Sculley: Apple should have used Intel chips
updated 07:45 am EDT, Thu October 9, 2003
Apple when it had the chance, former chief John Sculley said Tuesday: "In the late-1980s, when Apple was using Motorola Inc. 68000 series chips and considering its next step, Intel co-founder Andy Grove tried to convince the company to migrate to Intel chips, Sculley told a standing-room-only crowd at the Silicon Valley 4.0 conference, held at the Computer History Museum, in Mountain View, Calif. An experienced team from Cupertino, California-based Apple studied the idea but turned it down. Apple concluded that Intel's CISC architecture ultimately would not be able to compete against RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processors, which had a more advanced instruction set, he said. Apple later adopted RISC."











Shut up!
10/09, 07:59am reply
What is it with this guy. All I ever read about him is should of's would of's. No $hit, I have a whole bunch of should of's would's too, moron. Apple should have done a lot of things, but you can't predict the future.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
whatever.. (*f***)
10/09, 08:03am reply
"...The die was cast. Apple took another path and ended up a different kind of company, Sculley said."
Keyword -->different
On the bright side Apple is starting to learn how to "innovate" by appropriation, just like Microsoft.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
Monday Morning QB
10/09, 08:12am reply
Sculley presided over the near fall of Apple. His decisions then damn near sunk the company-- like his decision to greedily tack $500 extra on the planned $1995 price of the original Mac for no reason except to raise profits. Someone please tell me why what he thinks has any relevancy at all today, because I don't know.
He should have spent his life selling sugared water to kids.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
Too early to tell
10/09, 08:27am reply
It was too early to tell then, and it's too early to tell now.
At the time, Motorola really was putting out better chips that Intel. The 68000 was a 16-bit chip, with some 32-bit characteristics; the 68020 was fully 32-bit. At the time, IBM PCs running on Intel chips were 8- or 16-bit. When the PowerPC came out, it, too, was certainly a better chip than the 486 chips that Intel had at the time, and the original Pentiums that followed.
It really wasn't until the G4 that Motorola, and consequentially Apple, fell behind Intel. This prompted all the speculation that Apple would go Intel, and I suspect its also what is prompting Sculley's current statements.
Now that the G5 has arrived, Macs are once again processor competitive with Intel-powered PCs. And next year, the G5 and Mac could very well decisively surpass what Intel has to offer.
There's no way Sculley could have known then what would have happened nearly two decades later with the G4, and there's also no way he can know how the PowerPC vs. Intel situation will play out going forward.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
SIMPLE
10/09, 08:44am reply
Sculley=Failure
Jobs=Success
nuff said
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
Go Home
10/09, 08:59am reply
When he was with Pepsi, he was selling sugared water to kids.
There were so many problems with Intel, and some still exist, why would anyone say that it was a good idea. Chips catching fire, the die being so huge, as well as chips that couldn't add. Are we so stupid that we don't remember the real history. And RISC is still better than CISC. US Military and Defense are using PowerPC G4/G5 chips like mad to do things like missle guidance. Why didn't they go Intel. You do the math (just not using a chip that can't add)
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
differentiation
10/09, 09:28am reply
Only thing keeping Apple alive is that it isn't Intel, isn't Windows. The differences are what makes Apple relevant.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
Yeah right...
10/09, 09:41am reply
This from the very a**Hole that gave M$ permission to use the Mac OS GUI in October 1985 (some time then any way).
Didn't even really get major money for it, jerk off.
windoze only has a GUI because of Mac OS and it was sculley who made it happen.
Kinda like the US feeding bin laden against the russians, and look what happened, it created a monster
of bad things.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
Underestimated Windows 95
10/09, 09:43am reply
Apple never responded effectively to Windows 95. DOS sucked, Windows 3.1 was lame, but Win95 gave the average PeeCee user 80% of the Mac experience.
To make matters worse, Apple was selling uninspired and ugly products like the 610, 6100, 6200, and 8100 series of gray boxes.
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001
ha ha
10/09, 09:45am reply
It's funny how Intel chips look more and more RISC all the time.
I think he is going to eat his words in a few short years. With IBM backing the G5, things could get interesting. I wonder if we will ever see a Power4 or Power5 based xServe... Now that would be interesting...
MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jul 2001