Michel Mayer, chief executive of Freescale Semiconductor, talked with CNET’s Michael Singer in an interview published today. “While the public may not have a clue, industry insiders are quite familiar with Freescale. The company’s best-known client is Apple Computer, which is under contract to use Freescale chips to build its G4 PowerPC computers through the end of 2008,” Singer writes.
Singer asked Mayer about the G5 and Apple’s move to Intel-based Macs:
Weren’t you there during the discussions when IBM convinced Apple to adopt the G5?
Mayer: In my previous job, I ran IBM’s semiconductor business. So I’ve seen both sides of the Apple story, because I sold the G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to move to Intel.
Five years ago?
Mayer: Yeah, that’s about right. So I sold the G5. First I told IBM that we needed to do it, and then I sold it to Apple that the G5 was good and it was going to be the follow-on of the PowerPC road map for the desktop. It worked pretty well. And then IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles.
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews reader “Sailfish” for the link.]
It’s very interesting to finally see it in print and from a reputable new source that Steve Jobs wanted to move to Intel long ago and that IBM’s decision not to develop G5s for portable use finally pushed him to act.
Advertisements: The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Report: Intel-based Mac mini, iBook, iMac models due June 6th in Taiwan market – December 06, 2005
IT consultant: Apple Intel-based Macs coming later than you think – December 05, 2005
Apple resellers in the dark about Intel-based Mac transistion plans – December 03, 2005
Should you buy a new Apple PowerBook G4 now or wait until they have Intel Inside? – December 03, 2005
It’s official: Apple CEO Steve Jobs to deliver Macworld San Francisco 2006 keynote address – December 01, 2005
Citigroup: Intel-based PowerBook in January, Apple target price raised to $71 – November 30, 2005
Intel: no comment on Apple participating in ‘Viiv’ entertainment platform – November 30, 2005
Intel starts up internal ‘Apple group’ – November 22, 2005
RUMOR: Intel-based Apple iBooks coming in January with extremely low price tags – November 17, 2005
Will future Intel-based Apple Macs offer multiple OS worlds via virtualization? – November 16, 2005
Intel-based Macs dominate January’s Macworld Expo 2006 rumor mill – November 14, 2005
JupiterResearch analyst wouldn’t be shocked to see Intel-based Mac debut in January 2006 – November 09, 2005
UBS: Apple to unveil Intel-based Mac mini in January; AAPL share price target raised to $74 – November 07, 2005
Apple patent application describes Intel-based Macs that run Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows – November 05, 2005
RUMOR: Apple’s Intel-based Macs coming in first quarter 2006 – November 04, 2005
Truly cretinous, if true. Which I have no reason to doubt.
Still, the concentration on Xbox 360 is really paying off at the moment and PS3 is still a way off – so I hope IBM are sure about the choices they’ve made otherwise East Fishkill is going to be looking a little under-utilised.
yeah, IBM really gave apple the finger in that regard. so many people were looking forward to a 64-bit PB, but to no avail. i remember sitting on the edge of my seat even a year ago, ancipating a PB G5.
i guess to IBM, they’re just losing a minor client, whose sales will be made up for by microsoft and sony. bastards.
Well now, huh. MDN gets it right again. Let’s hope that Intel has some 64 bit chips on its roadmap. Some 64’s for portables will be nice too.
dub said: “i guess to IBM, they’re just losing a minor client, whose sales will be made up for by microsoft and sony. bastards.”
Apple will yet get the last laugh as they slowly but surely ramp up their market share and make themselves a company to recon with. IBM will eventually regret this decision. They will really need their xbox contract!
just goes to show how forward-thinking Jobs is, yet again.
Is he just regurgitating the line that steve gave us? Cuz IBM has since announced some very notebook friendly G5’s. Does he know something about this chips, such as IBM never had any plans to mass produce them, that is new information? If IBM was the one who left the relationship that makes more sense to me and quells my fears that apple is switching just to get extra strength DRM or access to intel’s movie store or any of the many non processor things intel is doing that i couldn’t care less about and am hoping apple doesn’t start using.
