“AMD has been a leader in getting 64-bit technology off the PowerPoint and into servers, desktops, and wherever else they can put it and has a clear-cut technology advantage over most of the current crop of Intel processors. For a company that likes to ‘Think Different’, Apple chose a conservative path in selecting Intel processors to power its latest generation of computers.” In related news, our favourite Windows Apple fanatic Paul Thurrot wonders why there’s no PC equivelant of Apple’s iLife.
Very sad that the iMac I just got couldn’t have been an Athlon64 x2
This will be my first non-AMD PC.
“Paul Thurrot wonders why there’s no PC equivelant of Apple’s iLife.”
Umm– because iLife is for content creators, not MBA’s and cubicle jockeys?
content creators use the pro apps. iLife is for everybody else. The problem with PC software is that everybody thinks that they are the most important thing on your machine. Almost every app has some kind of systray icon (or two), steals filetypes left right and centre and breaks conventions freely. If you think Apple are bad for using different interfaces, you only need to look at your average toolchain that comes with a stock machine.
iLife for PC doesn’t exist because there’s no need to drive people toward PC’s. They will sell regardless of what crap software exists.
I consider myself a “pro” user and I use Garageband & iDVD for alot of my work.
You can get Pro results out of iLife if you have a little bit of talent.
As original poster: I am a “pro-sumer”. I don’t lay claim to any major talent, but I get results that please me out of iMovie for the cost of owning a current Mac (which I would anyway) and a Canon Elura.
iLife exists because Apple has to write these apps to be the best (for their intended audience, people who don’t spend a lot of time doing the tasks these programs perform but want to do these tasks none the less; a subset of amatuers). If Apple wants to pull people to their platform they need things like iLife.
The PC on the other hand is just trying to hold its position. And it’s a lot easier to keep people from switching than it is to convince them to switch. Their own momentum holds them from switching!
That … and … I think there’s also that all these programs are available, just not from the same company.
iWeb: Obvious, there’s got to be 8 million content publishing programs of various types, quality, and features.
I’m unsure about garageband.
iDVD I know exists, I’m just not sure of what exactly does it. There’s things like Final Cut I think?
iPhoto: Picasa.
iMovie goes with iDVD.
Apple has to beat momentum. So they’d better have nice packaging around nice products.
Microsoft+Dell just has to not trip people up too badly.
I actually prefer Picasa over iPhoto. I bought iLife 06 yesterday, so I haven’t used iPhoto 06 enough to see if it can beat Picasa for me.
In any case, iPhoto 06 is a lot faster than o5. But then again, it was kind of hard to become slower.
WTF? Picasa? How does this even enter in to the debate? Now, if Picasa were part of an INTEGRATED suite that covers photo management/enhancement, movie-making, DVD creation, music creation, music management, and web site creation, I could MAYBE see your point. But then again, if it were part of a suite as powerful as iLife, I seriously doubt that Google would just give it away.
Apple believes that consumers should enjoy these appz without paying them, while they should pay if they want the professional equivalent of these appz.
MS on the contrary, believes that customers should pay for every thing from basic to more advanced; they even should pay for a naked OS without any functionality out of the box; they believe you should not even have an antivirus software included with their OS unless you pay for it. This is because MS was created for the enterprise as their #1 customers where you charge them like crazy. In apple world the #1 customers are home users and the prosumers not the enterprise.
In apple world the #1 customers are home users and the prosumers not the enterprise.
Which is the exact reason it could never beat Windows at the marketshare game. The corporate suits of this world buy a huge chunk of the computers in the market and they hate not being catered to.
…actually most enterprise customers enjoy STEEP discounts, or they should if they are doing their jobs. (Partially from bulk 1000s, if not 10s of 1000s of licenses, and negotiating… enterprise rates are almost always negotiable…)
Consumers, on the other hand are mostly stuck paying whatever MS feels like charging today, and I’d hazard provide the bulk of revenues, or at least a sizeable chunk of revenues.
1. it requires considerable amount of effort to make the apps
2. Microsoft has some of this sort of functionality built-in already and for more people it is good enough
3. Most iApps are free when you buy the computer, having that sort of sweetheart deal with the major PC vendors will be VERY difficult
Can you elaborate on .2?
iTunes > WMP
iMovie > WMM
GarageBand > ?
iWeb > ?
iDVD > ?
iPhoto > ?
