“One can’t wander through the aisles of an electronics retailer or down the hallways of an office without walking past any number of PCs with Intel Inside stickers. As a brand-building endeavor, Intel Inside has been a success by any definition. With the first Intel-powered Macintosh computers expected to be introduced at Macworld San Francisco next month, some are wondering if Apple’s machines will bear the mark of the CPU beast.”
It is interesting to read the tone on Mac forums lately. This Intel transition is causing fragmentation among core Mac users, and lot’s of people are openly doubting Job’s and his Intel plans. I really doubt that Apple would risk further offending the small but vocal contingent of long-time Mac users that see the whole Intel transition as a slap in the face. Doing so probably wouldn’t affect sales numbers immediately, but could endanger the transition, which is (like all major transitions), already a very delicate process.
I visit many Mac sites and read many forums. While Mac users certinly regarded the transition as a large dose of humble pie, I don’t see anyone regarding it as a slap in the face.
Mac users are interested in two things… that the OS be OS X and that the platform remain specific to Apple.
To most Mac users, the Intel transition is regarded as a means of quieting the x86 trolls so that now a propper platform comparison can be done without these individuals trying to turn it into a PPC vs x86 debate.
Most PC users are knowledgable about hardware. The OS fan is not something you see as often. The Intel transition takes all the advantage that PC users said they had while retaining the advantages of the OS.
If anything, Mac users are regarding this as a major coup.
Edited 2005-12-21 19:11
Did we read the same forums? There are a lot of folks on MacNN and MacRumors expecting the Intel transition to fail miserably. Indeed, one guy accused Apple of sandbagging the PowerMacs during the recent update, so they wouldn’t be “too good” and embarass the Conroe PowerMacs coming out in 2007.
People are pissed, as you expect them to be. You spend years telling them that Intel chips blow, and that “The fastest G4 is twice as fast as any Pentium”, and how exactly do you expect them to react when you tell them that you’re moving to Intel? This is especially true of the older Mac users, who remember the whole G3 vs PII and G4 vs PIII, and realize that the P6 architecture that they used to mock is now the basis of Apple’s future product lines.
“People are pissed, as you expect them to be.”
Maybe a little bit… its certinly a blow to one’s ego.
“You spend years telling them that Intel chips blow, and that “The fastest G4 is twice as fast as any Pentium””
When Apple made that claim, it wasn’t false. x86 has managed to ramp up very nic ely since then though.
“how exactly do you expect them to react when you tell them that you’re moving to Intel?”
asside from the afformentioned bruised egos… I’d imagine that they would take it well if it can be shown that future Intel roadmaps make the transition worth while.
“This is especially true of the older Mac users, who remember the whole G3 vs PII and G4 vs PIII, and realize that the P6 architecture that they used to mock is now the basis of Apple’s future product lines.”
This is where the bruised ego comes in. Back then, those that argued for the G3, earlier versions of the G4 and then also the G5 were very justified in their support. If the future roadmap of Intel is as good as Steve says it is, then there’s nothing to be upset about. These individuals got the best of the majority of their Mac usage. Asside from the last 2 years of the G4’s era and the last 3-6 months before any major processor ramp-up, Mac users have tranditionally had the benefit of boasting fastest processor.
Edited 2005-12-21 19:23
When Apple made that claim, it wasn’t false. x86 has managed to ramp up very nic ely since then though.
It was never true for very long, and certainly not as long as Apple pushed it. The G4 was never much faster than the PIII clock-for-clock, and it was certainly never a competitor to the Athlon. When the latter two pushed beyond 500MHz, Apple was still pushing the G4 as being faster and it was comical. The current generation of x86 hasn’t ramped up, as you claim. x86 processor development over the last several years has been surprisingly slow. The Opteron and the Pentium-M are direct descendents of the Athlon and Pentium-III. The fact that they blow away the G4 now simply means that the G4 was simply never as good as it was claimed to be, and now almost everybody realizes this in hindsight.
asside from the afformentioned bruised egos… I’d imagine that they would take it well if it can be shown that future Intel roadmaps make the transition worth while.
A great many people are not interested in roadmaps (or facts, for that matter). They’re attached to certain things as a matter of pride. Remember how much attention the PA-Semi chip got as the “savior” of PPC? It got this attention beyond all rational assessments of its performance or PA-Semi’s ability to supply a buyer as big as Apple!