It can’t be true. Sammy said it was all about “low power” and efficiency. Not about IBM cutting off the pipeline…He’ll post article links (I’m certain) to prove that Mayer doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.
Ponder this…would Apple have even survived long enough running Intel crap starting back in 2000 to have let the iPod take off and rescue its business?
Dude, you’d be getting a Dell by now if they did.
Capt. Steve Zissou
Whatever happened to the Motorola G5? I’d sure like to get the story behind it.
– Mark
tooting his own horn? Maybe not, just makes you wonder if he’s exaggerating about how much he personally achieved.
And when Steve “wanted to” go Intel before, did that mean he was actually set on it back then? Probably not. It meant he was THINKING about it and planning to be able to. Which we already know he was doing, of course.
I can’t believe there are 54 Freescale chips in a 7 series BMW.
That’s more than in a small bag of Frito-Lays.
It’s definitely informative to hear another voice in this, but some of what he says just doesn’t add up.
First, he claims he sold the G5 to Apple, and yet everything I’ve found on the subject says Apple and IBM worked in conjunction to develop G5. They paid IBM to make it to their specs. The way he puts it, its as if IBM sold Apple a finished, already paid for product. That’s a huge departure from what was reported at the time.
Second, he makes the claim that IBM wasn’t interested in developing a G5 for laptops, and yet the current 970FX – announced just a month or so after Jobs announced the Macintel transition – is low power enough to be used in a laptop. There’s no way they could have rolled it out that fast if it hadn’t been on the drawing board for a while.
Last, he says something in the article that’s just plain confusing:
“CNET – Because there is no innovation left on the PC?
Mayer – It’s not that the PC is dead. It’s a huge
business. We are most probably going to revitalize our
PowerPC. I don’t know if it’s going to be called
PowerPC. A lot of people have questions on the PowerPC
architecture and what’s going on.”
He then goes on to essentially say PPC is in so many things that NOT being in on computers is all good.
So which is it?
And that whole thing about Apple moving to Intel 5 years ago – that strikes me as implausible. With the size of the Classic userbase as it was then, there’s no way Apple could have survived a transition to x86 without bringing them along. Massive stock valuations and iPod cash were but a gleam in everybody’s eye, so there was no margin for that kind of error.
How much of this is factual, and how much is trying to make things look a certain way after the fact?
Think about what this means. Since Apple really had no (or little) choice but to go with Intel, there’s no reason to think that there’s anything amazing coming up that Apple got a sneak peak at in order to convince them to drop PPC.
So Steve thought PowerPC chips sucked about 5 years ago but kept deceptively spreading the koolaid that they were the greatest (Intel sucked) so we would all buy them.
Steve´s probably already in talks with AMD to switch to them, “Intel just won´t make enough chips fast enough for my needs – Intel thinks Windows PCs are their biggest customer!!! So AmD ready to make a deal???”
Well…….so much for Steve deciding Intel was better – IBM basically told him the deal is over….take a hike. Steve did not have any other choice but Intel.
I am waiting for the new Mactels – they better be lots faster…but why do I smell this line coming from Steve: “They may not be as fast, but the battery life is longer….”
IBM knew full well the needs of it’s clients.
What IBM believes and so does Microsoft and Sony, is that consoles will take the place of personal computers.
This is why M$ and Sony take a bloodbath on every console shipped. (they make some up in the software licenses)
Think about it, the X-Box 360 has three PPC processors that are probably worth three times the cost of a X-Box 360 retail.
It must be spring, cuz I smell fertilize.
I’d like to point out that, Mayer has had several months to come up with that ‘version’ of the story.
All evidence has been buried
All tapes have been erased
But your footsteps give you away
So you’re backtracking
Accept it Odessey67…
Your darling IBM f%^ked up.
They did not COMMIT to MOBILE solutions, note your precious 970FX is yet to ACTUALLY be used in a laptop solution. And ALL power/thermal claims are just that CLAIMS, no one has tested it apart from IBM’s PR – umm I mean – semiconductor unit.
When he says he SOLD the G5 to IBM AND Apple, this still fits with what you described.
