Apple Ditches IBM For Intel

[CuCuy]

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips - CONFIRMED

Published: June 3, 2005, 5:08 PM PDT
Last modified: June 3, 2005, 5:11 PM PDT
By Stephen Shankland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.

That skepticism remains. "If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.

Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)

The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue. More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.

Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.

One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.

The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.

IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.

"I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.






Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene/L.

Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.

Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.

CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos and Richard Shim contributed to this report.

[edDV]

It's about time.

[stiltman]

Now what will distinguish Mac's form PCs?

It has always been the RISC chip, now that that's out, Mac is just another Linux/BSD variant. I bet Apple will stop making Mac in the next few years if they actualy switch to an Intel x86 chip

[Heavensent]

doesnt intel also manufacture RISC chips ?

[Mr_khyron]

Apple will never switch to X86.
maybe intel is going to make a powerpc chipset for apple

[NightWing]

If I read it correctly it states Intel chips. But does not state x86 cpu.

Could Apple bring to the table the designed of the Power PC chip? They are 1/3 of the AIM group. It all micro code. With a solid chip supplier. One that can make glue chips. Add into the mix a solid OS with features like security and "was" features in Longhorn. Abblity to have lower cost but just as powerfull systems would really be a force to recond with.

Would scare MS to its core. What could they do for Dell, HP etc to keep them happy? Longhorn is over a year ago! Game system are run at a loss. You do it by market share and royalities.

[Delerious]

What I read said 2006 for Apples' lower-end models and 2007 for the higher end. Longhorn should be out by then, but it could still be a threat to MS if MAC-OS ran on x86. Those who don't want to go with Longhorn and are afraid of trying Linux will have another option. I won't be using Longhorn, I'll be running Linux, but I'll take a look at OSX as well if it runs on my machine.

J

[edDV]

Imagine it's 1994 and someone receives a message from the future that says "Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips".

[redwudz]

Bill Gate's strategy in the early days of MS seemed to be to make the profit on the OS, not the hardware and he was successful with that. Apple may lose much of their character if they just produce OS's in the future, but their bottom line may improve, along with better odds of the survival of their OS.

I think the Apple platform would be better served if it were capable of running on X86 or similar CPUs. If their market share were larger, then there could be more incentive for innovation. The OS is what really differentiates the Mac from the PC, not the CPU. I think a cutting edge CPU is important, but not necessarily a high cost, low production CPU like the RISC chip.

I like the Mac, I have a G4, but the price of the hardware is intimidating to many people, along with the cost of some of the software. The software cost I can live with, but when I can buy a X86 hardware system that will do a similar operation for 1/2 the cost, it is discouraging. I wish Apple luck, though. Mr. Gates needs the competition. Just my opinion

[MOVIEGEEK]

Insider Trading:
I would buy Intel stock because of the impending contract with Apple and the MS Xbox 360.

[stiltman]

doesnt intel also manufacture RISC chips ?

Yes, Merced is a RISC processor developed by Intel with help from Hewlett-Packard and possibly Sun.

[Nilfennasion]

The problem for Apple is that they need hardware sales in order to remain viable. That, and their dependence on Mickeysoft for a toehold on the market, ensures they will never allow their OS to run on PC hardware. In spite of the fact that Apple OSes will run better on their hardware anyway due to less burdening with legacy issues.

[computerchuck]

Kinda stupid I think. I'm not a Mac fan, probably because I don't have one, and my only reason to get one would be for video editing purposes. Anyway with IBM coming out with the Cell CPU it just seems that would be more a reason to stay in bed with big blue. Switching to Intel seems stupid since most people seem to root for the underdog. I love AMD, but when the Cell hits the market, I don't know. As with everything, price dictates what people go with. VHS vs. Beta, Laserdisc vs DVD, Walmart priced computers/DELL vs Custom built PCs. The only thing I have left from my original Aptiva is the speakers and keyboard. Why? To remind me never to pay $2000 for a named brand proprietary computer ever again.

[Nilfennasion]

Ugh... I remember those Aptiva commercials in which it is implied that other dealers won't be able to "take care of you" if something goes wrong. Like that kind of support, which is often difficult to deliver because of architecture legacy issues and sloppy OS/driver coding, is worth an extra thousand dollars.