Windows XP has almost none of this functionality built in, and anything it does have pales in comparison to iLife.
Technically, iLife has to be bought seperately. It’s often thrown in as a bundle on newer systems.
And remember, it’s okay for Apple to do this, but I’m more than willing to bet that should Microsoft do it, you’d be hearing to hell and highwater about “monopolies” and “anti-competitive behavior”.
And remember, it’s okay for Apple to do this, but I’m more than willing to bet that should Microsoft do it, you’d be hearing to hell and highwater about “monopolies” and “anti-competitive behavior”.
Probably has something to do with Microsoft being a monopoly, no?
Probably has something to do with Microsoft being a monopoly, no?
Honestly, I’ve never really thought so, but…
What I’m saying is this. Whether ittruly is a monopoly or not is immaterial; the fact that it’s perceived as one cripples Microsoft’s abilities to compete in certain aspects.
Should Microsoft come out with a competitor to iLife, bundled with every new Windows computer, Apple fans would claim anti-competitive monopolistic behavior, third-party developers would complain, and those same people now wondering why Microsoft isn’t doing it would be talking about how big a monopoly Microsoft is.
What recent legal proceedings have taught us is this: it’s perfectly okay for you to do some anti-competitive behaviors when you’re the small fish (see: Apple’s Dashboard v. Konfabulator and Karamba), but it’s not okay when you’re the big one (see: Microsoft’s IE v. everyone else.)
You can bet your ass the instant MS comes out with Windows Life 2007, or whatever their competitor to iLife would be named, the haters and the bashers will be on them like starving dogs on a succulent piece of meat.
>Apple fans would claim anti-competitive monopolistic behavior
“would” … You are just thinking for them. It is easy to make others thinks what you wants…
What I’m saying is this. Whether ittruly is a monopoly or not is immaterial; the fact that it’s perceived as one cripples Microsoft’s abilities to compete in certain aspects.
Yep, and that’s why the DoJ ever bothered with the anti-trust suit.
Even though it was too late to do anything about the outcome of the browser wars, at least it put MS on notice for the future. And arguably it saved Apple, because the agreement where MS invested in Apple and committed to Mac Office only came about because MS needed Apple as a plausible competitor in the anti-trust case.
Maybe it’s because “Think Different” is a slogan, not a philosophy for Apple.
There’s that, but also the simple fact that Intel chips, at least for the laptops, have far superior chipsets and lower power consumption for far higher performance than their AMD competitors.
Desktops are another story, but for now, Intel dominates the laptop world–which is probably what helped tip them over to Intel.
Y’know, since the a huge reason for them ditching IBM/Freescale was the fact that they couldn’t get a G5 laptop chip.
…more like because AMD can’t brand or market.
AMD does have chips with similar (in fact, pretty much dead even clock-per-clock) performance, and comparable power use (Apple is not using LV or ULV chips!). The chipsets are pretty nice, too. EFI could have been a dealbreaker, though.
What they do not have is Intel, and people know Intel. In addition, I doubt AMD could cut them a good price break. Intel has been known to do that.
“There’s that, but also the simple fact that Intel chips, at least for the laptops, have far superior chipsets and lower power consumption for far higher performance than their AMD competitors. ”
This is no real excuse as Apple could have picked AMD for desktops, and Intel for notebooks… unless Apple is getting a discount on CPUs based on the total # ordered, and not by particular model…
On a related note: Are powerbooks/ibooks/macbooks outselling XServes and Powermacs now?
(… must look up what proc is used in ipod… )
noting the improvements and wondering why Microsoft and the PC industry can’t create something as impressive as iLife for the Windows realm.
Is he blaming Microsoft for not having an equivalent? Just because Apple makes the OS and software doesn’t mean Microsoft has to also. There is more than one software publisher on the Windows platform. Its just a matter of who wants to pick up such a project. I really hate linear thinking.
Is he blaming Microsoft for not having an equivalent? Just because Apple makes the OS and software doesn’t mean Microsoft has to also. There is more than one software publisher on the Windows platform. Its just a matter of who wants to pick up such a project. I really hate linear thinking.
