“Speaking at the Intel Developer Forum on Tuesday company chief executive Paul Otellini said the industry is on a new ‘performance per watt’ course that will deliver powerful Intel-based computers that are increasingly smaller, sleeker and more energy-efficient,” AppleInsider reports. “During his keynote address at San Francisco’s Moscone Center, Otellini unveiled the company’s next-generation, power-optimized micro-architecture for future digital home, enterprise, mobile and emerging market platforms — and low-power products aimed at a new category of converged consumer devices.”
AppleInsider reports, “In the second half of 2006, Otellini said Intel will introduce the micro-architecture, which combines the strength of the company’s current Intel NetBurst and Pentium M micro-architectures and adds new features. ‘We will deliver ‘factor of 10’ breakthroughs to a variety of platforms that can reduce energy consumption tenfold or bring 10 times the performance of today’s products. Otellini showed the first public demonstration of Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest, which are codenames for upcoming Intel processors for notebook, desktop and server platforms designed on the company’s 65-nanometer technology manufacturing process. He also said Intel has more than 10 processor projects that contain four (quad-core) or more processor cores per chip.”
Full article with more details here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Intel to debut new processor performance yardstick: ‘performance per watt’ – August 15, 2005
Intel to deliver dual-core, hyper-threaded processors ahead of schedule – August 15, 2005
Intel to announce shift to new microprocessor technology – August 12, 2005
Report: Mac OS X for Intel hacked to run on non-apple x86 PCs – August 11, 2005
DRM chip in Intel-based developer Macs prevents Mac OS X from running on non-Apple PCs – August 05, 2005
Arizona wins $3 billion Intel plant – July 27, 2005
Apple joins Intel at Carnegie Mellon – July 26, 2005
Intel to renovate desktop processor line in 2006 with transition from 90 nm to 65 nm – July 15, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
Here’s a more objective take on the above announcement from Hannible at ArsTechnica:
Intel’s Unified Processor Architecture
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050823-5232.html
He doesn’t pan the announcement, but here are what I think are pertinent points to keep in mind, as this pertains to the Macintel transition leaving behind PPC:
“Contrary to some rather bizarre speculation that made its way around the ‘Net, the new processor architecture that Intel announced today is a fairly conventional evolutionary step from their current offerings.” Translation – No Altivec.
Intel is attempting to ‘unify’ it’s present variety of technologies into one common architecture, for the basis of CPUs to be used in everything from handhelds to desktops to servers. This includes “Security/virtualization” – i.e. Digital Rights Management. This is no small bit of info, for those keeping track of what I’ve been saying is the real reason Jobs switched to Intel (as opposed to better performing AMD, or staying with the more advanced PPC designs from IBM).
The new core, designed for low-power multicore systems, takes a page out of the PPC design ‘playbook’ by going to small on-die footprint. This is what IBM has been crucified for doing, as it supposedly was the reason the 970 was running hot. Specifically, in order to cut down on the number of transisters, “[l]ike the PowerPC 970, the [Intel] … core makes heavy use of the practice of fusing together uops before dispatching them to the execution core, so that multiple uops can be tracked as a single uop.” So, after being forced to adopt AMDs 64bit technology, due to their own lack of imagination, this seems yet another shining example of Intel innovation at work.
Like AMD and IBM have already done with their dual core designs, the next Intel CPUs “… are designed from the ground up with multicore integration in mind… [and] will share a common L2 cache via high-bandwidth connections, … [with] hardware [that] will keep the two cores’ private L1 caches connected and coherent.” ‘Bout time!
Hannible says: “Will Apple use these processors? Absolutely.” Previous speculations had Apple going into first the PowerBook, and then PowerMac lines between late 2006 – early 2007.
“Instead of the Abrams M1 Battle Tank, we’ll get the Apple M1 Battle Mac!!!”
Be careful what we wish for, remember the Abrams’ economy is rated in gallons per mile. There’s not too much performance per watt, fuel-wise (although staying alive in battle does tend to take priority over economy).
Now, if the Battle Mac could sip like a Prius and punch like an Abrams, we might be onto something.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Sounds like some unhappy spectators out there. Hell, if I were you, I’d abandon the platform altogether. The rest of us won’t have to hear your noise anymore.
I gotta admit, I always get a little concerned when people start preaching about the “performance per watt.” I’m more interested in performance for my PowerMac G5. If it’s half as fast and uses a quarter of the electricity, it still means those video effects will take twice as long.
