toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

Stalled PowerPC roadmap may have spurred Intel-Macs

updated 07:50 am EDT, Mon June 13, 2005

Apple-Intel deal details

Apple's negotiations with Intel until the last minute and may have been spurred by both pricing and a business decision by IBM to curtail development on its PowerPC roadmap, according to The New York Times: "Several executives close to the last-minute dealings between Apple and I.B.M. said that Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment - 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 - to inform Big Blue. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple's negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks. Each side disputes what led to the breakup. People close to I.B.M. said pricing was a central issue, while Mr. Jobs insisted on stage Monday that I.B.M. had failed to meet promised performance measures." The report says that Sony also tried (but failed) to convince Apple to use IBM's Cell processor, which will be used in the forthcoming PlayStation 3.

by MacNN Staff

(23)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

jimothy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2000

0

06/13, 08:27am | report spam | close Reply |
PPC Stalls caused switch?

Gee, do ya think?

zioncity
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/13, 08:31am | report spam | close Reply |
Keeping options open

Apple did what is best for Apple. Regardless of how awesome the g5 is for a desktop computer at this moment.

But when dual core 2ghz 32 bit chips come out for the eMac and Mac Mini and iBook. That will be great, and the faster 3+ ghz single or dual core chips for the rest and Xeons for servers... you get the idea.

I have been hearing real world reports that the already native Intel Mac Apps, including Tiger... run awesome on the 3.6 ghz Macintel boxen... I mean they have been developing it from day one of OS X.

I think IBM just dropped the ball but in a way that follows their business plan for the future... People are saying they are going more embedded and server chip market versus the PC personal computing market...

Thus Apple had to play it safe and the distance gap of speed is quickly eroding... but remember this... they kep their options open...

Who says they will not still work with PowerPC and Cell for more specific things.... iTivo or whatever it may be called...

We shall see what the future brings, but with the early to mid 2006 Macintel release date coming... and I hope it is much sooner... at least when big name apps come out... Office and Adobe... with Macintel versions...

This will be a time when all mac news sites get hounded 24/7

paulc
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2000

0

06/13, 08:58am | report spam | close Reply |
InHell

Has everyone missed the fact that Intel has had mostly bad press for their vaunted "roadmap" over the course of the past 2-3 years? That they have actually released to the market CPU chips that didn't even add correctly?

AlenShapiro
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2000

0

06/13, 09:21am | report spam | close Reply |
I suspect...

This move has been in the works since IBM failed to deliver 3GHz processors in time for last July's MacWorld. Steve has to have hated getting up on the stage to apologize. A year later, we're still not there.

Now the market is moving further towards a dominance of portable computing and Apple has no place to go except Intel/AMD. My understanding is that "IBM Cell" would be almost as big a CPU jump as going Intel. If this is true, there's really no choice but to go with the chip architecture that has a manufacturer willing and able to supply the necessary chips for Apple's planned technology growth... and that's not IBM.

Couple that with the fact that Win32 "emulation" can be as fast as native under MacOS and that (if necessary) the new Macs could dual-boot into Win32, and Apple stands to gain a lot of hardware sales, esp. if they can keep innovating design without compromising performance (and only charging a little price premium (please Apple)).

IBM won't notice the loss of business. They'll be too busy concentrating on churning out XBOX chips for M$. Apple would have been able to apply diminishing influence in the PowerPC design arena as the XBOX saga plays out. XBOX sales might have hurt Apple's hardware sales too; if apple had gone with "Cell" how long would it have taken before MacOS X appeared on XBOX (ok, that last one's a bit of a stretch).

My sympathy goes to MetroWerks (CodeWarrior fame). They seem to be the true losers. They have a great, dedicated team and are fervent Mac supporters. It would seem they have had the rug pulled completely out from under their business.

boron
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

06/13, 09:24am | report spam | close Reply |
Yeah but....

Now everyone will have the same.

Good or bad, what Intel delivers they will deliver to everyone. We'll never have to watch them get faster chips that we won't get.

IonCable
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

06/13, 09:25am | report spam | close Reply |
cell, maybe

Cell, on paper sounds great, but it does exist in production yet. The G5 dual cores and 3Ghz sounded great too. At least with Intel, you know they are going to continue to develop chips have Apple can use.

IonCable
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

06/13, 09:26am | report spam | close Reply |
Sorry,

The Cell and 3GHZ DON'T exist in procustion. Bad typing.

denim
Mac Elite

Joined: Jun 2000

0

06/13, 09:30am | report spam | close Reply |
Gee

Vaporchip versus existing chip. That's a toughy. Apple already got bit by vaporchip (3GHz G5), so why would they bend over again for a company which has already demonstrated that they don't care?

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/13, 10:00am | report spam | close Reply |
What's next?

Next thing you know, there's going to be a whole expose claiming Apple went to IBM for the G5 because of Motorola's failed road map. Remember, you heard that here first. Deep throat, you got competition now, buddy.

trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

06/13, 10:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Vapour Chip?