This is where the bruised ego comes in. Back then, those that argued for the G3, earlier versions of the G4 and then also the G5 were very justified in their support.
They were never justified. The G4 and G5 were on top for a few months at a time, but the very fact that x86 has a product cycle measured in months, while new iterations of the G4 and G5 came out every year or two, meant that for 90% of the time, x86 was on top. Even Jobs, as famously stubborn as he is, realized this. Why else do you think he wanted to move to x86 five years ago?* He got sold on the G5, hoping it wouldn’t be more of the same crap he dealt with during the G3 and G4 era, and when it turned out to be more of the same, he jumped ship.
*) This is just months after the G4 and PIII came out in late 1999.
If the future roadmap of Intel is as good as Steve says it is, then there’s nothing to be upset about.
Correction. “Nothing to be upset about” should read “everybody should be praising Yawweh that Jobs finally got Apple off the sinking ship that is PowerPC on the desktop”
That said, the fact that their is no reason to be upset does not change the fact that many people are indeed upset.
Edited 2005-12-21 19:41
depending on what the definition of ramp up is, you are right or wrong. you assume clock speed, the other fellow seems to assume performance.
Intel has continued to produce better performing CPUs, the clock has just dropped down to a normal and sane frequency.
When I say ramp up, I mean performance. The rate of increase in total performance has been slower over the past five years than the historical doubling every 18 months trend. After the PIII was introduced, it roughly doubled in performance from mid-1999 to 2001 (around a year and a half). In the five years since then, performance has increased maybe by a factor of three, while one would expect it to increase by a factor of four to six. Just consider the machines you have at home. By early 2000’s, my 300MHz PII (circa 1998) felt antiquated. Yet, the 1.5GHz Athlon I have from the early 2000’s feels completely usable these days. As it should, modern Athlon64s aren’t much more than twice as fast as that one!
“It was never true for very long”
It was true for nearly all of the G3 era and approximately 6 months into the G4 era. It has been true on and off for the G5
“and certainly not as long as Apple pushed it.”
Apple pushed it during the G3 era and during the beginning of the G4 era… (when it was true)
“The G4 was never much faster than the PIII clock-for-clock”
It was MUCH faster than the PIII clock for clock… ESPECIALLY during its initial release.
“and it was certainly never a competitor to the Athlon.”
When the Athlon was released, thats when the G4 experienced a major lapse in advances.
“Remember how much attention the PA-Semi chip got as the “savior” of PPC? It got this attention beyond all rational assessments of its performance or PA-Semi’s ability to supply a buyer as big as Apple!”
If that was true… (I don’t remember anything about the PA-Semi being hyped, but it was probably at a time (in the G4 era) when PPC needed a boost.
“They were never justified. The G4 and G5 were on top for a few months at a time”
The claims started during the G3 era. And they were justified throughout nearly all of that chips era. It was true for about 6 months of the G4. and on and off again throughout the G5s lineage.
“the very fact that x86 has a product cycle measured in months, while new iterations of the G4 and G5 came out every year or two”
That could be said of the G4, but the G5 was seen steady improvement throughout its lifetime.
“Even Jobs, as famously stubborn as he is, realized this. Why else do you think he wanted to move to x86 five years ago?”
Because 5 years ago, he had an OS that was totally optomized for x86. No need to optomize for PPC.
“He got sold on the G5, hoping it wouldn’t be more of the same crap he dealt with during the G3 and G4 era”
There was on crap during the G3 era. Only on the G4… and yes there was much of it then. He was sold on the G5 because the transition to x86 would be (is going to be) cumborsome.
“”Nothing to be upset about” should read “everybody should be praising Yawweh that Jobs finally got Apple off the sinking ship that is PowerPC on the desktop”
PPC isn’t sinking. As a matter of fact its a shining jewl amongst many failed processor architectures. The only era where its not competing well is in laptops.
“That said, the fact that their is no reason to be upset does not change the fact that many people are indeed upset. “
Perhaps, but their percentages are likely to be considerable small proportionally speaking.
It was true for nearly all of the G3 era and approximately 6 months into the G4 era. It has been true on and off for the G5
This is a ridiculous statement. The Intel competitor during the G3 era was the PII. The PII was essentially the same core as the PIII (with the exception of SSE). The G3 was weaker, clock for clock, than the G4, especially in floating-point. Benchmarks in retrospect have shown that the PIII was comparable, clock for clock, to the G4. By inference, you must conclude that the PII was stronger than the G3 clock-for-clock. The fact that it was availble in higher clock-speeds for almost the whole of its existence seals the argument.
