Apple having a tough time trying to get new Intel processors early?

The Inquirer’s Charlie Demerjian claims that Apple is trying to get Intel to provide their newest processors, Woodcrest and Merom, to Apple early.

Apple is big, but not nearly big enough to bully Intel, unless it has to do with iTunes DRM. So just what can Apple do? It could attempt to put pressure on Intel to give it the necessary chips early. So Apple is doing just that, and sources claim that it isn’t flying as well as it had hoped. Any tale of cool, need or woe won’t fly very far against the argument of “Dell sells 20 times what you do, why should we give you preferential treatment again?”

Full article here.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Intel shows new chips, talks ‘performance per watt’– August 23, 2005

27 Comments

  1. I wonuldn’t be bullying Intel around… There’s only so many ‘stores’ that are selling processors! AMD might like a call, but I’d stick with Intel, and remember that patience is a virtue… ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

  2. It’s not conjecture – this is the problem Apple will have for as long as it sell as many (or as few) computers as it does. Moving to Intel was never going to change this fact, or its consequences.

    And Apple knows this. They may be going through some ‘same ol same ol’ with Intel now instead of IBM or Motorola, but I gaurantee that for Jobs and the rest of the head honchos, this is just a matter of changing company names and phone numbers on the speed dial.

    Everyone needs to face the sad truth: Apple did not move to Intel to get uber-CPUs (because Intel’s CPUs frankly aren’t that good compared to their direct competition, and x86 isn’t as good as PPC), or for better costs (both Freescale and IBM sold them CPUs for about the same price per unit), or for a better supply relationship (as this story more than adequately demonstrates). They moved to Intel for hardware DRM. Period.

    All this rigamoral, and the eventual forced-obsolesence of a computing architechture that the supercomuter makers continually laud as being the best available, is simply so your future Macintels can be locked down tight. So that you will be spied on, checked over, and if necessary prosecuted for doing anything that media companies don’t want you to be doing. We’ll have the iVideo Store, and video iPods, and some kind of iVideoServer … but we won’t have better, faster, or cheaper computers under the Intel regime. They’ll just be Intel computers running OSX.

    And, as far as this commentator is concerned, it all sucks ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool mad” style=”border:0;” />

  3. The question is Apple really doing this? Or is this story made up to cause everyone to go in a panic. My guess is the latter. Someone intercepts an email from Apple asking about intel processors and right away the conclusion is Apple wants them earlier so now they write a story about it saying Apple is trying to bully Intel. Far fetched in my view.

  4. Let’s assume for a moment that this is all true – that Intel won’t come through for Apple until, say, next September.

    What recourse would Apple have?

    Go to AMD? Slink back to IBM to do yet another bump of the G5 (970)?

    I would not buy Apple stock at this moment, but I can sure see it dipping a bit if this story doesn’t get cleared up (Apple needs to put out some damage control PR)

  5. Odessey wrote:
    “blah, blah, blah ……..(as this story more than adequately demonstrates).”

    This article doesn’t do ANYTHING adequately! Jobs said that the switch to Intel will have started be June next year, and should be complete by the end of 2007. As far as I know, no one from Apple, or Intel, has stated what processors are going to be used.

  6. This is a whole new ball game for Apple. It will be competing directly (sort of) with the likes of Dell to see who can introduce Intel’s processors first. Of course if Mac OS X runs faster and smoother than Vista right out of the gate, being first won’t matter as much. It should be quite the horse race!

  7. FUD on the part of “The Inquirer”. Intel will do everything to keep their new customer happy. They want to supply chips to the “next big consumer appliance” that is in the pipeline. Unlike their supposed other “partner” who jumped to IBM for the XBox…

  8. Who the hell is the Inquirer? After a year of following news closely, why is this the first time I’ve heard of this site? Sounds like a load of crap to me. Secondly, who are they quoting here?: “Dell sells 20 times what you do, why should we give you preferential treatment again?”

    What do they mean by again? When has intel given Apple preferential anything? This story is incomplete and confusing, hardly what I’d call a scoop. They picked up some hits, so good for them. I have some more time to kill. Looks like we broke even. =)

  9. The knives are out now that Apple is in an upswing, and the FUD is deeper that the flooding in Louisiana. But, hey, if investors buy into this crap and the stock price dips temporarily, I’ll be able to buy in! No downside I can see!

    MW = ill
    as in, the FUD still makes me ill

  10. Nobody ever said that the transition would be immediate. Apple has signed deals with FreeScale for PPC supply through 2008 and they have dual core PPC chips that will work very well in PowerBooks for as long as Apple needs to transition. IBM is just now ramping up Antares (Dual Core G5) and AMD is always an option. The NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP roots of OS X supported multiple CPUs and can do so today.

  11. “(Apple needs to put out some damage control PR)”

    No they don’t. This is a non-story. This doesnt affect most people who buy computers. People have gotten over the ‘I need the biggest baddest thing available’ routine. The only group this affects are all the Mac Fanboys who whine and complain about everything.

    MW ‘report’ as in this “report” means nothing at this stage of the game.

Reader Feedback

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