[CuCuy]

Aptiva used Paul Reiser as their pitch-man. I sure wouldn't buy a computer from a comedian. Especially one that isn't even funny. :P

[lordsmurf]

If Apple made an OS and software that worked on x86 chips, I'd have been dual-boot years ago, and would have NO PROBLEM plopping down some money for the OS and FCP, DVDSP and a few other video apps.

Requiring $500-1000 in new hardware (not to mention more desk space, more mice, more keyboards) has always been the kill on that option.

I'm sure there are lots of people out there, so for Apple to believe it needs hardware to survive may be a bit foolish. They could just as easily sell pre-built x86 machines too, as well as charge for their support plans.

[RabidDog]

HAlf Apples revenues now come from NON-computer related sources... maybe they will go to x86 on the way to eventually stopping making MAC's altogether. They use more and more industry standard parts .. whats left that makes a MAC different to a PC .. CPU and OS..motherboard.. maybe they will license the mac motherboard design to clone makers.
Buy intel stock coz apple might use them?? xbox 3 will be a far bigger catch.... better to buy chicken stock!

[edDV]

HAlf Apples revenues now come from NON-computer related sources... maybe they will go to x86 on the way to eventually stopping making MAC's altogether. They use more and more industry standard parts .. whats left that makes a MAC different to a PC .. CPU and OS..motherboard.. maybe they will license the mac motherboard design to clone makers.
Buy intel stock coz apple might use them?? xbox 3 will be a far bigger catch.... better to buy chicken stock!

Apple market share is down to 1.8% worldwide. It is a small blip for Intel.

[BJ_M]

further info - you are not going to like :


the weather's absolutely beautiful here in San Francisco but I blew the entire weekend in front of the computer (again) trying to figure out Apple's purported move to Intel.

At first, it was just too hard to believe, and I dismissed it as nonsense, but two serious news organizations are reporting it as a done deal (News.com and WSJ), and on Sunday morning a couple of things fell into place making it look a lot more plausible.

I guess Apple will move to Intel, and they're relying on a fast, seamless emulator to do it.

But it's really about Hollywood: Apple's looking to transform the movie industry the same way the iPod and iTunes changed the music business.

As initially reported, there are a couple of big problems with Apple moving to Intel. The biggest is shifting all the Mac software to a new platform. Apple apparently mulled moving to Intel a few years ago, when Motorola's chip development fell woefully behind, but Steve Jobs nixed it because of the massive disruption it would cause developers.

What's new this time is a fast, transparent, universal emulator from Transitive, a Silicon Valley startup.

Transitive's QuickTransit allows any software to run on any hardware with no performance hit, or so the company claims. The techology automatically kicks in when necessary, and supports high-end 3D graphics. It was developed by Alasdair Rawsthorne.

When I wrote about the software for Wired News last fall, the company had PowerBooks and Windows laptops running Linux software, including Quake III, with no performance lag whatsoever.

If Apple has licensed QuickTransit for an Intel-powered Mac, all current applications should just work, no user or developer intervention required.

Programmers could port their software to the new platform slowly and steadily, and the shift would be as relatively painless as the recent move from OS 9 to OS X, which, of course, relied on emulation in the Classic environment.

But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.

Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet.

According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini, which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.

Hooked to the internet, it will allow movies to be ordered and stored, and if this News.com piece is correct, loaded onto the video iPod that's in the works.

Intel's DRM scheme has been kept under wraps -- to prevent giving clues to crackers -- but the company has said it will allow content to be moved around a home network, and onto suitably-equipped portable devices.

And that's why the whole Mac platform has to shift to Intel. Consumers will want to move content from one device to another -- or one computer to another -- and Intel's DRM scheme will keep it all nicely locked down.

Presumably, Jobs used his Pixar moxie to persuade Hollywood to get onboard, and they did so because the Mac platform is seen as small and isolated -- just as it was when the record labels first licensed music to iTunes. The new Mac/Intel platform will be a relatively isolated test bed for the digital distribution of movies and video.

Will current Mac users like this new locked-down platform? I doubt it, which I guess is why it's going into consumer devices first.