It was MUCH faster than the PIII clock for clock… ESPECIALLY during its initial release.
The statement is not just wrong, it doesn’t make any sense. How could the G4s been particularly faster, clock-for-clock, during its initial release, compared to the PIII? The clock-for-clock performance of a specific design is constant over time. In any case, a G4 is comparable to a PIII in integer performance, and slower in FP performance. The Heise SPEC benchmarks http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/ are definitive in this regard. Say all you want about SPEC, it’s been the best indicator of processor performance I’ve yet found, and its an industry-standard.
If that was true… (I don’t remember anything about the PA-Semi being hyped, but it was probably at a time (in the G4 era) when PPC needed a boost.
The PA-Semi thing was just recently. PowerPC (and the aforementioned Apple/PPC contingent) folks got all excited about an embedded processor that was projected to be as fast as Merom in floating-point, half as fast in integer, and would come out a year later…
and on and off again throughout the G5s lineage.
It wasn’t “on again, off again” throughout the G5’s existence. It was on, then off. Ever since the Opteron came out, it’s been off.
That could be said of the G4, but the G5 was seen steady improvement throughout its lifetime.
In what alternate reality? The Opteron has scaled from 1.8GHz to 2.8GHz, with 3.0GHz around the corner. The G5 has scaled from, what, 2.0GHz to 2.5GHz?
He was sold on the G5 because the transition to x86 would be (is going to be) cumborsome.
No doubt, but the fact that he was ready to jump ship, despite the traumatic nature of a transition, suggests that he knew that the PowerPC series of chips just didn’t have the steam on the desktop. He was probably wise to transition to OS X first (the old OS8 apps could never have handled an Intel transition as easily), but if OS X had come out in 1997, you can bet Apple on Intel would’ve happened years ago.
PPC isn’t sinking. As a matter of fact its a shining jewl amongst many failed processor architectures. The only era where its not competing well is in laptops.
I said PPC on the desktop (and workstation) is sinking, which, by all regards, it is. It is highly unlikely there will be a sucessor to the PPC970, without Apple, and it was only the product of Apple’s exertions that got the PPC970 strung out as long as it did. The PPC970 was never even a very good chip — it had all the weaknesses of the Pentium 4, running hot, having low IPC, and being overly sensitive to instruction scheduling. PowerPC is doing fine in the embedded space and in the server space, but then again, UltraSPARC is doing just fine in server space and it’s not exactly a decent processor! You stuff 128MB of cache on an MCM, you can make any processor look good!
Perhaps, but their percentages are likely to be considerable small proportionally speaking.
Small, but vocal, which was my initial point.
No.
The only time that Mac users had the advantage in terms of processors is when the G3 was competing with the Pentium II, and the G4 with the Pentium III, but only when an AltiVec-optimized app was in use.
As soon as the Athlons came onto the scene, Apple was behind. The Athlon 64/Opteron vs. the G5 was a no-brainer, and it still is.
“The only time that Mac users had the advantage in terms of processors is when the G3 was competing with the Pentium II, and the G4 with the Pentium III, but only when an AltiVec-optimized app was in use. “
It had the advantage throughout nealry all the G3’s lifecycle… about 6 month’s into the G4’s lifecyle… then there was long stint where only altivec enabled apps demonstrated an advantage and then the G5 cam along and the speed crown has been flop flopping back and fourth ever since between PPC and x86.
That’s the thing … the speed crown *hasn’t* been flopping around ever since the Athlon XPs. Since then, when you look at the real benchmarks, the Athlons have lead all the way.
Yeah the ppc970 owns. ;/
Talking about cpus it’s said the Apple people get Intel chips when Freescale releases dual-core 64 bit pci-express dual-channel ddr2 ethernet adapter integrated altivec low power ppc chips.
Edited 2005-12-23 03:25
But back then they said they would make the switch if you looked at their webpage the G5 powermacs where so much faster than the P4s, heck, even the iMac or whatever it was was way faster than a P4 in games! It might had been the fact that the x86 had a totally different graphic card thought… There are lies, damn lies and statistics? ;D
This was true before, but not gonna be valid 2 years and later with IBM power chips because they already bothered Apple and hurt them on the laptop front. Apple was crying for mobile G5 for their laptops on IBM floor for years.
