Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:16 UTC
Apple Earlier this week, Ars Technica's Jon "Hannibal" Stokes published an article which claimed to show the *real* reason why Apple went Intel. In his article, 'Hannibal' says that part of the reason for IBM and Apple's failed business relationship was that Apple tried to pull 'stunts' to get more out of IBM than they were entitled. David K. Every begs to differ.
Permalink for comment 3822
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

So what we have is a grossly unsubstantiated article written by an Apple zealot that claims that Intel will cater to the needs of Apple, among other bizarre things. The same Apple zealot that wrote five months ago. Take special note of the manner in which Intel's products are all referred to, and the similar five-year IT COULD BE HUGE vibe. Except now it's the Apple/Intel alliance that COULD BE HUGE.

Apple is a comparatively low-volume customer. The biggest asset Intel gains from their partnership is brand association. Apple is a hot brand because of the success of the iPod, and the Mac has the mystique of being thought of as a luxury computer with an exotic and shiny operating system. Intel is getting paid to be associated with the Cool Kids, and to put the final stake into the chest of non-x86 desktop computers. Expecting them to cater to the whims of Apple, though, is just supreme arrogance.

Reply Score: 4