Analyst: Apple-Intel rumor ‘hogwash’ (today marks 11th month that Jobs’ promised 3GHz G5 is late)

“Apple Computer is reportedly in talks with Intel about using the semiconductor giant’s processor chips in its MacIntosh [sic] computers, but at least one analyst thinks the rumors are false,” Jessica Davis reports for Electronic News. “‘I think it’s hogwash,’ said Kevin Krewell, editor in chief of the Microprocessor Report and an analyst for InStat. ‘I frankly find it hard to believe that these talks are anything but a ploy by Apple to get IBM’s attention. Apple may have been feeling neglected because of all the IBM activity at E3 last week and wanted to send a message to IBM.’

Davis reports, “Krewell pointed out that the software transition would be expensive and create additional configurations to support. ‘There’s no inherent advantage in the Intel architecture over the PowerPC, so I don’t think there is a technical advantage to the Intel architecture that IBM cannot duplicate,’ he said. ‘Also, Apple would now have to launch its products in time with Intel and the rest of the PC business. Where is Apple’s advantage? Where is Apple’s unique timing?’ Krewell asked. ‘With such a small percentage of the market, Apple will have to get in line behind Dell, HP, Lenovo, Gateway, etc.'”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: On June 23, 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the Power Mac G5 line saying, “The 64-bit revolution has begun and the personal computer will never be the same again. The new Power Mac G5 combines the world’s first 64-bit desktop processor, the industry’s first 1 GHz front-side bus, and up to 8GB of memory to beat the fastest Pentium 4 and dual Xeon-based systems in industry-standard benchmarks and real-world professional applications.” Jobs also said the systems will soon get faster. “Within 12 months, we will be at 3GHz,” Jobs said. “Believe me, this architecture has legs.” June 23, 2004 came and went. Today, May 23, 2005, marks the 11th month after the latest day that we were supposed to get 3GHz G5 CPUs, according to Jobs. Perhaps he wants IBM to know that he doesn’t want to hit the full year anniversary? If so, we bet that IBM has heard the message loud and clear today.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Enderle: ‘If Intel gets Apple, it could make Intel look brilliant after the fact’ – May 23, 2005
Stocks extend rally on Apple-Intel report; Dow closes up 52 to 10,524; Nasdaq climbs 10 to 2,057 – May 23, 2005
Apple said to be considering switch to Intel chips for Macs according to Wall Street Journal – May 23, 2005
Apple shares rise on Intel Mac rumors – May 23, 2005
Apple CEO Jobs misses ‘3Ghz G5 within a year’ prediction by wide margin – June 09, 2004

22 Comments

  1. Re: Ok

    That would be to complex.

    Apple relies on knowing all the hardware in your system. There is just too much third party hardware out there for Apple to move over to the PC side.

    Sound Cards, Video Cards, Various PCI/PCIX/ISA Expansion Cards, Various Bios, to me it doesn’t sound possible.

  2. Ray,

    Try reading the MacDailyNews Take before commenting, okay? Your comment makes zero sense.

    MDN are saying that Jobs is sending a message to IBM, “Get off your asses and give me 3GHz G5s in bulk already, you asshats. You’re almost a year late already!”

    I agree with MDN. This whole thing came from Jobs straight to WSJ to send a message to IBM that they would take seriously.

  3. Since nobody has been asking IBM about this, watch Steve announce the first 3+Ghz Mac within the next 2 weeks…

    The one nobody is talking about is Motorola and its G4 chip…could they be dumping it and Apple is looking for something in the low end from Intel?

    A 2-separate processor track maybe? With Apple licensing its OS on Intel to Sony?

  4. A better idea. Rewrite OSX to run on Intel based hardware. Give PeeCee users a choice, and Apple might take over the OS wars.

    That’s what I like too…

    Hey Ray, let the sound card companies do the work, you give MS way too much credit.. I’m sure Creative would love to.. oh shit..

  5. Part of the beauty of Macintosh is that it works only on Apple. You don’t have 14 different costumer service numbers to call when you have a problem: only 1, Apple.

    The fact that they make both the hardware and the software is so integral to Apple’s soul, that to loose it would be to become just another company soon to be forgotten.