Beside, Intel CPU are no more dependant on MHz but are focusing on features which was IBM method.
My point about Mac users being pissed about the Intel transition refers to the situation now. A lot of people don’t realize how much PPC hurt Apple over the last several years, and don’t understand why Apple is switching.
Beyond that, focusing on “features” is hardly IBM’s method. Indeed, bringing the CPU and chipset together under a “platform”, is a fairly recent Intel push that neither IBM nor AMD have done. Moreover, I don’t need to remind you that the G5 was IBM’s bid to play in the MHz race, just like the P4.
“My point about Mac users being pissed about the Intel transition refers to the situation now. A lot of people don’t realize how much PPC hurt Apple over the last several years, and don’t understand why Apple is switching.”
Yes, it hurt badly in laptops… but PPC was more often than not more beneficial to the company in the area of desktop machines than if there had gone x86.
“Moreover, I don’t need to remind you that the G5 was IBM’s bid to play in the MHz race, just like the P4.”
If they were all about MHz, then they would have extended the pipeline so much further than what they did… like Intel did all those years in the past thus giving the PC fanbois a “benchmark” to latch on to.
“Moreover, I don’t need to remind you that the G5 was IBM’s bid to play in the MHz race, just like the P4.”
Do you want to claim that IBM G5 Processor could reach intels already achieved 3.8 GHz. I highly doubt it could reach 3 GHz, beside IBM was focusing on altivec and other optimizations to make their CPUs faster and now on their dual core technology, but unfortunately it is too little too late.
“Indeed, bringing the CPU and chipset together under a “platform”, is a fairly recent Intel push that neither IBM nor AMD have done.”
For AMD they have their own chipsets they are called “AMD-8000â„¢ Series Chipsets” check this web site “http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_87…,
IBM was not asked to supply their own chipsets because apple wanted to produce it themselves, but now they don’t because they want to save more money.
There is also a technical reason for intel transition that alot of people don’t pay attension to which is the compilers; Intels’ compilers are much more advanced than IBM, which makes the software compiled for intel platforms much more faster. Besides, intel supplied Apple with compilers to show them how fast their macs could be if OSX was compiled with intels own stuff.
So, normal people will not understand these problems apple was facing because simply they are not technical workers or understand IT, which is OK.
Do you want to claim that IBM G5 Processor could reach intels already achieved 3.8 GHz. I highly doubt it could reach 3 GHz, beside IBM was focusing on altivec and other optimizations to make their CPUs faster and now on their dual core technology, but unfortunately it is too little too late.
The G5 was intended to be a high-MHz processor. It’s pipeline, at 16 stages, is quite a bit longer than something like an Opteron’s (12 stages), despite the fact that it has much less decode work to do up front (a task to which the Opteron dedicates many of its 12 stages). That is not to say it was going to be a Prescott, but clearly, it was designed with MHz as a significant part of the overall performance equation. IBM intended to easily hit 3GHz with the G5 (remember the boasts about 3GHz by summer?) Had met that goal, the G5’s performance would have been steller, given that Opterons were in the 2.2-2.4GHz range at the time. However, that plan didn’t work out for IBM, just as it didn’t for Intel. Meanwhile, the Opteron, with a high-IPC, low-latency design has been doing excellently with manufacturing, and is now itself on the verge of 3GHz!
For AMD they have their own chipsets they are called “AMD-8000â„¢ Series Chipsets” check this web site “” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_87…
The 8000 was built because AMD wanted to get the K8 out quickly without waiting for chipset vendors to ramp up. It was never intended to be a permanent solution. Indeed, as 3rd party chipsets came out, AMD focused on those instead of pushing its own in-house versions. Intel, in contrast, has always put an emphasis on first party chipsets, and now with the Centrino brand, has combined the CPU, chipset, and supporting wireless infrastructure in one complete “platform”.
There is also a technical reason for intel transition that alot of people don’t pay attension to which is the compilers; Intels’ compilers are much more advanced than IBM
IBM’s XLC is very good. It gets quite excellent performance out of the G5, though the G5’s inherent limitations on integer code are still glaringly present. OS X compiled with XLC probably would have been comparable to OS X compiled with Intel C++.
============People are pissed, as you expect them to be. You spend years telling them that Intel chips blow, and that “The fastest G4 is twice as fast as any Pentium”, and how exactly do you expect them to react when you tell them that you’re moving to Intel?============
That’s what happens when you drink the koolaid.
