“An Intel processor inside a Macintosh could put the vast library of Windows-based games and software programs within the reach of Mac users – at least those who are willing to run a second operating system on their computers,” John Markoff writes for The New York Times. “Moreover, having Intel Inside might solve an important perception problem that has long plagued Apple in its effort to convert consumers who are attracted to the company’s industrial design, but who have stayed away because the computers do not run Windows programs.”
“There is an immediate risk in the tie-up with Intel, however: Mr. Jobs could soon find himself trapped if his best customers stop buying I.B.M.-based Macintoshes while they wait for more powerful Intel-based systems, which are likely to begin arriving in January 2006,” Markoff writes.
Markoff also reports, “Several executives close to the last-minute dealings between Apple and I.B.M. said that Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment – 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 – to inform Big Blue. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple’s negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Is Apple setting up the ultimate “Switcher” campaign by preparing to let Mac OS X speak for itself? – June 10, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Twin Mac website debuts, dedicated to dual booting Intel-based Macs running Mac OS X and Windows – June 10, 2005
Cringley: Apple and Intel to merge; Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates – June 09, 2005
Fortune: Apple’s switch to Intel processors to accelerate Windows users switching to Mac OS X – June 09, 2005
Will developers stop writing Mac applications if Apple ‘Macintel’ computers can run Windows? – June 08, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
I say forget IBM. They were not giving Apple the effort that was needed to keep their business. What has this world come to when Apple is expected to tell IBM, “Now, we’re looking at other companies because you won’t work on improving our processors.” Forget IBM, other reports are saying that IBM wanted to lose Apple anyway.
On another note, If I NEEDED a new Mac now, I’d buy one. The decision to go to Intel wouldn’t afect my decision. I have an aging G4 800 Flat Panel iMac. It is near the end of its life-span, but for what I use it for, I should have a good two years left in it.
Finally, I’m undecided on this whole Windows on a Mac computer issue. I left Windows three years ago cold turkey. I haven’t looked back. I had a Compaq, and that killed the whole Windows experience (if there is such a thing as the Windows experience). I have missed being able to play some of the Windows games, but the supremity of OSX has more than made up for that. In truth, as I’ve grown up, I’ve missed the games less and less. I’ll decide if I want to desicrate a Mac machine with Windows after I see how it works for others.
Had IBM returned Apple’s calls…
Had IBM not stonewalled Apple, while bending over backwards for game consoles…
Had IBM not followed Motorolas footsteps into indifference for Apple…
If Apple sells cars but can no longer rely on IBM or Motorola (Freescale) to DELIVER engines, what are they to do?
The only people that CAN’T see the obvious answer are all the APPLE HATERS.
Gee. If wonder if one of those phone messages said your Powerbook G5’s are ready.
Interesting since some speculated that IBM was the one the started spreading the Apple-Intel rumors – http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5968/
But that was Enderle…
MacConvert, what makes you say that your iMac is approaching end of life after just three years?
To mcloki
“Gee. If wonder if one of those phone messages said your Powerbook G5’s are ready.”
Very good one
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> Thanks.
Other than some game software and point of sale software what software is missing? on the mac. there won’t be any rise in new software on Mactel systems.
You know, this adds another piece to the puzzle. Think of what we have seen posted in the comments again and again on this site. Think of the areas that windozers choose to attack the Mac on that we have to fight again and again. Think of the things that Mac Addicts voice as areas they wish Apple would do something about. And then look at what Steve Jobs has been doing. He is taking each of the Macs perceived “weak” points and cutting that argument off at the knees.
1. There is no software for the Mac –
What does Steve do?
Switch to OS X which is Unix and lots of software can be ported more easily to work on the Mac. Also making it Unix really appeals to the uber geek crowd where a lot of the new stuff comes from. He focuses a lot on developers, making the WWDC one of the Key points of the year. And increases the number of programs and developers.
2. Macs are too expensive –
What does Steve do?
Brings the costs of units down to where they are on a par for similiar systems, WITHOUT sacrificing the Macintosh Experience and Quality. And then comes out with the Mac Mini!
3. Not enough people are being exposed to the Mac and the stores that do carry them can’t explain them adequately a lot of the time –
What does Steve do?
Mac Specialists in big computer stores carrying Macs and then Apple Stores.
3. We need a headless Mac –
What does Steve do?
Again the Mac Mini.
4. Macs are not good for gamers –
What does Steve do?
Well, what is happening right now? It looks like this problem may be solved by the deal with Intel.