You first have to SELL/convince Apple and IBM that this product should be pursued and THEN they worked together to develop it. As you said yourself, chips don’t get designed in a short time, and it is likely IBM would not INVEST development costs without Apple agreeing that at least were intereted in buying the end product!!!
Your next point once again proves that you are blind to any information that doesn’t support your stance.
“CNET – Because there is no innovation left on the PC?
Mayer – It’s not that the PC is dead. It’s a huge business. We are most probably going to revitalize our PowerPC. I don’t know if it’s going to be called PowerPC. A lot of people have questions on the PowerPC architecture and what’s going on.”
He then goes on to essentially say PPC is in so many things that NOT being in on computers is all good.
So which is it?”
You are only CONFUSED because comprehending this simple dialogue would mean you’d have to admit that your DRM conspiracy theory may not be the WHOLE reason Apple chose to leave PPC.
What he is saying is
1) The PC business is not dead (as CNET tried to suggest) and that it is BIG business.
2) Freescale are going to revitalise their PowerPC products.
3) They may not brand it PowerPC (and here’s the reason)
4) These CPUs are most likely going to be used in devices that are NOT PCs!!!!
His last point is, the PC business is BIG (but Intel and AMD have that business), and hence it is GOOD for Freescale and IBM NOT TO BE IN THAT BUSINESS where they can focus on other imbedded solutions (also a big market!)
So yes it is ALL GOOD for them.
But of course I’m sure you are convinced that YOU know more about this than Michel Mayer and hell probably even more then Steve Jobs.
my 2 cents
Luke
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
“Well now, huh. MDN gets it right again. Let’s hope that Intel has some 64 bit chips on its roadmap. Some 64’s for portables will be nice too.”
Done. Intel’s current Celeron and Pentium chips are 64-bit capable. Also, in the second half of 2006, Intel will release Merom, a 64-bit capable Pentium M.
“And that whole thing about Apple moving to Intel 5 years ago – that strikes me as implausible. With the size of the Classic userbase as it was then, there’s no way Apple could have survived a transition to x86 without bringing them along.”
This point doesn’t make any sense. Believe it or not, there’s no reason Classic couldn’t have been made to run on the x86. The reason it isn’t happening with this transition is presumably a combination of knowledge atrophy, higher expectations of Classic, reduced need and other cost-related factors rather than strictly technical reasons.
MacDude, consoles won’t take the place of personal computers, but they do have a better shot at the living room. Of course if Apple does a decent job of marketing a Mac mini with Front Row, it’ll have a good crack at it too (especially with the iPod and burgeoning iTMS content).
Oh yeah, and the one thing working against consoles is their perception as games machines. A Mac mini would have no such perceptions.
Luke! How’s things down under?
Listen, I’m not saying what he says isn’t food for thought, but I’m going to need to hear and see more than this before I take it whole cloth. Like I said, there’s just a tad too much contadiction in these brief statements here.
As for a ‘real’ 970FX mobile solution, um, it’s kind of hard since Apple isn’t buying them. That’s the thing that’s always conveniently glossed over in this particular debate. Apple is (for now anyway) the only company that would make a consumer computer with PPC, and since they have no reason to make one now, there’s no chance of seeing new products of any stripe. Its intellectually dishonest to assert the impossibility of something when the only agent for it’s creation won’t build it.
Last, you say: “His last point is, the PC business is BIG (but Intel and AMD have that business), and hence it is GOOD for Freescale and IBM NOT TO BE IN THAT BUSINESS where they can focus on other imbedded solutions (also a big market!)” You could be right about his intent, but that’s not logical. Assuming the obvious – that every PPC Mac sold is an Intel unit that isn’t – then there is no reason to not support Apple, if you’re IBM especially (they aren’t really in the imbed space). You directly hurt your major competitor in the field they value the most. Maybe that escaped IBM, but I doubt it.
BTW – here’s some very recent info that I just came across, contradicting the assertion that IBM isn’t interested in low power CPUs:
http://news.com.com/IBM,+AMD+further+cut+chip+power+consumption/2100-1006_3-5982887.html?tag=nefd.top
“AMD and IBM have essentially added two technologies to their manufacturing repertoire that strain the silicon layers inside their chips. Straining makes the silicon layers more uniform and rigid, which allows electrons to travel faster. This in turn lets engineers design chips that perform better than existing models, or perform at a similar level but consume less electricity… The … technologies inserted into the AMD-IBM processes reduce power consumption by 40 percent… “
Based on 65nm process that the article says AMD will be shipping in second half of 2006. Nothing said about what IBM’s schedule is, but I’m sure it’s not too different.