PPC chips were light years better back in the day, but since the P6 architecture(which is risc at it’s core) came out and started doing it’s thing the performance delta has consistently narrowed.
Except in Photoshop, which was so heavily optimized it’s unreal.
Photoshop was actually more optomized for x86 than PPC.
The fact that PPC still beat x86 despite that optomization shows how much more advanced PPC is.
I was talking about that with my dad a while back, about how the Tiger system when it rests on the x86 platform will wipe the floor with windows.
Then there’s linux, which wipes the floor with both.
You saw(for example) the Doom 3 system requirements, right? *chuckles*
Both MacOS and Windows are too bloated.
I really hope not. Then Intel name isn’t very “hip”…
I think they will reach an agreement with Intel to recieve the subsidies in exchange for a more elegant etched (subdued?) Intel logo. No sticker on the machine.
My thoughts exactly. Something etched on the bottom, if anything.
Hilarious cartoon about it from “The Joy Of Tech”
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/696.html
I personally think the only way there will be a sticker on the machines is if they put it on the bottom, like those windows-license stickers on laptops.
I believe at one point, companies paid Intel (or Microsoft for the Windows-compatible sticker) to be able to put those stickers on their computer, as a mark of quality (heh). Hopefully, the Apple stickers (if they have them) will be as easy to peel off as the others.
This is sort of off-topic, but it’s been bugging me. The popular theory is that Apple will upgrade the iBooks first, and put off upgrading the PowerBooks until Merom six months down the road. How do they plan to pull that off? Any Yonah chip is going to trash the G4s in the PowerBooks. Even the slowest 1.67GHz ULV version. Apple can do one of two things. They could castrate the initial iBook processors (by limiting them to 1.2 GHz or something and disabling one core), or they could have a situation where their iBook line was much faster than their PowerBook line.
Niether option if very appealing. The first one is tricky, because Apple has very little room to maneuver. The difference in speed between the top-end PowerBook and bottom-end iBook is only 25% (1.67GHz vs 1.33GHz). Apple would have to sneak a Yonah-based iBook somewhere inbetween. Even then, castrating the iBook like that would make Apple’s Yonah-based offerings far inferior to the Yonah-based laptops that Dell and HP will be fielding next year. The performance-inversion option isn’t appealing either, because not only does that totally trash sales of the higher-margin PowerBooks, but creates a significant amount of customer confusion, when they see that they cannot get the bigger screens of the PowerBooks with the faster processors of the iBooks.
Which way will Apple go with this?
They will introduce the powerbooks and then they will introduce the iBook 3-4 months later with a bump to the power books.
apple new product : the iNtel .. sorry , couldnot resist 😡
lol
Those who know will run from the Intel logo. It now bespeaks: hotter, slower, pricier…and non-innovative. AMD has now been the leader with 64-bit extensions, dual-core, and on-chip memory controllers.
Those of us who really know won’t mind having a Pentium M based machine at all. And Intel’s next generation chips have much more in common with the M than with the 4. The Pentium M is much more comparable with AMD’s Athlon 64 chips in terms for clockspeed/performance. They lag in a few areas (fpu), and have the obvious deficiencies that you point out, but I don’t think it would be a huge problem for apple’s low-end laptops to serve as the first of their new line.
I think the key is going to be apple will introduce a 32bit pentium m intel ibook, while at the same time introducing a ppc970 based powerbook.
disclaimer: I have an Athlon64 as my main computer.
and below the “Intel Inside” sticker will be the “Hell has frozen over” stickr.
I highly doubt Apple would let that happen. That would completely ruin Apple’s clean design – they barely have a power on indication.
I know that if there is that sticker for the 1 in a million chance, I won’t buy a Mac. I’ll just keep my Powerbook G4 and iMac G5 for ever
That would completely ruin Apple’s clean design – they barely have a power on indication.
Wha? You don’t have the annoying high-intensity pulsing white LED staring at you out the front of your iMac? I call shenanigens!
Wha? You don’t have the annoying high-intensity pulsing white LED staring at you out the front of your iMac? I call shenanigens!
That would be the sleep indicator. My powerbooks led actually doesn’t glow when the machine is on. My PowerMac’s does glow solid.
But the OP’s “barely have a power on indication” is fairly accurate. Some Apple products do while others don’t.