This pretty much leaves us with “The One Button Mouse sucks”, “You can’t build your own Mac”, and “Apple should advertise OS X more”. Will we see an optional two button mouse with a scroll wheel from Apple? My guess looking at the above would be yes. Will we see people get the ability to build their own PC and run OS X? That is much more uncertain but we certainly are once step closer to that with the deal with Intel. At some time I think we will see the third point and a VERY large Advertising campaign come out for OS X and Macs. In the meantime Steve has Apple on everyones mind and is exposing them to the quality of the Mac experience through the trojan horse of the iPod.
This is a long term plan man. Steve gets one piece in place and then we see the next revealed. I think Steve had a good long time to think this all out as to how he would do things differently during his banishment. He has gotten his chance and is making all the right moves while still staying responsive to the changing environment and the wants and needs of the consumers (namely us). You can feel it happening like a giant wave starting to lift you up. The groundswell is coming and now we are starting to see the size of the wave and it’s gonna be a beauty folks.
What’s kinda ironic, is that the phrase “IBM compatible” now means exactly the opposite of what it meant in the ’80’s.
HG Wells.
I got my dad a 1ghz iMac G4 two years ago and it too is nearing the end of it’s life.
It’s still good for most things he does, but signs are showing. The biggest complaint is that he can not use the 3way video conferencing feature in iChat. He was dissapointed about this because us kids and his grandkids live in different parts of the country. iSight is one of his favorite features.
My dad is also big on watching movie trailers on-line. I talked up quicktime 7 with h.264 quite a bit before it’s release only to find out it barely performs on his machine.
There are other small things like animations in Dashboard… It’s still a great computer, but it’s becoming dated.
There is a LOT of software missing on the enterprise side. Don’t come back with the arguement that you can find software for anything you would want to do. That is not the same thing.
If you have to integrate with existing systems, you need the SAME software.
DanoX:
You live in a cloistered world.
Imagine you were in the field of Architectural Lighting:
http://www.agi32.com/
http://www.lighting-technologies.com/
http://www.visuallightingsoftware.com/
http://www.castlighting.com/cast/software/products.jsp?SUBCATID=2
http://www.etcconnect.com/products/products.asp?114
Or maybe you dabble in the sound field:
http://www.symnetaudio.com/index.php?Show=187&Show1=350
http://www.rane.com/rpm88.html
http://www.bss.co.uk/includes/product_list_include.aspx?header_id=1&archived_flag=0
http://www.toaelectronics.com/d-901.asp
http://www.eawcommercial.com/en/products/digital/dx810.shtml
None of these programs exist for the Macintosh. There is no Mac equivalent. None. Nada. Zip. The fields of architectural lighting and installed sound systems are not the only two markets where this is the case.
Bottom line. There are things you absolutely can not do on a Mac. Some of the above do not even work on Virtual PC. Yes. I have tried to evangelize the Mac to these manufacturers. You are welcome to try if you want. They won’t hear you. Nothing you say will be in any language they can understand. I must work with these programs. I have a 1912 Dell laptop to do it with. Believe me, if I had a Mac / real Windows laptop, I would be happy.
I know this is a difficult concept for you, DanoX, but you are not the world.
Mod Jack Arends up +5: Insightful
(Sorry for the Slashdot-esque modding; I can’t think of a better way to do it)
That’s quite an interesting way to look at it! Kudos to you!
AMD Details Early Quad-Core Plans
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1826595,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
“AMD Details Early Quad-Core Plans”
Intel too: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23748
Most of my friends think I’m totally a Mac-head, and give me some good-natured grief about it. But reading some of these posts by the real fanatics makes me realize I’m still on the good side of sane.
Is anyone paying attention to the words here? If this article shows anything at all, it’s that Apple definitely had options with IBM. That, indeed, IBM valued the relationship, even if it wasn’t as profitable as some of their other ventures. Not only that, but even Sony was courting Jobs to make a Cell based Mac, and was dangling access to Sony-made media software to do it.
Now, you can say “Cell isn’t a good General Purpose CPU” and you’d be right. But that’s because it’s PPC based ‘mother chip’ was stripped down for game console use. Now lets put this in perspective: Apple feels putting money towards development of a GP version of the most revolutionary CPU we know exists is somehow a bad business choice, yet seems happy to spend it’s $3 billion cash hord for absorbing the reduced sales and higher dual platform development costs of this 100% Intel transition. Doesn’t this strike anyone as a little odd? Anyone? Anyone?