I think he used Microsoft as an example, but I think the question is much more broadly aimed at all software companies that target the PC market – Adobe is one I’m surprised they have done it – given their line up already, it would be only a matter of bundling and integrating some software together into something like an iAdobe bundle for consumers.
AMD CPU’s are great, don’t get me wrong, they are awesome chips, maybe slightly better than Intel at times and at specific tasks.
But, Intel have the most efficient Power per Watt CPU, which is what Apple are looking at, especially for their Laptop range.
Intel seem to have a better roadmap as to where they want to go, whereas AMD didn’t have quite as good as a one as Intel.
And I know I’d rather pick the larger manufacturer that is going to be able to supply my needs.
Explain to us what tasks current Intel processors provide superior performance to AMD’s. Tell us about Intel and AMD’s roadmaps. Compare AMD’s production capacity to the number of computer sales Apple makes a year.
Apple is not looking at the most efficient power per watt CPUs, from what I have seen. Intel makes them (AMD can’t touch the LV and ULV P-M CPUs), but Apple is not using them.
Intel could provide Apple with desktop CPUs, mobile CPUs, and support chips, even integrated graphics chips if they needed them. Plus Intel has specific CPUs (think XScale) that could be used in smaller devices like the iPod. In short Intel could provide them with everything they needed.
While AMD has 64bit they don’t have low power mobile chips. They don’t have northbridge/southbridge chipets, they don’t have integrated graphics chipsets, and they don’t have handheld class CPUs. If Apple had gone with AMD they’d have had to go to a second supplier for support chips and possibly to Intel for mobile chips.
Why deal with 2 or more suppliers when you can deal with one? Especially in something as critical as computer design. Intel can guarantee that a given CPU is going to work with a given support chip lineup. It would be extra work to get that level of guarantee out of AMD and say VIA, nVidia, or SiS.
Why deal with 2 or more suppliers when you can deal with one?
There’s this thing called insurance. It, simply put, means that all who take part in that insurance have a certain risk, but the chances that all of the people in the insurance suffer the consequences of that risk at the exact same time are near zero.
Same goes for having to depend on just one manufacturer. It might be easier, but on the long-term, it might come back and bite Apple in the ass.
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said there, but what’s to stop Apple from switching in the future if the need arises? They’ve switched suppliers and architectures often enough that I don’t see it being a problem for them.
Hypertransport makes AMD’s CPUs much more future proof. Intel has nothing in their (short term) roadmap to match this. And AMD is really thrashing Intel on the server front. Imagine a XServe with a couple of Opteron 280s.
AMD have mobile CPU’s. The AMD Turion 64 MT-40 is running at 2.2 Ghz at 25W. A dual core version is expected this quarter.
Where Intel has XScale, AMD has Alchemy/Geode.
AMD does not make integrated graphics, but Apple has not used integrated graphics in any of its computers for a long time. Intel does make chipsets, but the latest benchmarks shows that ATI’s and NVidia’s offerings are better.
Intel’s roadmap is no better than AMD’s. And Intel has been having a LOT of trouble sticking to the roadmap on the server parts.
I think Apple chose Intel because Intel could guarantee delivery. The cooperation between Apple and IBM was probably soured because of IBMs could not deliver on time on several occations.
Edited 2006-02-02 09:05
There’s this thing called insurance. It, simply put, means that all who take part in that insurance have a certain risk, but the chances that all of the people in the insurance suffer the consequences of that risk at the exact same time are near zero.
Same goes for having to depend on just one manufacturer. It might be easier, but on the long-term, it might come back and bite Apple in the ass.
You’re analogy doesn’t work. Insurance is based on, as you say, many people paying in to one trust in the hopes that only a minority of the people will need the insurance money at any given time. Apple isn’t many people, it’s one company and the money isn’t what’s being utilized here, it’s chips. The chips serve different purposes so there is no common trust, just pools of different parts.