That’s why I’m pretty sure that the PowerMacs will be the last to change over to Intel.
On another note, one of the interesting things that is missing from these new CPUs is HyperThreading. When I used an Intel Mac at WWDC, I noticed that turning on HyperThreading made a huge difference! HD video was impossible to watch without HT. With it on, it did an okay job.
‘With all the concerns…’ wrote:
“Sounds like some unhappy spectators out there. Hell, if I were you, I’d abandon the platform altogether. The rest of us won’t have to hear your noise anymore.”
If only they would!
atomic flower – you are 100% correct. For many Mac users the fact that they weren’t using Windows or Intel is what was appealing. These are the people that believe they are INDIVIDUALS because they SYSTEMATICALLY reject everything that is mainstream (and thereby define themselves as a distinct GROUP – yet they are unaware of this irony). They don’t seem to have any REAL appreciation of what made the platform different.
Regarding the loss of Altivec, this is a very interesting discussion:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/419005973731
Regarding the talk of DRM, I understand the concern, but not the hysteria.
It would be ignorant to think that DRM is not going to becoming increasingly part of our lives. The people that create (or at least OWN) content/intelectual property (i.e. audio/video/software) are going to want to ensure that they maintain that ownership/control over their work (or financial interests).
Whilst you “free content for everyone” mob may all be hanging out for your Star Trek utopia where no one earns money, we all just run around in the pursuit of knowledge, the rest of us are grounded in the reality that human beings are not that evolved, we are still very PRIMATIVE in our ownership of resources, and as such DRM will be forced upon us.
Again looking towards the possible positives (rather than assuming disaster) Apple has a HISTORY of implementing FAIR DRM (eg Fairplay). I’d much rather Apple take a lead here rather than ‘They that should not be named’ (it’s free publicity they don’t deserve).
For those of you clinging to the fact that AMD and IBM don’t have DRM on their (PUBLIC) road map, again take a dose of reality check. If Apple, DELL, HP etc etc want to make products that allow people to use digital media on their hardware, Hollywood and the Record Industry are going to INSIST that they can provide DRM (or they will maintain their hostility towards the digital formats). As such if AMD want to keep selling chips to customers that require DRM, they will start to incorporate DRM.
If Apple can produce hardware that accounts for Hollywoods demands it is likely they will be able to create a video based version of iTunes content provision. The good thing is that with Apple at the helm, it is likely that the rights negotiated for the end user will be a lot better than what Hollywood would naturally want to provide.
Once Apple sets the ‘standard’ (once again) of what kind of rights end-users should/will have after they have purchased downloaded movies etc, other competitors will have to follow suit.
So yes I expect DRM is a big reason in this decision. I also expect that the result is that Apple will change the delivery of content in another industry as well, and consumers will be a lot better off that they WOULD HAVE BEEN if someone else did it first.
my 2 cents
Luke
abq Peter, an M1 is indeed a tank:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
LukeinOz,
Very good take. I’ve been saying for weeks that even if Apple had stuck with PowerPC, any major move into online video delivery would almost certainly have required IBM to build DRM onto their hardware. Otherwise, Apple would have had to put it on the board anyway.
6 one way. Half a dozen the other.
LukeInOz says: “Regarding … DRM, I understand the concern, but not the hysteria. It would be ignorant to think that DRM is not going to be … part of our lives. The people that create (or at least OWN) content … are going to want to ensure that they maintain … control over their … financial interests. Whilst you “free content for everyone” mob may all be hanging out for your Star Trek utopia … the rest of us are grounded in the reality that human beings are not that evolved, … and as such DRM will be forced upon us.”
Luke, I realize that my harping on this point casts me as one of the “ignorant” to you. However, I never said that DRM of some sort in the digital world was a bad thing. For example, I think Apple got it fundamentally right with the method they use to secure music in iTunes, striking the balance between protecting content from misuse and not making egregious demands on those who purchase, and hence rightly own, copies of it.
The tension between those two interests is what’s driving this debate, but consider that this tension only made itself known when the purchasers of music could use technology to replay what they bought in a more convenient way. Before then, people had to learn to play an instrument and/or sing around the family piano to enjoy purchased sheet music of their favorite songs, or go to a movie house or live theater to see a show. Record players, radio, and TV made that level of investment (in time and money) less necessary, but even then the provision of content was entirely one-sided; shows came on TV when companies deemed, records were made – or played on radio – largely according to what the companies wanted, etc …
The revolution occured when consumer level magnetic tape recording machines (first audio, then video) became available. This is what sent producers in a tizzy, because it upset the established regime of their being able to determine what, where, and sometimes when music and video was played. This was considered such a danger to ‘intellectual property’ (though not called this) that they did everything they could to put the technology and it’s users in a deep dark hole somewhere. But, back in the 70s, when the law was the law, & America was still America, judges said “no” – unless someone did something illegal with a technology, they should not be denied access to it or be punished for using it. In otherwords, innocent until proven guilty.