  6. Hank,

    No need – Apple could license Mac OS X to Sony and Sony could buy PPC’s from IBM for their Mac OS X clones. Why would Apple want to undercut the PPC effort instead of creating another good customer to help drive the PPC tech effort forward?

  7. “Hogwash” is an apt, though quaint, description.

    “Complete and utter nonsense” would be more accurate. Since the initial move to PowerPC, Apple has a very good reputation for backward compatibilty and minimal disruption with the introduction of new hardware.

    OSX on Intel would break everything.

    Apple finally has momentum. Why would they break everything?

    Not going to happen.

  8. I think that it’s possible that we may see 3 GHz+ chips from Apple during WWDC. I don’t think Steve wants to walk on stage ONE YEAR LATE with nothing to deliver. I doubt he liked having to explain the reason why we only got to 2.5 GHz and I’m pretty damn sure that he’s gonna HATE IT if he has to walk on stage and explain why Apple only moved 200 MHz in one year.

  9. Correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t Intel chips also been increasing incrementally rather than leaps? What difference would it make aside from running hotter chips thus making the G5 not only a puter but a radiator for a small room?

  10. Apple will buy Freescale.

    Think about it. Apple has the money. Freescale builds good chips, they’re getting better, the market is growing, and they make more than CPUs. Think WiFi. Think hardware encode/decode of H.264.

    Then Apple owns and controls everything except the marketplace. That’s next.

    Tera Patricks
    Mac360.com

  11. If OS X on Intel were a reality, I would bet it would be a cutdown hardware list which would be catered for… specific graphics cards, dvd drives, network cards etc.

    To run OS X, you’d need a specially configured PC, although not necessarily from Apple… I think that’s how NeXT did it way back when anyway.

    Of course, they could be talking with Intel with regards to a specific chipset/motherboard, which includes USB, Firewire, wireless, networking, bluetooth etc, meaning stuff like that doesn’t have to come on 3rd party cards, leaving only the drives, video cards remaining.

    The time is ripe for an OSX on Intel offering with Longhorn ages away, but I don’t think it would be as easy a transition as you might initially think – there are too many hardware choices to support.

    As for software, many smallish apps would simply be recompiled – that’ll be Apple’s goal I’d say. There was (is?.. I haven’t looked lately) options in Project Builder/X-code to build apps for Intel and install them as dual binaries – meaning one app works on both machines. The apps with issues would be those using Altivec, other low level hardware, or finely tuned for PowerPC apps. Similar to the transition from 68K to PowerPC… except this one seems less of an issue somehow. The big companies will generally be the one’s with the most to fix but also the most to benefit. And those who have a dual platform strategy already – like Adobe – I wonder how hard it would be to drop in the Intel tuned code for filters, etc… might not be as big an issue as it might seem. Then again, it might (b/c of Windows vs Unix)

    As for scaring IBM, why wait until now? Why not scare them a year ago when the 3ghz was missed? Why wait until PowerPC looks like ramping up with gaming consoles etc, to announce plans to move to Intel? Or is this classic Apple timing? (i.e. crap) Why annoy your primary supplier of high-end cpu’s??? Because you feel left out and neglected? Come on, there’s clearly more to this.

    Of course, the product might not be OS X related anyway so it could all be a scam.

    My 5c.

  12. I actually like the idea of rattling IBM’s cage a bit. Technically, as long as Classic support is not needed, a move to Intel is feasible, so reminding IBM that their PowerPC chips should heed a greater calling than video makes sense. Throw AMD into the mix for good measure… ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />

  13. “today marks 11th month that Jobs’ promised 3GHz G5 is late”

    It always amazes me that people continue to hold Steve Jobs accountable for the lack of a 3GHz chip – as if Steve builds the chips himself. The roadmap showcased by IBM at the time indicated 3GHz was feasible, but like the t-shirt says, ‘shit happens’.

    So now we’re back to OSX on Intel again to make us feel better?

    Besides, some of OSXs performance bottlenecks are software related, such as the lack of a true multi threaded finder, and 3D apps that utilise Apples own implementation of OpenGL.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.