From a security standpoint having one company pay multiple suppliers is no different than one company paying one supplier. The chances of a specific supplier going belly-up do not diminish with addition of more non-generalized suppliers into the parts-chain. It’s as if each business has a 1:1 relationship with Apple. There’s no cross-connection between the various parts suppliers, only the connections between each supplier and Apple. If Apple purchased CPUs from AMD and bridge chips from SiS they’d be equally screwed if either AMD or SiS failed. AMD doesn’t make bridge chips and SiS doesn’t make CPUs. Neither company can cover the capabilities of the other, therefore there is no insurance against a supplier failure. Apple would still have to start hunting around for a new supplier. If Intel fails (unlikely) Apple will still have to hunt around for a new supplier. Under either scenario Apple’s risk is the same. If the risk is the same why bother with the added costs, design issues, and support issues of using different parts from different manufacturers?
Apple should be, and is, motivated by keeping supply prices down and quality up. They get that with Intel since Intel can give them large purchase discounts and provide compatible chips for all aspects of the motherboard. Apple’s parts costs are lower due to their purchasing power with one supplier, their R&D costs are reduced since they don’t have to test and verify the interoperations of different parts from different suppliers, and their support costs are reduced as there is essentially zero risk of parts being incompatible. If something goes wrong they go to Intel, they don’t deal with AMD saying it’s SiS’s issue and SiS saying it’s AMDs issue.
Edited 2006-02-02 03:36
“They get that with Intel since Intel can give them large purchase discounts and provide compatible chips for all aspects of the motherboard. Apple’s parts costs are lower due to their purchasing power with one supplier, their R&D costs are reduced since they don’t have to test and verify the interoperations of different parts from different suppliers, and their support costs are reduced as there is essentially zero risk of parts being incompatible. If something goes wrong they go to Intel, they don’t deal with AMD saying it’s SiS’s issue and SiS saying it’s AMDs issue. ”
SiS/AMD not really a problem, besides there are other bridge chip developers, it’s just that SiS is currently fairly common.
Using Intel chips(or even AMD for that matter) Apple can just grab their respective reference board bases, make whatever minor changes they like, thereby reducing overall mb dev costs. (Both companies are still geared towards desktop systems, and make, pretty much, complete ref. board designs available, which is why until fairly recently all those far east boards were so similar, barring BIOS.)
As mentioned in another reply, their lower cost and single supplier will only kick in IF Apple is getting a discount based upon the total # of chips ordered, not just by particular models/types, ow they could have split Intel for notebooks, AMD for desktops/servers…
As much as I like AMD for home and work use they have not been able to supply chips very steadily for years and that is why Apple went with Intel.
i think apple wanted the same kind of deal that dell is receiving from intel, bunch of rebates and who knows what else. amd sinply can’t match that kind of deal.
AMD has to take this kind of deal between intel and apple into consideration, because it proves that simply putting out the fastest CPUs does not attract business.
No, it just proves it doesnt work 100% of the time.
The reason is really simple – if Microsoft offered it, they’d get prosecuted by the EU… {censored} sake they get dragged into court for bundling a {censored} media player; yet you don’t see Ubuntu dragged into court for bundling Totem or Apple being dragged into court for quicktime…
Much less something like iWeb – Let’s see Microsoft bundle an equivalent through MSN… RIGHT.
It’s one of the things that pisses me off about a lot of the Apple and Linux Zealots – They make a huge stink if MS doesn’t do these things; then they get thier panties in a twist when they do.
Edited 2006-02-02 15:57
Travel back in time, people, to the 70’s glow of amber and green:
Check it out: http://ldopa.net/2006/01/14/glterminal/
Have fun!
iMean that there is no iPoint in iApplication iNames like iLife. One iDay they will release a new iGame called iSuck because uSuck is against the iName-iPolicy. The next killer iGadget for iGerman iUsers will be an iQuetsche, in iUK there will be an iMini and in iRussia iPeople will stand in iQueues for a new iProduct called iBla!
Once iYou notice that iYou enter an iBus every iDamn (TM) iMorning, go to iWork, go back, enter the iBus, – even on iSundays – and get no iBuck for it, iYou notice that iYou have got a malformed version of iLife.
Me for my self find the whole i-namespace a shit. And I still find Macs sexy
Whasn’t that thread supposed to talk about AMD and Apple and nothing about the iLife thingy?
Edited 2006-02-02 20:53