OSNews

What can they do as a joint company that they can't do in a close partnership?
"I don't see a merger happening... but a very close partnership? You betcha!"

They can't get too cozy.... Dell and others who make up the BIG part of Intels business wouldn't stand still for it.....

If they get cozy enough in ways to offer enough processor diierentiation to give an edge over AMD's chips, the end result would be a reinvigorance of customers lost to AMD coming back to Intel.

Remember, all the PC OEMs are essentially in the business of saying that they can do everything as good or better than Apple does. If using Intel chips allowed computer manufacturers to offer something more compelling than AMD was, and only Apple (and Dell) were using these chips you bet these companies would come back.

Apple is beneficial for Intel not so much for the increased number of chips they can sell, (though that is important too) but because...as much as people don't want to admit it, these PC OEMs are about matching the bar raised by Apple. If Intel provides a significant percentage of that differentiation, you can bet they will come back.

How would Dell be affected? Would intel suddenly decide it didn't want billions of dollars of Dell business? Or are you proposing that Dell switch to AMD? The latter course of action os so unlikely it does not even merit discussion.

"Apples pritty clear on its no 3rd party macs stance so Intel would make a lot less money do to loss of x86 chip sales, couseing slower development resulting in the same situation apple had with ppc i.e. the chip supplyer not being able to keep up with the demand for faster and faster chips. "

You do realise that the whole point of moving to intel is that the massive sales of x86 CPUs to Dell et al drives research? Mac sales will *never* constitute more than a small fraction of the total volume of x86sales, and will have absolutely no impact on said processors' development.

Sure, but Cringley has been proven to be out of touch with todays technology world.

Must we really mention "Apple Audio Codec" twice?

Really? How?

He did. It looked like nonsense then, it still looks like nonsense now.

People are reading far too much into Apple's switch to Intel. The reasons were made clear by Jobs, but I guess a lot of mindless speculation bumps up the web page hits hey?

Because Steve Jobs is ALWAYS telling the truth, huh?

Thanks for that.

Because if people can buy a Mac that will ALSO run windows then they will more likely to buy the MAC. I have a lot of friends that want a MAC, but don't want to go buy a MAC and then a new pc in a year for gaming or whatever. However, if the next PC they buy can dual boot MACOS and Windows - they will buy it

You're right, people being able to also run Windows on it (it that will indeed be possible) is the only argument I heard sofar that make some sense to me.

However, I doubt that the effect will be big enough to warrant speaking of a boom or a revolution.

I agree. I don't see how this will get more customers to come to Apple. The reason people choose PCs with Windows instead of Apple now, has nothing to do with the hardware platform. They choose Windows PCs because that is what they are already familiar with or (for new computer users) because that is what they are more likely to use at work or in school. And because there is more commercially available software for Windows.

When I was in school, we had an Apple IIe in the library and a Radio Shack TRS80 in the science lab. By your reasoning, we should still have that today because people are already familiar with it.

You and your classmates are familiar with it. Not "people". It was before the PC boom.

No, the Apple II started the PC Boom.

He and his classmates were a group amongst millions across the world who had Apple's in schools. Thats' where the market really started... in schools, and thats were Apple got its biggest foothold when the company began.

I've lost count of the number of times people have said they would like a Mac but they "suck for games"

This machine will allow Windows dual boot or even close to native speed PC emulation that will allow them to play the games they want.

A major obstacle overcome.

Well let’s say you have used windows in the past. If you decide to try the macos and its not for you, load windows on apple intel hardware and you have not completely lost out on your hardware purchase. Personally I would like to buy a macmini using an intel cpu for the cool enclosure running windows

With the minor caveat that there is no guarantee that you will be able to run Windows on a Mac. Apple has said they will not do anything to stop it, but that doesn't mean MS will allow it.

>"Apple has said they will not do anything to stop it, but that doesn't mean MS will allow it."

Frankly, there's not much they can do to disallow it. Apple might as well be a White box PC vendor as far as Microsoft's concerned, as long as Apple builds its hardware to conform to the minimum specs that these companies do, they can offer all that the PC industry does... including the ability to run Windows while also offering something that none of them (legally) can offer.... the ability to run OS X.

Maybe not because the use of the brand/chip itself, but because Apple will *theoretically* be able to provide better/faster/cooler/etc. boxes than it is providing now with IBM chips; this alone might appeal some more users who are in the need of faster Powerbooks/notebooks from Apple and can't have a G5 in the tiny aluminium powebook.

I do not think that the 'casual' user will ever notice the switch; albeit a lot of people (casual users or not) will notice it, even if they have no idea what the real difference is. Intel is, whether we like it or not, a known and strong brand. Intel Iside, Id10t outside

Remind me exactly what Intel sells to Microsoft?

Do you mean other than the CPUs, chipsets, and nonzero quantity of GPUs that Microsoft uses in order to operate its business, or were you attempting to make a silly argument as to why becoming a direct competitor to Microsoft wouldn't have drastic financial repercussions for Intel? I'm sorry, but what are most desktop and mobile Intel processors sold for again?

Who knew MS bought CPUs, chipsets and non-zero quantities of GPUs!? Are they for the computers MS does not now and has not ever manufactured? Or are you attempting to make a silly argument that intel will become a direct competitor to MS by suddenly moving into the operating systems business?

Most desktop and mobile processors - nay ALL DT and M processors - are sold by intel to companies that assemble computers of one sort or another. Strangely, you seem unaware that MS is not such a company.

I think you need to submit an article to OSNews. I think Thom would pick it up almost as quickly as this article

Ditto that....

How would AMD benefit?

Whatever generates more profit. Profit is, after all, the reason corporations exist.