In the PC industry, Apple lost the productivity/office era to Microsoft, but it's trying to get the jump on the next big thing: the entertainment/creativity era, and it's going to drag it users, even if they're kicking and screaming, with it.

[edDV]

Good analysis, but I bet Jobs will want to extend the IPod strategey to XP customers (on Pentium DRM chips) as well. Jobs wants to sell hardware home servers and Video IPods.

[rumplestiltskin]

The DRM stuff sounds like the real reason although Steve would never switch CPUs unless he could be convinced that the roadmap to the future includes healthy speed increases (CPU/GPU/"Centrino" too?).

As for those who might wonder, "Well, what would make the Mac different than a PC then?" The answer is "It's the operating system, stupid." OSX is so much better than Windoze it's not even laughable. I write this owning both a Mac and a PC. The PC (a relatively cheap Shuttle XPC) is faster than the Mac (G5) in ripping DVDs to SVCD. But don't try doing anything else on that PC while the ripping is taking place; it's completely unusable. My Mac, on the other hand, runs ten to fifteen appplications just fine and, while there is some reduction in speed, it remains completely usable. It's also much more stable and robust. Oops! I mean OSX is much more stable and robust. I have no doubt that OSX on Intel will be great. I'm a MacBigot and, for me, a Mac is OSX and the OSX apps; it's not a stupid piece of silicon.

[celtic_druid]

No emulation is required to run OSX on an x86 Intel chip or an x86/x86-64 AMD chip.

Also you don't have to run Windows on your shuttle, you could just as easily run a BSD based OS like you do on your Mac.

The new dual core CPU's will also make multitasking much better under windows or any other OS for that matter.

[pchan]

The transformation to the Darkside(Intel x86) is completed.

RIP (68000, POWERPC)

[rumplestiltskin]

"Darkside"? I thought that was Microsoft.

[ofbarea]

doesnt intel also manufacture RISC chips ?

Yes, Merced is a RISC processor developed by Intel with help from Hewlett-Packard and possibly Sun.

No help from Sun.

Merced (Itanium) is a VLIW (very long instruction word) CPU. Since all instructions are of the same lenght and the fact that it could process up to 6 intrucstions per clock, we could call it RISC.

With current RISC CPUs the programmers should be able to write code that executes fast enough without a sophisticated compiler, this is possible because the microcode in these CPUs is able to sort operation in an optimal way before executing them. With a VLIW CPUs, the microcode is very simple and leaves all optimizations to the compiler.

The fisrt VLIW intel CPUs was the i860, released in 1989. Since this CPU could execute one integer or control instruction per clock it is also clasified as RISC. It found it's way into PCs of the early 90's as a math co-procesor. It was also used in some Unix workstration and super computers. This CPU had a 32 bit ALU and a 64 bit FPU chip and supported some SIMD instruction that I think inspired the MMX instruction set in Pentium CPUs.

Intel has another RISC cpu of its own, the i960. This one is targeted for embedded applications and part of its design was based on the older iAPX 432. Intel also develops and sells StrongARM RISC CPUs.

[pchan]

"Darkside"? I thought that was Microsoft.

With DRM in every Intel chip... it's getting darker !
The darkside is getting stronger !

[rumplestiltskin]

While I may be running the risk of getting whipped by the management, I'll hazard a guess that "in-chip" DRM will be a failure of biblical proportions. Once it's cracked, it's gone (unlike software which may be updated quickly).

[Skith]

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

Published: June 3, 2005, 5:08 PM PDT
Last modified: June 3, 2005, 5:11 PM PDT
By Stephen Shankland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
...
One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.
...
CNET News.com's Michael Kanellos and Richard Shim contributed to this report.

I think that is a valid point, however, wouldn't all current software would still have to be rewritten? I can not imagine people/businesses that own suits like Adobe Creative suit, Macromedia software, and other professional software would like having to buy new licenses... or would "Mac upgrade" prices still be offered. If businesses had to buy new licenses at full price, they would be in a world of hurt.

[NightWing]

Two things.

1) Intel has stated that new item on DRM is false. See slashdot latest.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23708

2) Running a 5 year old game with spects from that time is not an indication of abilities. Also heard that it was running LINUX.