And, in fact, these companies did NOT go out of business once the technology became widespread, the artists were actually BETTER compensated for ther efforts, and everybody made even MORE money after the technology than before. But still the companies chaffed, because – dammit – just think of how much more we COULD be making if we still had CONTROL!
Apple made a lot of public noise over the fact that they had a DRM strategy for iTunes designed from the start to respect the historic balance between producer and consumer. They weren’t throwing in with the suits; they were Defenders of the Faith, and lauded because of it. But this new scenario, as it’s playing out, is nothing like that ‘happy ending’. Macintel is surely going to incorporate a new form of DRM, but Apple is silent on the matter this time – in fact is laying smoke regarding ‘performance/watt’ to cover for it. Is the underlying technology is so powerful, and hence vulnerable to misuse by those who hold the keys to it, that no one wants to poison the waters prior to it becoming the defacto standard? I think this is a valid concern.
Check out yet another article from ArsTechnica – godblessum – if you have your doubts:
On Windows Vista and DRM …
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars
Pertinent Quote: “Apple will be on board too, possibly with the release of Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5)… [W]ith the company intending to release Leopard around the same time as Vista, that means that we’ll be seeing HDCP (the official name of the new DRM scheme) support on the Mac – powered by Intel! – probably around the same time as the release of Windows Vista. And until then, we’ll all be scratching our heads as to how our Linux friends will solve this quandary, because HDCP has to be commercially licensed. Well, that is unless DVD Jon swoops in again, but cracking BDA’s discs won’t be as simple as cracking CSS.”
Continued …
Luke, Melis, Justified – and anyone else who thinks the concerns over DRM are overblown – I hope you read the above link carefully. Ars has some of the most sober analysts in the business, and the tome of this article is anything but ‘comfortable’. And this is only one of many other articles out there that are starting to put the pieces together. I figured out what I did from simple inductive reasoning, pulling bits of info here and there and figuring out how they all fit in the picture. Once these guys, much more knowlegable than me, start unwrapping all the layers, I think we all be in for a big, none to happy, surprise.
Look, when the potential for some company, or group thereof, to control when, or even if, I watch or listen to media that I’ve fairly purchased with my own hard earned money, and when those same companies are as tight-lipped as they are regarding that possibility, then I get worried. When an ostensibly independent company like Apple – once one of the ‘good guys’ – is convinced to toss two generations of software users (PPC for Classic and OSX) and a superior performing CPU, in favor of that same controlling DRM scheme, I get more worried.
For me its simple: If a computer company is ranking ‘building better computers’ as second to this kind of stuff, what makes you think a high priority will be placed on fair ownership, or even privacy of your person, once DRM chips are in everything you could possibly buy – Windows and Mac alike? This isn’t a matter of advocating DRM vs. no DRM; it’s a question of fair DRM vs. some techno-scenario cooked up in a boardroom somewhere that hurts the future advancement of the computer industry AND my rights as a citizen.
Maybe that’s hysteria, and maybe it’s fair warning. If you feel like what I’ve outlined is ok for you, then there’s nothing more to be said. But if you don’t like it, but just think it ain’t gonna happen … well, I’d ask only that you keep your eyes open, and abide by the enduring wisdom of ‘better safe than sorry’. Frankly, the track record of these companies, that you’re treating as relatively harmless, shows that they don’t warrant your trust.
My 2cents too
OK – where 4 cents and counting…
Odessey67 wrote:
“Luke, I realize that my harping on this point casts me as one of the “ignorant” to you.”
Actually no, I don’t think you are ignorant. As you stated you expect DRM to arrive. I was simply stating that those that think that we will avoid DRM by “fighting” it or “resisting” it are fooling themselves. Until humans evolve beyond our basic desires to have more than the next person (and from watching my two young nieces growing up that instinct kicks in at a pretty young age!) we will have people wanting to control “assets” they “own”.
You then move onto magnetic tape recording and how (despite the doomsayers) it was a success for consumers AND content providers (in the long run).