Anyway, you don’t do this kind of work in low power if it isn’t a part of your business plan.
There’s probably a grain of truth in what all industry leaders say. However most of that is hidden in all the FUD that they spout.
IBM probably did promise a lot to Apple. And they did produce the G5. At the time it had a lot of potential and Apple probably liked the idea of a 64 bit chip.
Apple probably talked about Intel, using it as a carrot to force IBM to commit a lot of resources to get the G5 up and running.
However, IBM probably lost interest in the PC business since Apple were not make huge strides in increasing market share and thus G5 sales. The lack of volume sales for IBM and some costly technical hurdles were making it not worth their while.
At the same time, Apple were getting frustrated that the G5 were not faster enough and production of high end chips were only a trickle. Apple publicly dissing IBM for the lack of G5s for the iMac probably didn’t go down too well.
Finally Intel offers Apple a deal it can’t refuse. Question is, are they, like IBM before, promising the earth without really knowing whether they can actually make those lofty targets.
If Apple could ever get a good supply of fast CPUs for desktop, laptop and now device use, M$, Dell and the others will be in big doggy do-dos
fookin’ hell my brain hurts . . . . too many words . . . . 75 bucks by friday
The sooner Apple gets rid of PPC the better. It’s the last goofy non-standard hardware turd left – they’ve dropped NuBus, Apple Desktop Connector, SCSI, proprietary RAM, and the one button mouse. Bring on the x86 CPUs, it’s about frikkin time.
Does anyone know if IBM could’ve actually produced the 970fx in any quantities? Or would’ve had been another agonizing wait for chips?
My guess is IBM thought Apple was just crying wolf about moving to Intel. They were consistently slow to correct issues that were killing Apple; and that wasn’t changing anytime fast – witness how long it took to get that low-power G5. I believe Apple tried to build a Powerbook with a G5 but likely got tired of the lackadaisical commitment from IBM.
I think Mayer’s story can be explained; I don’t see any contradictions. Of course, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t spun to make IBM look bad – IBM being a competitor and Apple being a customer.
I believe Steve was looking at Intel and thinking of the switch (even if he didn’t actually get bids on chips) five years ago. Heck, he may have been thinking of that since c.1997 when he got back.
I don’t know how many of you saw the web cast when he announced the Intel deal (some here may have been in attendance, lucky dogs), but I clearly remember him saying that every version of OS X that shipped had an x86 “twin” back at the Cupertino skunk works. Clearly this has been in the works for some time.
Mr. O’s razor says the simplest answer is usually the correct one, so I find it easy to believe it went down like Steve said. He knew IBM couldn’t produce enough chips and he did talk about the calculations per energy unit being a big part of the decision.
I’m no expert and maybe I just don’t get it, but it seems that the RISC model will be inherently hotter and a battery hog since it requires more (small) instructions to complete the same tasks in a smaller space. In my head it equates to gears in a transmission, leveraging shorter, faster instruction sets to complete work but paying for it with higher energy consumption. Like a low gear in a car, you can be quick with less horsepower, but you will run out of steam sooner.
Maybe someone who knows how this works could explain. At any rate, we never did see a G5 PB (or a 3GHz G5).
~M
MW-trade: I still wouldn’t trade my Mac (PPC or Intel) for any PC.
What’s with intel anyway? Celery? Pentecost? It’s almost like naming a muscle car [sic] “Poodle.” They’d be better off with letters and numbers than names.
So this guy gives one plausible explanation on the Intel move – any more info on why Intel and not AMD? AMD chips seem to regularly test out as better performing, although the power/heat use has been one of the items mentioned.
MDN keyword “without” – most of us are without a clue as to what Steve is really up to
Interesting comments all around (above I mean.) Esp. the 54 chips vs Frito Lay packet… very funny, if not correct.
