts Steve Jobs. Jobs has never been a "Me too" kind of guy. If Apple drops the G5, it will be for something newer and better. Not likely to happen, especially when everyone else is just figuring out the potential of the PowerPC.

Going to Intel would be a bitch for Apple. EVERYTHING would have to be recompiled again, and I for one am still smarting from the last round of upgrades going from OS 9 to OS X.

Even though ALL of the articles about this today have mentioned processors, what about other technologies that Apple might be talking to Intel about...like USB 3.0, or some new 802.11 wireless thing. Apple probably IS talking to Intel on some level, but why does it always have to be framed as a conversation about processors?

Just a thought,

Pariah

There is absolutely zero chance of Apple ever going with x64. I mean come, on they've had whole parts of keynotes dedicated to proving how it is an inferior architecture to PowerPC. And, in this case I agree with Apple.

If they were to switch to x64, can you imagine the logistical nightmare? Yes, any part of OS X (including apps) that is Cocoa based could be made to run on x64 without too much hassle (although it would still take a fair bit of work). However, there is still a lot of code in OS X that is Carbon, thereby necessitating a complete re-write pretty much.

And besides, think of the benefits Apple would lose from PowerPC. No Altivec, no easy transition to 64 bit. Something tells me that's not about to happen.

However, it is quite possible that Apple is looking into Intel manufacturing and developing PowerPC chips for them. Although personallly, given the track record of the 2 companies, I'd rather Apple chose AMD if that were the case.

with pariah. this could be talk about a whole host of other technologies that doesn't include processor. why would apple abandon the chip set it helped design? motorola may have tripped up but apple still uses g4 chips in the emac and portables lines. as a mac user i would prefer to see apple integrate the cell into production lines and be done with it.

Hmmm, Enderlie gets $$$$ from Intel too. I didn't know that. Intel, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Napster, Creative, Real all paying this bastard to spread FUD.

I don't want his job but I'll take his money.

Zupchuck and others:

you guys seem to keep missing the fact that switching to Intel does NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY switching architectures. Really, spend at least a little time researching before spouting opinions with no industry or situational knowledge.

"So it could end up looking very smart for Intel."

Of course, it will never look very smart for Enderle. How this clueless rectal-snacking parasite makes a living in this industry is beyond me.

step:

Yes it does. All software would need to be recompiled to run native.

Provide your miracle research that implies otherwise (and don't waste my time with emulation).

LOL MDN take!

Next time, all Macs will come wth this label

– "Intel inside" & "Built for Mac OS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good? Bad?

step,

I'm not missing it, I'm just not addressing it. Intel is more than x86 processors as I am intimately aware in Apple's context and my own. But I am addressing the stock run-up which is counter to, if true, Apple having very serious problems progressing it's computational power in it's PCs as others are implying. Which is why I'm saying it's weird.

Would you pay more for a utility stock if it couldn't address growing power delivery needs with it's current facilities without painful adjustment?

So enlighten me (beyond USB, Fibre Channel, contract fabbing, etc., etc.) with YOUR research.

There's more going on than meets the eye. Steve is pissed at IBM for not delivering 3ghz. He's pissed that IBM's moving resources to Sony and Microsoft. He's probably pissed that there's no mobile (small, fast, cool) G5 chip in sight. What's a fella to do?

Buy Freescale.

It makes sense. Apple could buy Freescale. They design and manufacture chips. That's an element that Steve wants to own. Freescale is affordable. They make PowerPC chips for Apple already. They're just beginning to do OK in the marketplace (stock is up, revenue is up) so timing is good.

Market penetration requires a number of components.

1 - better, more features (works better)
2 - lower cost
3 - efficient distribution

Apple is making modest headway against the Wintel monopoly, but it's probably nothing like Steve dreams of at night. 2% market share? 5% market share? 10% market share? Who cares? Microsoft is 90%.

For #1, Tiger wins but doesn't have distribution to compete with the Wintel monopoly.

For #2, Mac hardware costs might be somewhat lower, but not low enough to attract big numbers (growing numbers, perhaps).

For #3, it's Apple against the rest of the Wintel world. While Apple might be efficient as a product seller, it competes against many others who are also efficient.

There's diminishing returns there... UNLESS... you own the whole ball of wax. Software. Hardware. Design. Chips. And not just CPU chips. Motherboard chips. NexGen WiFi chips. H.264 hardware compression chips.

Steve wants to buy Freescale.

LisaFanBoy,

An interesting proposition about picking up FreeScale (current market cap near $9B). However, FreeScale just doesn't make chips for Apple. There is a huge embedded market for various PPCs and the companies that use them. If Apple owned FreeScale, it would need to be very careful about addressing other customer needs - something Apple may have a hard time dealing with.

Although not directly applicable, Disney-Pixar didn't quite work right when Apple wanted more. Motorola-Apple didn't quite work right when Apple wanted more. IBM-Apple is a bit contentious now. Now imagine how Apple would react if Cisco started complaining that it wasn't getting the kind of developemnt out of the embedded side of things because the focus was on Apple products? Or GM? Or the wireless customers? Or.... Motorola?

I don't think this is the kind of headache Apple wants. Motorola didn' want it and they're far bigger and more experienced at it. Perhaps Apple goes in on a foundry with FreeScale. Apple has the cash. Remember the Fishkill plant cost about $3B for IBM.

Apple buys Freescale PPCs, IBM buys Apple. Intel is left by Apple at the altar. Microsoft pretends to forgive Intel's adultery, but will never let Intel forget it.

Gee, where's As The Apple Turns when you need it most? ( http://www.appleturns.com ) Seems as if the site has gone AWOL since just before Tiger shipped. This is some primo stuff for them! (Especially the way Wartfrog tells it...)