Why not? They are completely different companies - one produces hardware and an OS, the other produces processors. Where is the anti-competitiveness?

>"Why would Intel want to merge with Apple?"

Surprised you would only say why Intel when why Apple is equally as relivant.


>"Getting more sales via Apple comes at the cost of getting fewer sales via the Windows path."

Assuming an Apple accusition actually made sense (which it doesn't) Why would you say that? Buying Apple wouldn't have to preclude sales to other companies.


>"In 4 to 5 weeks they sell as many computers as Apple does all year"

If we were to say 3-4 months you might have it right, but you're short changing Apple by a large margin with that comment.


>"Go abroad to China or India or parts of Europe. Who uses Apples?"

Not many... but if you're going to make that statement, you've got to preffice it by saying that the same is true of all the other PC OEMs as well. Most people in those countries build their own PCs or subcontract that out to a third party vendor that builds it for them.


>"All this talk of an increased share is just that -- talk."

Judging by the contents of your post, its obvious that you're going out of your way to short change Apple at every corner and this is just one more example of that. Apple's market share and install base are indeed increaseing... this despite all the ods stacked against them and despite competing against an illegal monopoly. Simply maintaining marketshare would be a major acomplishment considering these factors, but the company has steadily increased its market share by small percentage points. More recently, they are increasing by whole numbers. Its a mamoth acomplishment when you consider all those factors.

Proof, please.

"Getting more sales via Apple comes at the cost of getting fewer sales via the Windows path...."

Why? Because if someone chooses a Mac, that means they reject a PC? What if they chose a Mac over having no computer at all?

>Getting more sales via Apple comes at the cost of >getting fewer sales via the Windows path...."

>>>Why? Because if someone chooses a Mac, that means they reject a PC? What if they chose a Mac over having no computer at all?
-----------------
Good point raised. I have no figures on how many people don't own any computer. However, in the corporate or school world, growth in one area would come at a decline in another. From Intel's viewpoint, it doesn't matter, the same number of CPUs will be sold.

The issue of Dell's monthly sales was brought up by another responder: the figures can be easily checked. Dell does sell nearly 30 million PCs per year. Furthermore, their growth rate in Europe last quarter was 21%. Yet, after all that, their stock price went down.

The same responder talked about OEMs from Asia/Pacific countries and did not count those as wintels. PCs are commodity items, and the wintel versions are sold all over the world. People ask "given Wintel PC Foo from Manufacturer Woo at price X can I get a Mac at that same price with those features", our arguments here say "no, but if you add (retail priced) features to the Foo, it will cost more than the (assembled with wholesale priced components) Mac" which is an answer to a different question, and one that has been beaten to death already.

In the global market, Apple is a very small manufacturer. We are sitting here in the US arguing with missionary zeal instead of enjoying what we have: good Apple products, and good Windows products. As with religion, to each his/her own and hopefully, ne'er may the twain meet.

I think you should read the rest of the thread.

>"until Apple holds 50% market share I would never see this merge happening, Intel just has way to much to lose. "

Should Apple ever achieve 50% marketshare, they could just as easily acquire Intel.


>"As far as that goes, I don't see Apple holding a 50% market share anytime in the foreseeable future."

Not only is it possible... they've far exceeded it with some of these that I'm mentioning here: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, iPod, QuickTime

Fast forward twenty years from now...pc would've switched to 'look-ma-no-mouse-click-by-just-lookin' and apple would still insist on their mighty mouse until grandpa steve jobs has another revelation that mighty mouse is sooo ....

>"It will be upgradeable(finally) with anything You wan't from PC hardware market."

Apple's hardware already is for many things. The switch to Intel wont make a bit of difference for the hardware that requires drivers... which means the switch doesn't really do much for them on that end.


>"No more 32mb cards that costs as much as 128mb version with newer graphic core for PC."

Ram prices for Macs haven't been disproportionate to PCs for years... we're talking over 8 years now. As a matter of fact, Macs use the exact same ram as PCs now and have been for years. Your perceptions about Macs seem to be bast on last decade's talking points.

>"No more 32mb cards that costs as much as 128mb version with newer graphic core for PC."

Ram prices for Macs haven't been disproportionate to PCs for years... we're talking over 8 years now. As a matter of fact, Macs use the exact same ram as PCs now and have been for years. Your perceptions about Macs seem to be bast on last decade's talking points.
wow, way to misread the comment dipshit. go have a look at the prices of mac compatible video cards, then go have a look at the prices of pc video cards that are twice as powerful

You said:
"it means that Intel can get in on profits generated by Apple/Intel products without tying themselves too tightly to Apple."

The way you structured your comment, you made it sound as if the only concern over tying is on the part of Intel to Apple as opposed to Apple to Intel. The concern could just as likely go the other way to that which you phrased it. Intel could just as likely drag Apple down with such a partnership.


You said:
"it means that Intel can get in on profits generated by Apple/Intel products without tying themselves too tightly to Apple."

Again, the way you structured your comment, you made it sound as if any harm could be done it would be Apple hurting Intel rather than Intel hurting Apple. I agree that such a partnership is inappropriate, but there is only one Apple, there are multiple x86 chip suppliers. The greater concern should be in Intel dragging down Apple rather than the other way around.


You said:
"It also allows them to keep 'business as usual' going with other companies and distances them from any patent squabbles Apple runs into along the line. "

Again, the way you structured your comment, you made it sound as if patent issues could only go one way... Apple hurting Intel rather than Intel's patent issues huting Apple... which would be just as likely.


I guess the problem I have with your post is in the way you make it sound as if the greater loss would be Intel rather than Apple... as if Apple brings nothing to the table and only has the potential for liability. That's not very appropriate IMHO and borders on a thinly veiled troll... even if it was unintentional.