I’m wondering tho, this guy, being the big chief at Freescale, is gonna sell his solution isn’t he? He’s a salesman first and foremost when it comes to press releases and interviews.
Thus, his comments about the PC industry being huge, but not innovating is likely correct (from certain points of view), but he also WANTS it to be correct because he sells embedded chips. I think it’s also a subtle dig at Intel’s seeming lack of innovation. And lastly, it may also be sour grapes – they’ve lost the desktop so now they say they don’t need it anyway.
As for selling the G5 to Apple, I’d suspect that as suggested above, they sold the design and needed Apple to help pony up some cash and resources to make it a reality at IBM. Plus, his idea was probably included something like allowing Apple to customise the chip (within reason.)
IBM has also previously claimed that they made only a small profit/broke even on selling these chips to Apple – if true, this is probably the biggest motivation for them giving Apple the sh*ts and being slow in developing new, cooler, faster chips. However, you can’t discount the games played (on both sides) in the whole situation either. It’s also a classic catch-22 – Apple couldn’t sell more computers without cheaper/faster chips, and IBM won’t make cheaper/faster chips without selling more chips. With Apple selling less and less Macs over the past few years, this has probably also demotivated IBM from busting their guts. Of course, now they’re selling plenty of Macs and had a great year, it could be bad timing.
Regarding what was discussed above, I think it’s hard to know if Steve wanted to go Intel upon his return, although he had a very good case – NeXTStep was already well optimized for x86. In a round-about way, his wanting developers to port their apps to Rhapsody and ditch the older Mac OS API totally (as per WWDC 1997) is suggestive – i.e. that once the major apps were on Rhapsody (later OS X), he’d switch CPUs since Classic would no longer be required. Of course, the developers spat it since they didn’t want to redevelop their applications and Carbon was born in 1998. Of course, with Carbon, you could ask why not do as they’ve done now and port it over to x86 in 1999 (or 2000)? Dunno… I’m just theorizing. Maybe they changed their minds about PowerPC and felt the chips were fast enough, and also offered a differentiator which allowed them to charge higher prices? Maybe porting Carbon was a large effort which would take a few years? Who knows besides the Apple board.
I think that we’ll only find out what has *really* gone on between Apple, IBM and Freescale over time from tidbits like this one. In about 5-10 years we might have a fuller, clearer picture, as people will squeal once they leave the companies and non-disclosures are void.
Odyssey67:
It seems that you can’t believe IBM would give Apple the heave ho.
IMHO – it seems like he is telling the truth overall.
Look it all about return on investment. IBM needed huge volume to justify the investment; notatotalsucker is right on this point.
Five years ago Steve was prepared to go to Intel. Mayer, being the salesman convinces both Steve (look this is going to be the next greatest processor) and IBM (look they’re going to sell billions of these chips).
IBM goes for it and gets Steve to help fund and get it off the ground. Steve being cautious continues dual development with Intel off the shelve chips).
Good move on Steve’s part, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
Five years later, IBM looks at its return on investment and doesn’t see HUGE growth for the G5 chips. (They’re looking for Dell quantities not a two million more chips).
They realize they can sell more chips in game consoles and tell Steve you want these chips you gotta pay for them for development since no one else is buying these chips. They probably had some R&D done for G5 low voltage chips but no production.
IBM could most likely put this in work but it cost money to switch production lines. It’s more cost efficient to run one type of chip non-stop.
So Odyssey67 what’s not to understand? IBM would do it if someone paid for it. The cost was too high for Steve to justify (think about the prices of PowerBooks if the chips are more expensive then they are now). Plus who knows when IBM would’ve pulled the plug. IBM would have realized it would be more profitable to make more game console chips then make Apple’s small (relative) chip run.
Just my two cents…
It would have been perhaps a bumpier road, but maybe it could have been a smoother transition to move to Intel and OS X at the same time.
Then again, there was Classic to cosider…
Thank you LukeinOz for tearing apart Odyssey67’s stupid “arguments”.
