Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Jun 2008 19:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 317217
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-14
Historically, Apple has had love-hate relationships with their CPU vendors. Motorola repeatedly screwed the pooch on deliveries, and IBM thumbed their noses on developing the G5s the moment they found larger customers than Apple.
PPC smoked early Pentiums. It did. But Intel caught up and started showing signs of developing things that Big Blue had no interest in following (like efficient power consumption) because fabwise, IBM is all about niche markets now.
Would there be a benefit in continuing to develop for multiple architectures? Absolutely. Is IBM interested in being a part of that path? Absolutely not. As far as IBM is concerned, Cell is their future and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are their customers. Realistically I have doubts their commitment to Big Iron is any stronger than their commitment to making PCs was.
Edited 2008-06-05 15:50 UTC