The Playstation 3 was listed as having a 3.2Ghz Cell ... did they not show it at E3??? This doesn't sound like a vapour chip.

If Apple adopted the cheap cell chip as a Graphics processor or something like that, I'm sure they could produce systems that are quite astounding ... and that's where the oomph in the systems would come from???

OsakaBill
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

06/13, 10:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Similar, But Not Quite

I do not think it was the Motorola/Freescale G4 roadmap per se that forced Apple to go to IBM for their next chip, but rather, limitations within the G4's architecture and Motorola/Freescale's lack of a post-G4 roadmap.

If I recall correctly, and I may not, the original roadmap for the G4 architecture had the chip topping out around 1GHz. Next generation chips were supposed to breech the 1GHz barrier. If I am right, it is no small feat and Motorola/Freescale should be commended for getting the G4 to 1.5GHz and beyond.

I think the real displeasure with Motorola came from: 1.) the original design and manufacturing flaws that led to those embarrassing delays and clock speed reductions with the first iteration of the G4, and 2.) the time it took to get the G4 to 1GHz.

In fact, I want to say that when Moto had problems with the G4, Apple went to IBM for help with the G4's design and fabrication. I seem to recall that IBM had little interest in the AltiVec enhanced G4 and basically left Apple and Motorola to produce that design while IBM went off in other directions with the PowerPC. When it became clear it was going to take Moto a long time to work out their design and fabrication issues with the G4, Apple begged IBM for help. Exactly what, if any, help IBM gave to the G4 during this time I do not know.

So these problems sent Apple looking to its old partner IBM. Again, if I am not mistaken, the big kicker was the lack of a post-G4 architecture from Moto. I do not think they had any chip plans that included a desktop/laptop computer chip that would increase speed and performance the way the G3 did over previous PowerPCs and the way the G4 did over the G3. Even if their had been no issue with the Motorola G4, I think their lack of a roadmap or successor for the G4 would have sent Apple to their old partner IBM anyway.

OsakaBill
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

06/13, 11:00am | report spam | close Reply |
Modified G5s

While I cannot speak for the Sony PlayStation, I do know that all of the Xbox 2 demos were handled by PowerMac G5s.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/13, 11:04am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: sorry

The Cell and 3GHZ DON'T exist in procustion. Bad typing.

Wow, bad typing in a message apologizing for bad typing!

jhorvatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2005

0

06/13, 11:06am | report spam | close Reply |
Apple needs real chips

I think Apple went with Intel because Intel proved that they can produce real chips now. They already went through the vaporware chips with IBM and have had enough of that. That's probably why they didn't go with Sony's Cell chip if the cell chip didn't exist yet. Apple couldn't take the risk of having to wait yet again on what could be a broken promise like IBM. IBM dropped the ball and really didn't work hard to go get the ball back. They thought Apple would be stuck with what they had and would just deal with it. They don't know Steve Jobs very well do they.

hybrid
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

06/13, 11:17am | report spam | close Reply |
The other problem...

Console platforms get updated what, every two years? Three years? Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo don't do incremental upgrades with faster chips year-over-year. Every console uses the same hardware throughout its lifespan, until it's superseded by the next-generation version.

What motivation would IBM have to create new versions of the Cell processor with incrementally increasing clock rates every few months for Apple? Not much.

The console market is relatively low-hanging fruit. Get the design right and then crank the same chips out for 2-3 years while you (hopefully) design the next version.

the Rebel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

06/13, 11:59am | report spam | close Reply |
ego

"This move has been in the works since IBM failed to deliver 3GHz processors in time for last July's MacWorld. Steve has to have hated getting up on the stage to apologize. "

Yes, Steve's ego was hurt and he decided to get back at IBM.

This is NOT about what is best for Apple. It is about Job's ego.

Intel has a sordid history of falling off their roadmap. The whole Pentium 4 trip has been an over hyped detour that has brought Intel back to where they were with the Pentium 3.

Over the past 3 years, IBM has shown a heck of a lot more progress than Intel has during the same time period.

Yes, the 3Ghz G5 is late, but a dual 2.7Ghz G5 Mac is still far better than a 3.6Ghz P4.

According to Intel's current roadmap, 2 years from now they will have a processor worthy of replacing the current G5 processors. Wow! However, the real question is whether or not Intel will have something to beat what IBM and Freescale would be producing in 2007, not what they are producing now.

A few years ago, Steve Jobs made a rash last minute change to PowerMac video hardware because his ego did not like having his keynote upstaged by ATI. He is well known for his temper and his ego; unfortunately, he is quite capable of putting his own interests above the interests of Apple.