Classic is an argument to consider, TheConfuzed1. That was a reason I bought a new powerbook last August instead of waiting for the Mactels. There’s a lot of great software out there for Classic. Tons of educational software, for instance (I’ve got 1st and 4th graders). I figured I would get a couple of more years use out of some great titles before I had to turn my back on them completely.
Intel can now play Microsoft against Apple…both will get the same capabilities, innovations…
Without competition, we the consumers will get the short end of the stick with slower development, smaller improvements in technology and new innovations.
The scam now seems how to prevent people from copying music and video….as this is what people need a computer for – replacements for the TV and stereo systems.
In general his statements seem plausable, if slighty skewed — but that goes with being human. (I’m assuming he’s human, though there’s no proof.)
Selling an entire chip line to a customer takes a lot of time (often years — Intel had been in pitching to Apple for many, many years on a very low level effort — discussions were happening when the 68050 got killed and the 68060 looked doomed and they probably never 100% stopped).
Before the 970 (aka G5) became reality, IBM senior personnel did NOT want to make a PowerPC with a vector processor in it. That is why they effectively skipped the G4 and made enhanced G3s instead. Thus I fully believe he had to sell superiors at IBM that a POWER 4 derivative with a vector processor grafted onto it would be a viable product.
Then he had to convice Apple that IBM really would create a PowerPC version with all the bells and whistles Apple wanted. Given IBM’s track record with the PowerPC that was not an easy sell.
The time period is not quite perfect, but about the time he claims Apple was considering switching to Intel was about the time the G4 processor was stalling. It was about the same time (though maybe just a bit more recent than 5 years) that Motorola’s G5 started sampling and started showing problems (to the extent that Motorola killed its G5 rather than fix the bugs).
Apple was annoyed that the G4 was stalled, Moto’s G5 was buggy and IBM historically didn’t want to do a PowerPC with a vector processor. Sounds like a possible combination for Apple to seriously consider Intel.
The seemingly contradictory statements about the PowerPC are not contradictory at all.
First he’s admitting that the personal computer market is still quite large. (He’d be a moron not to admit that.)
Second he’s stating that innovation in the personal computer market is lagging that of other areas where they can market PowerPC derivatives. This may be pure conjecture, but we all know what they say about opinions and everyone having one. (Who’s to say what is really innovation and what isn’t? Both Microsoft and Apple claim to innovate so what kind of innovation is he talking about?)
Third he’s talking about the embedded market. There is a completely different series of chips which are based upon a derivative PowerPC core that will never be able to run in a personal computer — their interfaces are designed to handle things differently.
I suspect this is where Freescale will refocus their PowerPC efforts. Even as far back as 3-4 years ago Motorola made more money off embedded versions of the PowerPC than they did off Apple. (This is one of the factors that went into killing off Motorola’s G5 rather than fix it and ship it to Apple. Moto’s attitude about Apple and the PowerPC [post Apple killing Moto’s clone license] was that the effort spent designing the PowerPC versions for Apple would actually pay off through derivatives of that design when used in, and marketed to, the embedded market. Moto did not see any viable market for an embedded version of the Moto G5. Thus when it was buggy they felt it would not be profitable to spend the time and effort to fix it. Moto figured it was better to cut their losses and tell Apple to get their next generation chips elsewhere.)
I suspect the embedded “PowerPC” line will have a whole new roadmap within the next few months.
Maybe they will even go back to the old naming convention and call it the 98000. (The PowerPC is an 88000 derivative after all [as well as a POWER derivative].)
How about this for a conspiracy theory: Long story short – MS would not consider doing any long term business with IBM firmware products if IBM was going to continue to do business with Apple. Therefore, IBM just kind of let the Good-Ship-Lollypop [Apple], drift quietly away, conveniently NOT dropping any hints that they might have a laptop chip solution in the foreseeable future until after Apple made a public commitment to switch to Intel chips.
So very much of this platform, stand-off-at-the-OK-corral stuff, is all about perception. Even for reasonably well educated, and long-time consumers of personal computing products, it gets to be a real challenge digging through the hype to understand what the real differences are – and then evaluating the differences to understand what is good or bad, or better or best for what I want to do, and the way I want to do it.
Besides the apparently pragmatic reasons for moving to Intel, Apple may also be positioning itself (slowly and carefully) to change public (consumer) perception that not everything with Intel inside has to be MS centric. Even though I believe that, initially, MacIntels will be just like all other Apple hardware is and has been, that is, fully Apple branded, well made, unique looking machines, they will be more easily positioned to expand there OS product to other pc harware manufacturers. Right now anything that doesn’t say Apple on it is running Windows, a very painful reality from where I sit. I would love to live in a world where I would be able to shop for hardware and match the OS of my choice to it.
Cheers.
matrix3 says: “Odyssey67: It seems that you can’t believe IBM would give Apple the heave ho.”
Right. I don’t believe that. And even if you take everything this guy’s saying as gospel, he’s not saying that either. At worst – according to him – IBM wasn’t willing to build Apple a laptop compatible chip, and this is what got Steve’s panties in a bunch.
The problem I have with that is threefold: One, that if IBM is going to go to all the trouble of making CPUs for any company, it wouldn’t make economic sense for them to ignore the largest & fastest growing part of their business (laptops in Apple’s case). IBM hurts itself in less unit sales as much as it hurts it’s customer, and that’s not credible to believe any company would do. Two, the technologies involved in making laptop capable CPUs for Apple are beneficial for IBM’s entire CPU line. Low power/low heat is where the entire industry is trying to go – it’s where EVERY CPU customer wants the industry to go (not just Apple) – so, again, it’s not credible to believe IBM would be dragging their feet on that front in any case. Third, and the most damning in my eyes, is what I mentioned above; that within about a month of the Macintel announcement IBM came out with the low power 970FX. The question ‘So where is it in a product?’ is obviously a red herring, since if Apple isn’t going to use it in anything (and we know they won’t), no one will.
“Look it all about return on investment. IBM needed huge volume to justify the investment…”
Not true, if your saying they needed a single huge volume customer. IBM has shown over and over that they use/reuse/crossover features in one line for others. Power5 builds on Power4, which was the basis for G5, which also contributed to Power5, which will (according to reports) be very influential on Nintendo’s Revolution CPU … it’s very easy to see how this mitigates the need for a single large customer to furnish a return on a single large investment. There just is no single large investment to be covered, but a bunch of smaller ones that are leveraged across a number of different customers. Further, much of the development costs in any project that IS more ‘special’ (like Cell & Xenon) are born by the customer in question. Apple went that rout with G5 in the beginning, and it’s another reason why per CPU prices from IBM can be so low – they aren’t trying to recoup the huge R&D costs that AMD and Intel generally take upon themselves.
“Five years ago Steve was prepared to go to Intel. Mayer … convinces both Steve … and IBM … [to go for G5]… Steve being cautious continues dual development with Intel … chips… Five years later, IBM looks at its return on investment and doesn’t see HUGE growth for the G5 chips. (They’re looking for Dell quantities not a two million more chips). They realize they can sell more chips in game consoles and …”
If you know anything about NeXT, you accept Jobs had an OSX/x86 version in the wings. No problem. Keeping options open – check. Saying Apple was ready for such a massive switch 5 years ago…? Brake lights. I don’t see that as possible. Yes, Classic emulation on x86 is possible, but that’s a big performance difference from a Classic environment with in OSX, running on a PPC it was already designed for. Universal Binaries weren’t on the table yet either. I don’t see how Apple was anywhere near strong enough to risk the kinds of disruption that would have caused back then. That’s a huge red flag for me in this guy’s narrative.
Like I said from the start of this thread – this guy gives food for thought. But right now it’s more like brownies than steak.
mmmm … brownies
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
shadowself says: “Before the 970 (aka G5) became reality, IBM senior personnel did NOT want to make a PowerPC with a vector processor in it. That is why they effectively skipped the G4 and made enhanced G3s instead. Thus I fully believe he had to sell superiors at IBM that a POWER 4 derivative with a vector processor grafted onto it would be a viable product.”
Right. And yet, notice how vector processors have managed to show up in various IBM designs ever since? Thanks to the great performace of the 970/G5, IBM has seen the value of leveraging that feature ever since.