Sheech you can run various version of LINUX on some pretty old computers at usefull speed.

Take someting a bit harder. Like Motion or Final Cut Pro and do somthing usfull. Do real timed test. IE drive it like you stoled it!

I have seen this since the 70's! It looks good untill you put stress on it. Then it drops like a rock. Amiga had one for PC. Also ST had one. Etc. All were slow! The Z80 for the C64 actual had a Z80 in an external box!

For it to work you need a faster processor than the equlevant one used in the one you want to emulate. The different would cover the % of slowness caused by the layer.

There is something missing from the CNet and the other paper information.

Just for giggle let say Apple brough Intel into the AIM group to Produce Power PC chip. With a lot of chips being needed to provide for the three next generation game platforms would take a bit to produce that much quickly. Intel been trying to do the marrage between them and Apple. Intel love to leave AMD in the dust and possibly get rid of the x86. Which is the worst instruction set of all times. Heck they even bought some tech for 64 bits from AMD! I think the Apple to Intel is a tough item with no real plus for Apple to do it. But a Intel to Apple makes and fits better.

[vitualis]

There are a lot of fan boys that say that Apple "will never go to x86". Personally, I don't see why. That is pure ideology and not a particularly good one.

Let's face facts. Apple is not a particularly big customer for IBM. And furthermore, IBM has not been making great strides with their G5 processor. The current G5s are not hugely improved to when they were first released and as many commentators have stated, there is still no lower power G5 chips around. Powerbooks are still running G4s. The thermal envelop of the G5 processors is HIGH -- worse than the Athlon64 (though better than the P4 Prescott).

And let us not forget, the G5 is not entirely the supa-dupa killer-CPU that Apple makes it out to be. Clock-speed for clock-speed, the Athlon64 is a better performer than the G5. Even the best dual-G5 systems do not have better performance than the top-end SINGLE CPU P4/A64/Opeteron systems. The dual-core Intel and AMD processors are only going to make this performance gap worse. And on the mobile side, the Pentium M runs rings around the G4.

If Apple wants to stay contemporary in the modern desktop computer hardware stakes, it needs to update it's architecture and it isn't getting much love from IBM.

Assuming that Apple IS looking to Intel to source it's latest CPUs, what will it be getting? There have been some suggestions that Apple will get IBM to create a "new" CPU for it. I find this extremely unlikely. To Intel, Apple is such a small customer I really don't see how it would be worth its while (and capital) to work with a completely new CPU architecture. IMHO, PPC by Intel for Apple is a no-show. Not only will it be extremely expensive for Intel to do this, the time to actually producing a commercially viable product would almost certainly be unsustainable for Apple.

Itanium for Apple? Extremely unlikely again. This is no longer Intel's main thrust of development.

If Apple is going to go for an Intel CPU, it will (IMHO) almost certainly be one of it's mainstream CPUs. After all, Intel's already spent billions on their development. It would be illogical for Apple to think that Intel could design something FOR them that would be better than their best consumer desktop CPUs. If Apple could choose which Intel CPU to use, it will almost certainly be the new dual-core P4s (i.e., Pentium D). If they were wise, a desktop version of the dual-core version of the Pentium M (i.e., Yonah) would be also a good bet (for both the desktop and laptop line).

Now, as many people have also stated, there is absolutely no reason why Apple using an x86 CPU necessarily means that MacOS will run on any old PC or that you would be able to install Windows on a Mac. An x86 Mac would almost still use proprietary components to prevent this -- be it BIOS, customised chipset, etc. For an x86 Mac to retain it's "Mac-ness" this would almost certainly be the case. If you didn't care about the "innards" of the computer, you probably wouldn't even know it ran on another CPU (which is generally the feel that Apple wants to engender with it's computers).

When you get right down to it, people by Macs for the "whole package". It's aesthetics, the quality of the build, and the ease of use of the software and operating system. The gleeful boasting aside, I think any serious computer user knows that Apple computers in general are NOT more powerful than their PC equivalents and they are definitely more expensive. That potential buyer's will be turned away because the new Macs don't use PPC CPUs? I don't think so. I'm sure that the Apple PR machine will put some sort of clever spin to it in any case.

Regards.