No intel inside sticker. It would be seriously against Apple design policy, where the only sign allowed on their hardware is the apple logo and computer name (sometimes not even that). Therefore no sticker. Just the mention of the processor name in the tech specs that come inside the box.
I have three Macs and three Intel systems, and they’re all good. I think the Pentium M or derivatives are a good move, and Intel’s hardware roadmap looks pretty compelling at the moment (all things being equal). It perhaps would have been better for Apple to go with AMD, but that’s another argument.
As a Mac user of three years I can tell you it wasn’t the G4/PIII arguments that got me on to the thing; it was the OS. If Mac OS X runs as well or better on a Pentium M or derivative from Intel then I am very happy. My OS at work is Windows- I’m a network manager for a large school. But my OS of choice is OS X. If my usage gets more from an Intel transition then I am (again) happy.
As to a mark of some kind- I think it will be touch and go. The iBook has “G4” on it to denote the processor, and it might occur that on the underside or somewhere Intel will get a mention (at least on the spec sheet or on the box). I wouldn’t want one of those stickers on my laptop/desktop from Apple though…that *could* dampen it for me. At least until I peal it off 🙂
We all know that the sign of true evil is hidden within, the beauty on the outside trying to hide the Intel-Inside.
What’s odd about the whole switch to Intel is, Apple introduces the G5 processor to much acclaim in mid 2003, and then two yrs later says it was all wrong. This time frame means that Apple pretty much knew by the middle of 2004 that they were going to switch to Intel. That’s quite a move, although you can argue that if people looked at processors as just another part, like a car’s windshield wiper, then no one would be surprised or annoyed if a company like Apple, that is so tied to a particular processor, would change processors at the dropof a dime when the time came that it was advantagous to do so.
You’re absolutely right. Very few people give full weight to the fact that this transition is quite dramatic, especially in the face of the fact that Apple has a processor line (the G5) that is both fairly modern, and not completely outclassed by its competitors.
No, Jobs did not wake up sometime in mid-2004 and decide “man, the G5 isn’t cutting it, let’s switch”. As reports suggest, he’d clearly been thinking about it since 2000 or earlier. It may be quite possible that he had considered introducing OS X on Intel processors, but was convinced to stay on the PowerPC train for one more generation. “The Switch” is not just the product of Steve’s dissapointment with the G5, but rather with a processor line that has, over the last half-decade, consistently delivered less than he has expected of it.
“No, Jobs did not wake up sometime in mid-2004 and decide “man, the G5 isn’t cutting it, let’s switch”. As reports suggest, he’d clearly been thinking about it since 2000 or earlier.”
Yes, but its important to consider the fact that he had an OS that was totally optomized for x86 at the time. I wouldn’t want to waste resources on optomizing for PPC if I didn’t have to.
“”The Switch” is not just the product of Steve’s dissapointment with the G5, but rather with a processor line that has, over the last half-decade, consistently delivered less than he has expected of it.”
Yes, but really only inthe area of laptops. In desktop machines, it has exceeded many people’s expectations.
It is truly amazing to read this stuff. The ‘mark of the beast’!
I do understand this sort of talk in historical context. It is obviously pre-modern, maybe even pre- Renaissance. But one understands that in certain states of religious hysteria in some Christian cults, various perfectly innocent phenomena were felt to be ‘marks of the beast’.
But this is for goodness’ sake the 21st century, and we are talking about processors. Thats right, processors! Bits of computers!
The choice of one over the other cannot have any moral significance whatever, and it is little short of madness to use this kind of language about it.
Madness, or artistic license!
I liked the “Apple on the outside” one.
Like there was ever tasteless GT racing strips and big large “Motorola and Ati inside” stickers on past Mac mobos LOL.
You can rest at ease that your yuppie trophy x86 Mac will be sticker free unlike what us Pc using peasants have to put up with.
It’s really quite amusing the whole mark of the beast thing, and really a lot of the time it should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, how serious can you actually be about something like that?!
What will be interesting is to compare this conversation with consumer thoughts in three or four years.
It will have a sticker on it. Intel requires it to the best of my knowledge. Apple users need to understand they are now owned by Intel. Their target audience is no longer the power user but the iPod consumer. If you don’t like the logo, take it off (grow up people). Please!
Intel doesn’t require it, but rather offers rebate to manufacturers who participate in the marketing program associated with the sticker. And Apple isn’t owned by Intel, any more than Apple was owned by IBM.
“It will have a sticker on it. Intel requires it to the best of my knowledge.”