This is the stupidest thing Ive ever heard–well its the next to the stupidest–the stupidest thing Ive ever heard is INTEL inside a Mac. Im slightly convinced to go with Intel in gadgets and perhaps in a version of the mini and perhaps even in lap tops–but the powermacs should continue to use the superior IBM chips. And Im not even sure I would use Intel in lap tops once the CELL becomes available but that isnt really the issue. The issue is using inferior Intel chips in pro mac lines. ITS A BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG mistake. I dont care if Steve Jobs at one time was considering manufacturing computers for Dell and thinking of switching to Windows 95–that would not be a good argument for switching to XP today. It would show me maybe that Jobs keeps his eyes open and considers option but it wouldnt be an excuse for making a bad choice today. The move to Intel is a bad move. Introducing Macs using these inferior chips today–just to say you ve done it is an even worse move UNLESS you make an additional version of the mini using Intel inside just for the fun of it…Id be interested in buying a cheap MacTel just cause its so bizarre. So Steve–dont you be like that “stay the course” moron Bush–use your head–dont mess with the bess and keep those QUADs a coming–bring em on–but our mission is never accomplished. When are the “blue light” lasers coming? And will you please buy the McCartney portfolio from either SONY or Michael Jackson? Put the Beatles inside. Cant you make some sort of deal with Led Zepplin? And by the way the video IPOD is the greatest gift in the world. How about finding some one who can manufacture decent HD displays? What is all this about Aperture?
lisa,
Steve has already told us all that PowerMacs won’t be switching away from G5 until Intel has better chips available in 2007. By the time PowerMacs switch to Intel, nobody will complain about the nice performance gains.
Don’t worry, he knows what he is doing. Apple is his baby, after all.
lisa,
You’ll never see a Cell processor running a personal computer the same way you see a PowerPC G5 or Intel Pentium running a personal computer. The Cell processor just is NOT a generic processor designed for that pupose. It is specifically designed to support game consoles and the like.
It is in theory possible that a generic PowerPC derivative of the Cell processor could be made. It would be similar to, but in the opposite direction as, the creation of embedded processors derived from generic PowerPC processors. However, the two lines are distinctly different. Embedded PowerPC processors are not generic desktop computer processors, just as the Cell processors are not.
However…
Stepping back and taking a broader view, there were informal statments three years ago that IBM was in the process of creating a PowerPC processor for personal computers (and more specifically Apple’s Macs) from the POWER 5 processor. It makes just as much sense that IBM would finish that work as it would to derive a generic PowerPC G5 out the Cell processor.
Also, while the PowerPC 970 is clearly a more elegant design, it has not been that fast a chip. Compared to the competition it was fast when it came out. Since then it has lagged (to say it politely).
With regard to “blue light lasers”, I assume you mean the disks that use this. Expect them to show up in the first half of 2006. They very likely NOT show up in computers until very late 2006 or even 2007, though you might find external ones which can plug in over FireWire or USB 2.0 High Speed in the second half of 2006.
Also the Quad core (dual processor with dual cores each) Mac is very under utilized right now. There are very few (I can think of fewer than five total at the moment) which can take full advantage all four cores concurrently. In fact only a small percentage (<< 10%) of Mac software can fully utilize even two cores. Thus the Quad core is a nice marketing point, for most of the software most people use, the third and fourth cores are very often just sitting idle. When will a great deal of software be availiable that is tuned to fully utilize four or more cores? Probably not until 2008 at the earlies and maybe not until 2010 or later.
Even through all this…
we agree on one thing. Apple Computer should seriously consider buying 100% of the assets of Apple Records. They should also consider buying the rights to all the Wings recordings, all the All-Starr Band recordings, John Lennon’s recordings and George Harrison’s entire portfolio of songs. Buying the other assets (non Apple Records) is just one possible idea of many to induce the stake holders in Apple Reacords to sell. This would end the Apple versus Apple battle once and for all. With this repeated, protracted conflict it is beginning to look like there will not be a simple settlement short of Apple Computer buying out two remaining Beatles and the heirs of the other two.
I seem to remember Moto/Freescale promising the world to Apple too with their own next generation PPC chips, failing to deliver then being distracted by another market segment.