So that is EXACTLY why I think that in the end their will be benefits ALL round. How that will come to pass will not be by bemoaning the content owners they rights to protect their property.
We MUST acknowledge that this is a different situation to magnetic tape. To copy magnetic tape required a physical interaction between source and destination. Meaning that if I owned a Beatles album, and you wanted to copy it you had to PHYSICALLY get the tape from me. This meant that copying was restricted to mostly people you knew. Also whilst you had my tape to copy it, I wasn’t able to listen to it (this was all hypothetical – I’d never share my music!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cheese” style=”border:0;” /> )
However in the digital age, you can be on the OTHER SIDE of the planet, not even know me and only ONE original source file can be sent to MILLIONS of others very quickly and easily. You can also use the file whilst you send a copy to someone else!
Also tape to tape or LP to tape reproduction was “lossy”. Sound quality was NEVER quite the same. Digital files have no such issue.
This is a MAJOR magnitude of difference!
So what we have is an industry that wants to restrict your ability to make high quality copies of material they own. Remember when you buy a CD or DVD you don’t own the album/movie, you own a LICENSE for the album/movie! You have unrestricted rights to use the CD/DVD within the license agreement – i.e. you can watch it as many times as you like. You may (depending on what country your in) LEGALLY make a backup copy, but you cannot distribute that copy to ANYONE. You can sell your licence to someone else, but you must not keep a copy and use it. It is ALL VERY simple.
I don’t read the ArsTechnia article and see Apple as a BAD GUY now.
All it says is that Apple will have to play ball to be involved (gee isn’t that what I was saying about AMD and IBM???)
It does not address what I was suggesting, which is that if Apple is the first to set a “fair usage” criteria, then it is likely that we can assume (based on past experience) that this will be alright for the average person that simply wants to make a copy of a TV show/Movie for their own back-up. I don’t expect that it will allow a free for all – but then unless you want to break the law, this isn’t a concern.
Odesse67 wrote:
“This isn’t a matter of advocating DRM vs. no DRM; it’s a question of fair DRM vs. some techno-scenario cooked up in a boardroom somewhere that hurts the future advancement of the computer industry AND my rights as a citizen.”
EXACTLY – Apple has a HISTORY of negotiating FAIR DRM. They have a HISTORY of arguing (rightly) that restrictive usage rights drive PIRACY. Apple have a HISTORY of driving “future advancement” in the computer industry (why will this suddenly change – maybe they are desperate to develop a WORKABLE DRM scheme, so that they ensure it works to EVERYONE’s advantage, including your “rights as a citizen.”
Now regarding those rights – FAIR DRM does NOT infringe on them if you are adhering to the LAW. So instead of lamenting about the Intel move because of DRM, realise that Apple isn’t “ranking ‘building better computers’ as second to this kind of stuff” They have simply realised that the best COMPUTERS and COMPUTING experience in the FUTURE will have tackled DRM HEAD-ON, embraced it and made it WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE, rather than adopting what someone else has cooked up!
I certainly trust Apple to ensure my usage rights are fair than Microsoft, HP, and DELL, the record industry or Hollywood. So instead of bitching about their move to Intel because of DRM, I want to support it, and ensure they know that the model they used in music is what they need to push moving forward.
continued…
cont…
Don’t you see, without DRM (i.e. with IBM (or AMD))Apple COULD NOT negotiate fair DRM for video content (they had DRM (Fairplay) for music. As such the only way to set a DRM standard is to have some DRM, and that meant a move to Intel.
Why the crap about performance? Well you’d hardly tell Hollywood we’re setting ourselves up to be in the strongest position to negotiate with (against??) you. And as is evidenced by the misinformation about DRM (i.e. fair DRM rights DON’T impair LEGAL use), it wasn’t probably the thing to announce. Oh and the fact that IBM still couldn’t produce a decent MOBILE processor without cooking your lap – that was just the thing that SEALED the deal.
We now have 6 cents between us!
Luke
Oh and regarding this comment:
“Frankly, the track record of these companies, that you’re treating as relatively harmless, shows that they don’t warrant your trust.”
ummm… read my posts, I do NOT treat the record companies and Hollywood (or Micro… ooops ‘They who shall not be named’) as harmless!!!
As I have said I understand why they are desperately clinging onto their empire (human nature – if you owned stock in record comanies you’d probably want them to protect your share price for you!). However I think FAIR DRM will only occur when someone like Apple shows them that FAIR usage reduces piracy, rather than encourages it.