Fiyin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

06/13, 01:05pm | report spam | close Reply |
Meh.

paulc, Intel has never released a processor that had addition problems. You're thinking of the floating point division bug that happened years ago. Why is this an issue that's relivant to Intel in 2006 and 2007? Clearly you're an Apple Zealot, but Intel is on our side now. Let it go. :)

AlenShapiro, A switch to the CELL architecture would have been disastrous for Apple. CELL is a highly specialized architecure that is *unsuitable* for general computing unless you're willing to take a drastic performance hit on non- graphics oriented or non-vectorized code. The last thing Apple needs is to fall further down the performance ladder.

trevc, The PS3s that are available next year will sport CELL processors, but the ones shown at E3 were pretty much empty boxes. Neither Microsoft or Sony had real next-gen silicon from IBM in their demonstations. As OsakaBill correctly pointed out, MS's demoes were done on PowerMacs.

jhorvatic, CELL's existence or lack thereof has nothing to do with Apple's decision; please see my architecure comments. CELL will not be vaporware like the 3.0 GHz PPC970. Bigger clients with more money and more important schedules are there to motivate IBM. And your timeframe is wrong.

the Rebel, Apple isn't so shortsighted as to make a long term decision based on present conditions. Apple has access to both Intel and IBM's long term, undisclosed roadmaps. Your point about IBM and Freescale's 2007 lineup is valid, but I'd sure this factored into Apple's decision.

It'll be interesting to see how IBM reacts to losing the contract. "Whoops, that lot of 10,000 PPC970 units disappeared from our warehouse! Guess you'll have to wait another month for us to fab more of 'em!"

OtisWild
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2005

0

06/13, 01:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple 'n Intel..

I'm sorry, but once Apple goes x86, there will not be any new PowerPC boxes. No iTivos on PPC, no minis on PPC. They'll be x86, from balls to bones. Maybe even ARM on Intel's PXA chips for handhelds or smartfones!

BTW, OpenStep (Next's software) was x86 (having been ported from 68k, which IIRC was also big-endian) before Next was even bought out, so having OS X being x86 from the start? _NOT_ a shocka! Besides, Darwin has been buildable on x86 since what, day one?

Nope, between this, the better process tech (65nm and shrinking!), the huge capacity, the whole chipset, and the phat discounts, Intel was the right choice. And I _hate_ Netbust! (here's hoping Apple demands Pentium-M across the board, with mini-PCIe for at least laptop uberchipsets upgradable for everything non-Powermac...)

resuna
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/13, 01:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Freescale roadmap

Freescale's roadmap exactly parallels Intel's low-power roadmap: faster buses on the existing CPU, process shrinks and gradual speed improvements, more integration... their clock speed is lower, but the core itself gets more done per clock, and their e600 chip has faster busses and more integration.

I originally thought Steve did this because he was upset, because the G5 isn't falling behind intel, it's falling behind what IBM promised. I think this is something Steve's been planning for a while, even back in the '90s. It matches up with what he was doing at NeXT much better than keeping the corpse of OS 9 on life support does.

jumbojet
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

06/13, 02:11pm | report spam | close Reply |
Cell

You cannot just stick a Cell in a PowerMac. Nor can you just build a new Mac around a Cell. The Cell does different things than a G5 chip. It's great at drawing tons of polygons in a short amount of time, but that's it really. IBM would have to rework the Cell to work for the Mac, and then commit to updating it frequently to keep pace with Intel. All this for only around a few million CPU sales per year, vs. 20 million plus game console sales per year. IBM was not going to do this. Apple has no other choice but to switch.

heyriddle
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2003

0

06/13, 02:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
Pentium d

So I am wondering if Apple will be releasing the new Intel Macs with the Pentium D chip? This has DRM built in right? So it seems to me that this chip would pave the way for an online movie download service. Any thoughts from someone that knows more about this chip?

porieux
Baninated

Joined: Mar 2001

0

06/13, 07:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
d

it's already been discussed. they can do a movie download service regardless of what chip is used.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/13, 07:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Cell

You cannot just stick a Cell in a PowerMac.

Sure you can. Have you seen these PowerMacs. They're huge. And they have lots of room inside because Apple didn't waste all that space inside with extra drivebays and the like. So you probably could fit several hundred cell chips in there. And a bag of mini marshmellows (not in the bag, though, that would be stupid).

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Stalled PowerPC roadmap may have spurred Intel-Macs

updated 07:50 am EDT, Mon June 13, 2005

Apple-Intel deal details

PPC Stalls caused switch?

Keeping options open

InHell

I suspect...

Yeah but....

cell, maybe

Sorry,

Gee

What's next?

Vapour Chip?

Similar, But Not Quite

Modified G5s

Re: sorry

Apple needs real chips

The other problem...

ego

Meh.

Apple 'n Intel..

Freescale roadmap

Cell

Pentium d

d

Re: Cell

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Stalled PowerPC roadmap may have spurred Intel-Macs

updated 07:50 am EDT, Mon June 13, 2005

Apple-Intel deal details

Related Articles

Recent Articles

PPC Stalls caused switch?

Keeping options open

InHell

I suspect...

Yeah but....

cell, maybe

Sorry,

Gee

What's next?

Vapour Chip?

Similar, But Not Quite

Modified G5s

Re: sorry

Apple needs real chips

The other problem...

ego

Meh.

Apple 'n Intel..

Freescale roadmap

Cell

Pentium d

d

Re: Cell

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace