“Did Apple make a mistake by switching to Intel? We may never know, but Apple had more options than has been previously reported,” Ashlee Vance exclusively reports for The Register. “A chip start-up that created a high performance, low power processor compatible with existing Mac software had been working closely with the computer company for many months.”
“Apple was looking for a new chip supplier largely because it was struggling to find a decent part for its key laptop line. IBM could not deliver the right performance per watt characteristics needed for slim, powerful kit and was struggling to produce chips as efficiently as Apple would like,” Vance reports. “PA Semi – a maker of low-power Power processors – formed a tight relationship with Apple – one meant to result in it delivering chips for Apple’s notebook line and possibly desktops. The two companies shared software engineering work, trying to see how Apple’s applications could be ported onto PA Semi’s silicon. When word leaked out that Apple had signed on with Intel, it shocked the PA Semi staff, according to multiple sources. ‘PA Semi was counting on that deal,’ said one source. ‘They had lots of guys walking around in a daze when Apple went to Intel. They had no idea that would actually happen.'”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Chas” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: Apple made the right choice.
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
love the intel chips…let’s party!!!!!
MacDailyNews Take: Apple made the right choice.
The fsck they did.
Yeah, MDN is right – When Apple was faced with deciding they needed to switch processors you go with the industry-leader, not an up-start company. The processor is too important to allow it.
MDN Magic Word: knew, as in: Apple knew what they were doing when they switched to Intel and not PA Semi
Are these the guys with the super low-power chips, that was reported a long while ago?
Apple will really save face in the future when they introduce new PowerPC ultra-fast G5 and/or CELL towers/servers as well as PA Semi’s chips in laptops, yet keep the Intel Core models around to run Boot Camp and things with non-realtime FP needs. Two architectures, one company.
Intel buys PM SEMI puts chips in new apples 2008…..
could happen
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Nobody ever said Apple won’t pick up PPC-based chip again in the future. The future is still wide open and full of mistery. I bet in the future they will have two product lines:
x86 based dual-boot system;
PPC based ultra-light, low energy-consuming notebook/minibook type system.
Mark my words!
Apple should buy PA SEMI.
PS – the <a=href http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-cellperf>IBM CELL</a> processor kicks the crap out of Intel chips, G4, G5, et al. It is also compatible with AltiVec, runs at 3.2 GHz (was initially expected to run at 4.6 GHz) and I’m sure Apple could have incorporated it much easier than the rest, and the SPE code is very similar to AltiVec. The CELL should have become the Apple G6 chip!
Oops. IBM CELL
Yes, and the XBox 360 doesn’t have any heating problems at all. Remember the motivaton behind the move wasn’t because the G5 or Cell weren’t powerful enough, but that neither could have been laptop chip. And that IBM was reluctant to update the G4 line in such a way that it could perform comparably (though note that Freescale has with Dual core G4-based chips).
Really, a Cell based notebook wouldn’t work. Period.
If I had been in charge of Apple under the same circumstances – the need for a next generation laptop CPU and the desire for more rapid improvement in your desktop CPU line – then I wouldn’t have gone with PA Semi. I would have debated the two near-term options…
1) Sticking with the status quo waiting for new products from IBM (and possibly hoping that PA Semi would grow into the job)
2) Transitioning to the leading computer CPU supplier who is pushing desktop and laptop CPU development and has a proven record of delivering in volume.
…and gone with Intel. I had MacOS X already primed to go on Intel and an aggressive Intel CPU development path focusing on power efficient, multi-core CPUs. The selection of Intel also offers substantial comfort to potential switchers who might decide to purchase a Mac knowing that they can run Windows on it if they cannot adapt to MacOS X.
As others pointed out, Apple has the option of supporting more than one CPU (as is currently the case) as long as the software developers are onboard. That appears to be a great strength for Apple and may be a major weakness for Windows if an innovative CPU option comes along that leaves both Intel and AMD in the dust.
And Be was shocked when NeXT swooped in and stole their thunder.
Wah f—ing wah.
The problem is the BS that SJ/Apple are administering about abandoning the PPC architecture. Bad move. They should have announced this in addition to, rather than in replacement of PowerPC. Developers would have ported to Universal Binaries just the same. The public would have a choice. Granted, there’s the underlying desire to attack MS, and the Intel switch was correct from that perspective. It was a good short-term move, but declaring it absolute was a mistake. SJ should have announced that Apple would adopt any platform with a leading technological advantage, and that its new development strategies would be to write multi-architecture code to run transparently on a variety of CPU’s… not just PPC or x86, exclusively.
Yes, and the XBox 360 doesn’t have any heating problems at all.
The XBox 360 doesn’t use a CELL processor; it’s used in the Sony PlayStation 3, and it doesn’t have heating problems, AFAIK…. however, IBM is having trouble making reliable CELL chips in quantity!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Seems the decision boils down to the company with the most reliable fab facility.
All the Mac Elitists who are complaining (still) about the Intel switch aren’t going to be complaining in a few years when market share is up, amd more apps are available for the platform.
Even still, as many times are people have reported and talked about the strategy, people still whine about it switch. Amazing still how people can’t see the forest for the trees.
the xbox360 uses a version of PPC970 triple core and it runs hotter then hell with the noisiest fans ever made.
PA Semi,
I got two words for you…
Commodore Amiga
yes, they should have gone with amd.
Well, I’m a purist. I far prefer the PowerPC to the Intel Core Duo and I think it’s a better architecture and everything.
That said…
No, I don’t think it was a bad move to go to Intel. First, Apple saves a bunch of money that they were giving to IBM to design chips. IBM and Motorola/Freescale had to be cajoled into giving Apple what it needed. Intel certainly has it’s own incentive to create CPUs that will work well in a laptop design.
As for PA Semi, they were just getting out of the gate. Apple needed someone who could supply chips on time and on target. They’d spent the last few years dealing with IBM and Motorola who couldn’t supply chips fast enough for Apple to take advantage of demand. Why would Apple believe that PA Semi would somehow be different?
Personally, I think we’ll see what happens with the Macintosh Pro/PowerMac switch-over. Remember that Intel is competing against a one year-old PowerPC G5 (the PowerPC 980?)–not against 3-5 year-old PowerPC CPUs–for customers who want speed, speed, speed. Apple’s foofy designs and built-in toys aren’t gonna cut it. I don’t care if it has a built-in webcam, bluetooth, and has a clear case. I want it to do my rendering by 5:00PM so I can go home.
Shaun,
The two problems with IBM are that the cell processor is just too damn hot. It’s fine for servers, where you don’t care much about fan noise, but it’s not suitable for any desktop, let alone laptop use.
The second problem is that IBM has stated publicly for years now that they want to get out of the desktop and laptop chip business. They are only going to make server chips and consumer electronics chips. Apple had no choice but to move on, and they did so in the smartest way possible. Years from now, college business classes will talk about the Intel transition as how to do something right in the tech field.
One of the criteria that Apple used to select a new Silicon partner for their future was forge capacity, the ability to turn out sufficient numbers of processor to meet Apple’s current and future demand… a start-up is NOT going to be able to equal the capacity that Intel brought to the table… in fact, AMD couldn’t.
Sigh. Boot Camp / parallels anyone ?
We’rte already seeing that the ability to run Windoze is luring some of the great unwashed over to Macs. That wouldn’t have happened with a Power chip. End of story.
PA Semi? I thought these guys built customized 14-wheelers from a shop outside of Pittsburgh?
Like any other company Apple has to keep it’s options open. Nobody should have assumed anything.
It’s obvious Apple needs quantity of processors and compatability with Windows in order to gain market share.
It’s all in the road map stupid.
Doesn’t mean Apple can’t use the new processors someplace else.
I tend to differ from MDN…. Apple had indeed made the wrong choice…. and plunging us Mac users into the wrong direction, a direction to hell; where Microsoft now burns….