I don’t trust the record companies or Hollywood to NATURALLY give us a fair deal, but I DO understand that Apple devloping a STRONG (BUT FAIR) DRM system will end up being to EVERYONE’s benefit. And I do TRUST Apple will be approaching the issue from an END-USER perspective, as they have always designed products (software or hardware and EVEN Fairplay DRM) with the end user IN MIND.
geeze – 8 cents, your reply will get us a dime!
Luke
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
PS – I also remember the WAILING that went on about Fairplay when it was introduced. Then everyone realised how FAIR it was (I understand no DRM is better for us users, but Fairplay is a win-win for all parties).
Geeze – that’s definately not ‘where 4 cents and counting’ it most ceratinly should be ‘we’re 4 cents and counting’
ummmm…
YEP…
OK move along nothing to see here…
even try ‘certainly’
that works too…
I’m off to bed now.
LukeInOz says: “We MUST acknowledge that this is a different situation to magnetic tape. To copy … tape required a physical interaction between source and destination… This meant that copying was restricted to mostly people you knew… However in the digital age, you can be on the OTHER SIDE of the planet, … and only ONE original source file can be sent to MILLIONS of others very quickly and easily… Also tape to tape or LP to tape reproduction was “lossy”. Sound quality was NEVER quite the same. Digital files have no such issue. This is a MAJOR … difference! So … we have is an industry that wants to restrict your ability to make high quality copies of material they own. “
First, from a purely technical standpoint, until CDs themselves are recorded in lossless format, and until lossless supplants MP3 as the defacto standard of what’s most widely available in other digital domains, then the argument that digital copies’ inherent ‘pristine-ness’ throws out the whole magnetic tape comparison is false. Back in the day, good quality records recorded to good quality tapes were just as good – some old timers would say better – as copying any music from CDs and iTunes today. So, insofar as quality goes, that is no reason to advocate stricter DRM controls.
Your second point has more merit on it’s face, but points to what this is really all about – control, not quality. Yes, digitizing this stuff makes it easier to move around, thus making it easier for crooks to do their dirty work. However, the flip side is that it makes it easier, and cheaper, for the producers to move around too, which – if they pass those advanatges on to the consumer – makes them a boatload of cash thanks to a wider market, AND benefits us by making all kinds of new stuff available at a more affordable prices. In fact, portability is the great advantage found in every new advance that we’re talking about – music, and later the visual arts, all benefited from being recorded, and then having those recordings be more easily disseminated.
It was only when the technology shifted so much that it forced producers to be honest – in regards to how much they charged and what they made available – that their yowls began. It’s no different for digital technology; this is just the latest threshold they don’t want to cross without controlling every aspect of it. It doesn’t matter that the history of magnetic A/V tape, or the present success of iTunes shows that isn’t necessary, that more than enough honest people are out there to help ‘grow the pie’, provided you don’t force them into criminal conduct by being overly restrictive with your product, or charge too much for it. I don’t say the following as a wide-eyed liberal – corporations like control and money, and love controlling how they make money. Its just their nature. Yet that has to be taken into account when you assess their motivations for anything. To do otherwise, as a consumer, is stupid.
While I have no crystal ball, I predict that IF the industry isn’t allowed to go ahead with their plans for a stifling DRM scheme (either by govt or consumer action), we will in fact see a kind of golden age for media. People all over the world, being given access to low cost, high quality digital media, on demand, has the potential to be truely revolutionary – and a real money maker for everyone involved.
“Remember when you buy a CD or DVD you don’t own the album/movie, you own a LICENSE …! You have unrestricted rights to use the CD/DVD within the license agreement – i.e. you can watch it as many times as you like. You may … LEGALLY make a backup copy, but you cannot distribute that copy to ANYONE. You can sell your licence to someone else, but you must not keep a copy and use it. It is ALL VERY simple.”
Yes, it is – thanks to legal battles that were waged when tape was the ‘next big thing’. The only reason any of this has come up again is because many of these companies have always wanted to reverse those battles, and see the opportunity in using ‘big, bad, digital’ as the wedge issue. Yet nothing you have stated about licenses and use is any different for the consumer in the digital realm than it was in the analog. There’s no threat to the company UNTIL you commit the crime.
And, as has been said ad nauseum (but is true nonetheless), most people aren’t interested in committing crimes. Generally, they don’t even do it if it’s easy – they only do it if it’s easy AND in their economic interest. Which means that if we all know that it costs next to nothing to create and distribute a digital file (which is true), then paying a huge markup for the privilege (which as Apple’s ongoing battles with the “idiots” in the recording industry over pricing shows is the prevalent mentality) means we are being taken advantage of, and it’s in no one’s interest to let that happen to them.