I understand the Trojan Horse theory – lets get OSX on x86 and deal the knockout blow to Microsoft. I just think this is a total bassackward way of doing it. You don’t turn your back on superior technology and your installed product base to grow market share. A smarter mover would have been for Apple to continue on a (maybe Cell based) PPC roadmap for themselves, and allowed a dedicated PC manufaturer to be the Trojan Horse into the Windows fortress. HP is a demonstrated good partner, with a good hunk of the PC market. Why not allow them to run OSX for Intel on one or two machines, just to see if it’s a viable strategy? Apple could share the profits and/or the burdens of dual platform development with them, while selling non-translation/emulation burdened, PPC/Cell-based Macs.
The Apple brand could then be viewed as doing what it’s always been known for – pushing the boundaries – while HP can be the set-up man for the eventual takeover of the Windows World.
Unfortunately, the plan as we see it, and the background as it’s becoming known, makes me think more and more that this is not a good move for Apple.
As the article states it was not the IBM chip technology (or delivering it) that bothered Steve, it was the costs.
So maybe, maybe, the fabled 3ghz and the Powerbook G5 chips were available, but Steve didn´t like the price (could not make enough profit off us buyers) and so did not return IBMs calls for 4 weeks because he was courting a cheaper source.
Good management? Good decision? Good for us loyal mac owners? Hmmmmmm…we will have to wait and see, but I ain´t drinking the Steve kool-aid. Personally, I think it was not a wise move.
From his WWDC speech he said it would take a few weeks to re-write the software for most apps…why is it going to take a year or more to roll it all out???
Why is it going to take so long to bring out the new Macintels you ask?
Well, Apple has to sell all the current PowerPC stock in hand (and all the ones they contracted to make for this year…), plus get rid of all those zillions of Tiger OSX software…..
If Apple brought out the new Macintel…who would buy the millions of PowerPC iMacs,etc, etc, etc they got sitting in the warehouses or contracted for????
Suck-ah!!! Buy a Mac today – Help Steve unload His excess Inventory!
That’s a good question Hank – the long rollout time may be biggest pot hole of all on the road to Intel. The Osbourne Effect is real, so I really don’t understand the thinking behind risking it. Another question mark among many, I guess.
Re IBM & costs: What I got from the article wasn’t that the chips themselves were overpriced. In fact, that would go against everything printed regarding Apple’s very favorable pricing terms with IBM. What was stated as cost dependent was development. In other words, IBM wasn’t going to shoulder the financial burden of designing the chip Apple wanted, since their market was too small to recoup the upfront investment. That’s generally SOP for IBM – you pay us to design what you want, and we’ll make it for you real cheap.
That’s why I pointed out the contrast between Apple’s willingness to spend some of their billions on absorbing losses, versus not being willing to pay IBM to develop the chips of the future they said they wanted. No business class I’ve ever been in has taught that good business plans compell your company to spend money staunching losses. On the other hand, they all say investment in better technology and the maintenance/growth of your marketshare is good thing.
What Apple’s doing, on a number of fronts, makes me think their ‘counter-culture’ ethos has been taken to an extreme on this one.
Look at the MHz requirements on much of the new software, as well as the fact that the new QT standard has serious lags on my screen. I’m into video, and the iMac is slowing down. That’s why its near the end of its life.
Look at what Jobs said. I don’t remember the exact wording, but he referred to productivity per watt. The Intel blew away the PowerPC. We need cooler running, less energy hungry processors for the laptops. Laptops are hurting Apple.
It would be nice to hear IBM (and Motorola´s) side of the story….but Steve probably had them sign a gag order making it impossible for them to talk.
Was this a rash judgement by Steve? Starting to smell like it.
One thing for sure…this is the end of the line for chips for Apple computers. There is no other source to go to if he pisses off Intel.
The new chip from Intel is due in 2007….IBM couldn´t have solved any problems by then???? Or were there even any problems…other than Steve didn´t want to help pay some costs. He won´t pay, now we must.
QT7 runs real smooth on my Windows computer —3.4Ghz Pentium 4.
QT7 runs great on my G4 800 Mzh iMac. Extra large movie previews in QT7 don’t fair so well. ;/
You know when IBM promises a couple of new processors and doesn’t deliver than goesback to Apple and says to Apple, “We know we promised you all this but we really didn’t mean it unless of course you cough up another few hundred million in design fees..”
IBM knew Apple’s sales before hand, their argument is disengenuous. Especially since a lower powered G5 would have instantly increased their processor sales to Apple in the form of the Powerbook, iBook and Mac Mini business which collectively sell 4: 1 more processors than the PowerMac G5.
Let me also remind most of you that neXT OS actually ran on Intel based machines. The OS and technology that Apple purchased from Steve Jobs.
It was inevitable.