Intel only requires it to get discounts.
“Apple users need to understand they are now owned by Intel.”
Well, only if they sucome to the advertising dollar gimmic. I think that the mere transition to Intel was enough for Intel to give Apple the same discount without including any stickers because they know that they will get TONS more publicity from the move than a mere sticker anyways.
Well, only if they sucome to the advertising dollar gimmic. I think that the mere transition to Intel was enough for Intel to give Apple the same discount without including any stickers because they know that they will get TONS more publicity from the move than a mere sticker anyways.
It’s not a rebate or discount, that’s determined by sales volume.
The sticker is used to access marketing development funds (MDF) or marketing co-operative funds (co-op), the article referred to them as subsidies which is effectively what they are, but for marketing efforts, not purchasing prices. It goes beyond the sticker, anytime you see a print ad or commercial from a PC maker big or small that includes “Intel Inside”, you can bet that Intel paid for a portion, if not all, of that ad’s costs from design to distribution. It’s literally worth millions and millions of dollars to the large scale manufacturers.
My own company never pays for our own print advertising. We co-brand our ads with our suppliers, and they pay for the ads in entirety using marketing funds as long we meet their respective requirements (logo useage, marketing tag lines, target products etc.) It’s often a joke that marketing is the only department without a budget because they rely on everyone else’s to function, but it’s the way the game is played.
Apple doesn’t have to include the sticker, but they’d be walking away from additional funding for marketing efforts. Though if Apple actually intends to downplay the Intel factor, maybe that’s not an issue.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking Intel will bend the rules because of some sort of “wow” factor with Apple. True, it’s a PR coupe that shocked the industry, but that “wow” factor is pretty much contained within the industry (and forums like this). Joe Average neither knows nor cares, and that’s why Intel is all about branding. And they will want Apple co-branded with Intel wherever possible. This will sort of be a test for Apple, IMHO, about how far they will be willing to avoid a “sell out” image.
Looked at another way, if Intel lets Apple off the hook then they need to be prepared to change the rules for the bigger players.
At the end of the day, it’s simply business, nothing more nothing less.
…I don’t mind 😉
Seriously though, I’m a registered Apple developer and have noticed the tone of the newsletters and articles from Apple has gone from “hey, it’s so easy to port your XCode software to Intel” to something more like desperation and pleading for developers to support the new platform.
Apart from major companies like Adobe and Microsoft, I’ve not noticed much enthusiasm on the porting front. I’m certainly stuck until I’ve upgraded to Tiger and migrated over to XCode. Since the new Intel Macs will support PowerPC apps anyway, there’s not much need except for really CPU heavy code.
I notice with my Dell, not only do I have Windows sticker, but actually an indentation in the case where it goes. How revolting.
Apple would never put the proc spec on their casings? Umm, what about this G3 B&W I got next to me, with a HUGE G3 emblazened on both sides of it (well showing through the casing with the apple logo in front). Don’t think I’ve ever seen the Intel logo on a PC put so prominently.
The G naming monkier is Apple’s naming methodology, its not anything to do with IBM or Motorola.
is apple going back to 32bit processors
and only 2GB Ram
?
Edited 2005-12-22 00:17
Yes and no.
32bit: Yes initially. The first Macs to have Intel inside will use a Yonah core (maybe a dual core for high end). According to Intel’s roadmap, 64 bit processing is a little down the road for the Pentium M derived cores (mid 2006, I think).
2GB Ram: No. The 32 bit cores can address more than 2 GB. I don’t know if Yonah will have PAE, but it should at least be able to address 4 GB, which should be enough for an iBook.
Sorry Mac fans, not only will there be an “Intel Inside” badge, but the familiar Macintosh musical, boot up chord will be replaced by the annoying Intel advertising ditty.
The only real concern is ensuring that the quality of the hardware continues and that the software I rely on, arrives on time, and of a decent quality.
intel inside finally
I will physically burn it off of every surface of my Mac where one is applied.
I’m willing to bet that the wonderful marketing boys and girls in Cupertino and wherever it is that the monster has its lair will have cooked up something so irresistably beautiful that you say: “Damn, it sucks the big banana but dang, it sure does look nice!”.
I’ve never been too much into processor wars. What’s important to me is that I don’t lose anything of my Mac experience. As long as my Mac stays a Mac they can put an elbonian in the box who does all the computing on an abacus for all I care.
The sticker I don’t care for though.