Cont…
Luke says: “Apple has a HISTORY of negotiating FAIR DRM. They have a HISTORY of arguing (rightly) that restrictive usage rights drive PIRACY. Apple have a HISTORY of driving “future advancement” in the computer industry (why will this suddenly change – maybe they are desperate to develop a WORKABLE DRM scheme, so that they ensure it works to EVERYONE’s advantage, including your “rights as a citizen.” Now regarding those rights – FAIR DRM does NOT infringe on them if you are adhering to the LAW. So instead of lamenting about the Intel move because of DRM, realise that Apple isn’t “ranking ‘building better computers’ as second to this kind of stuff” They have simply realised that the best COMPUTERS and COMPUTING experience in the FUTURE will have tackled DRM HEAD-ON, embraced it and made it WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE, rather than adopting what someone else has cooked up! I certainly trust Apple to ensure my usage rights are fair than Microsoft, HP, and DELL, the record industry or Hollywood.”
This is one way of looking at it, and I understand why you would see it this way. However, I don’t think Apple’s history is a guarantee of future performance. One is that Jobs has more money at stake himself now, in that Pixar’s movies are huge potential moneymakers for him. The dichotomy between what he championed with Apple & music vs. what’s good for him with Pixar & video, I think, muddies the waters much more than you believe.
Furthermore, Apple had the advantage of ‘stealth’ when they got into music – no one knew what to do about it, or how much money could be made, and Apple was small enough to be considered an experiment of sorts. That’s not going to be the case in the future. Ironically, Apple’s success has shut the door to their getting their way the way they did with iTMS, on a whole host of issues, because the content providers now know what the stakes are. And they want control of those stakes – they don’t want to be in any more negotiations with Apple where they are not in the drivers seat. That’s why I think they were ‘encouraged’ into going with Intel’s DRM (do it or we won’t give you the content), and why that is an indicator that they aren’t going to be as effective in resisting what these companies want to do (even if you discount the Pixar problem), as they have been with iTMS.
These companies are, I believe, laying the groundwork to ensure that Apple won’t be in as much control over video as they currently are in audio. They were caught napping before – I don’t think they’ll let that happen again if they can help it.
cont…
Like says: “Don’t you see, without DRM (i.e. with IBM (or AMD))Apple COULD NOT negotiate fair DRM for video content (they had DRM (Fairplay) for music. As such the only way to set a DRM standard is to have some DRM, and that meant a move to Intel. Why the crap about performance? Well you’d hardly tell Hollywood we’re setting ourselves up to be in the strongest position to negotiate with (against??) you. And as is evidenced by the misinformation about DRM (i.e. fair DRM rights DON’T impair LEGAL use), it wasn’t probably the thing to announce. Oh and the fact that IBM still couldn’t produce a decent MOBILE processor without cooking your lap – that was just the thing that SEALED the deal.”
As an aside (sort of), IBM came out with a low power 970FX, and Freescale with a dual core G4, like a month after Jobs said they could’t cut it anymore. Do I wish it could have happened sooner? You bet. But in the grand scheme of things this was no great problem fpr Apple. iBooks and PBs are still selling like – ahem, pardon the pun – hotcakes even with the basic G4. We’d likely be seeing low power G5 laptops, or dual core G4 versions (whichever were better), by Xmas if Apple had stayed with them. And yeah, I DO think that would be Very Good – better than Intel’s stuff.
In fact, I think those offerings could have been so much better that I have no confidence anymore that Apple is anywhere near as strong in this DRM battle, for our rights anyway, as you think they are. If they couldn’t even stick with the processor architecture that they’ve built the company on, and that has more upside for the future in terms of performace, then exactly how much pull can they possibly have?
IBM could have incorporated some form of DRM, it’s based on technology they have mastery of, and Apple obviously has a lot of experience themselves since AAC’s software version is their creation. And why exactly would Apple NOT try to do the same for video, since they would both have much more conrol over the technology, and wouldn’t have to pay royalties (as is the case now with using Intel’s DRM – see the article I posted). I think it’s because Intel’s version is the one the content providers settled on – without Apple’s input – and options were discouraged. More reason that I think Apple isn’t in the driver’s seat anymore.
cont…
Nice posts Luke, but I can’t keep this up. Sorry (I’m a such weenie).
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
I’ll catch you on the next topic!