Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jul 2005 08:43 UTC, submitted by Mark Fuller
Apple If you've been following the Apple-to-Intel transition, you're going to want to read this whole article. Why? Because I'm going to do something that I almost never do: spill insider information from unnamed sources that I can confirm are in a position to know the score.
Permalink for comment 2862
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: from inside IBM
by kaiwai on Tue 12th Jul 2005 06:37 UTC in reply to "from inside IBM"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

True, I'm sure IBM said to Steve, 'If you want zyx, this is the price you have to pay <cost>, Steve probably walked away and asked himself these questions; 1) are we a CPU designing company? no 2) Is it the best use of share holders funds, to support an architecture, to subsidise an architecture that should be able to stand on its own two feet - why should we pay the costs, we're not the CPU company, IBM is - they should pay!".

Makes perfect sense; coupled with the fact that IBM is unwilling to drive up volume in the PowerPC production, in relation to allowing smaller companies to develope and sell products based on the PowerPC 970 - IBM is going to suffer from the same fait that Itanium is facing; an expensive architecture, no third party hardware or software support, and an elitist complex of not allowing anyone else to purchase their CPUs in low volume (less than 10,000 units per month).

Reply Parent Score: 1