|
|
| Apple, Apple, Apple...Whatever Does It Mean? |
 |
|
Monday, June 06 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT
|
I don't know what it means that Apple is switching to Intel chips. As far as I can tell, no one else knows either. Of course, I have the world's worst cold, and it's hard to pay attention to anything with this fever. Steve Jobs knows. Here's his keynote, so you can make up your own mind. (It's at 00:21:55 when he begins to speak about "Transitions.") At first, I thought this theory made the most sense out of all the opinions out there today on why Apple is going to Intel, from Wired: they think it's to satisfy Hollywood's lust for a DRM'd locked-down environment, so folks will have to do what they are told with movies: But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.
Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.
Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet. . . .
And that's why the whole Mac platform has to shift to Intel. Consumers will want to move content from one device to another -- or one computer to another -- and Intel's DRM scheme will keep it all nicely locked down. But then, someone pointed out that Intel claims there is no DRM in the chip: Intel supports several technologies of content protection, such as DTCP-IP, which is offered by a large number of companies. DTCP-IP is aimed at securing the transmission of compressed material in a local network.
Several products signed by Intel include data protection technologies such as: Macrovision, DTCP-IP, and in the second half of the year, Intel will also offer support for technologies like COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others.
Intel is a strong supporter of including technologies for content protection, but Pentium D and the 945 Express chipset will not include them.
Tom's Hardware says it all depends on how you phrase things. What Intel actually said was that there were no "unannounced DRM technologies implemented": However, the issue about DRM in Intel products is not really whether the tech is there or not. Instead, it really depends on the wording of such a claim. Intel does not deny that certain DRM technologies are supported by its hardware. "Many of Intel's products today, including those just mentioned do work with existing content protection technologies out there including DTCP-IP. In the second half of 2005, Intel will deliver an updated graphics driver that will also support additional content protection technologies including COPP, HDCP, CGMS-A, and others," Skoog said.
In other words, Intel says it is not building DRM technologies right into its hardware, but rather supports existing technologies, if they are used by copyright holders.
So the Wired piece could be on target. John Dvorak thinks it means that Linux is doomed. Of course, that's what he always says, no matter what the latest news story happens to be. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols thinks it endangers both Longhorn and Linux, and he'd like Linux developers to drop what they are doing and just get into a competitive spin stat. One suggestion he makes is to choose a desktop, Gnome or KDE, and focus. I'd like to disagree, gently, because I like Steven. But GNU/Linux is about choice, not competition, and getting it just right, and it doesn't matter how long it takes, if the end result is that you get something you truly love. I like to use both Gnome and KDE, and I don't want to have to choose only one. Only one is what you get with proprietary software. Such decisions are made for you. We have plenty of developers to go around, and Google is making more as we speak.
Joe Brockmeier has more analysis here. He doesn't see Apple's move as spelling doom for Linux on the desktop, and here's why: Apple’s move to Intel isn’t going to change much. Firstly, Apple seems poised to continue its exclusionary stance, and will require users who want to run Mac OS X to buy the whole kit and kaboodle from Apple. The ZDNet piece quotes Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller as saying that "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." This means that Apple computers will still continue to carry a price premium that many users are unwilling to pay unless they’re already convinced they want to run Mac OS X. Even Apple’s low-end Mac Mini is still high-priced compared to similarly-equipped Dell computer. "We will not allow." How those words resonate. The corporate world is dividing into two camps: the controllers and those that treat their customers like human beings, with a measure of respect for what freedom means to the human spirit. So. Now what? Terra Soft's Yellow Dog Linux is still there. They announced they are sticking with PowerPC: We will not transition to support an x86/ia64
architecture.Terra Soft remains in good standing with Apple. Their announcement does not
immediately affect our ability to sell nor support Apple PowerPC hardware.
Nor does it affect our ability to support non-Apple Power Architecture
offerings. Things are already in motion to enable a world of greater Power
Architecture diversity. "A world of diversity" versus "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Take your pick. If you'd like to listen to another MP3, here's Dan Farber interviewing Ina Fried about what it all means, and here's David Berlind's list of the questions they discuss, with time codes, so you can find what interests you. Hmm. Here's one I think I'll go listen to: "03:28 - Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run Windows on an x86 Mac but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple x86 systems. What’s behind that?" Meanwhile, IBM is building a new architecture for Linux. If you really enjoy Macintosh history, Groklaw's clark_kent found the videos from the launch of the Machintosh in 1984. It's fun. UPDATE: Wednesday, June 8: some more reactions that seem to make more sense than the early hype -- CIO Today's "PowerPC's Legacy Lives On" and Linspire's Michael Robertson's "Apple's Colossal Disappointment". Robertson says that there will be specially designed Intel chips for the Mac, to make sure there will be no white box possibilities: My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented on what the switch doesnot mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs. My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox - see: MM on Linux on Xbox.
The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the option to install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic AMD or Via white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple will not be reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines.
And here's a pragmatic view from IT Jungle: The sad truth is that IBM and Apple should have long since ported Mac OS to the Power-based server line created by Big Blue, and IBM should have listened to Apple and created a low-powered, 64-bit PowerPC chip that could run Mac OS X in a laptop without cooking a user's legs. IBM most certainly could have done this, but it has had other priorities--like ramping up performance on the Power5 chips as much as possible to compete in the Unix and proprietary midrange and enterprise server space or selling low-powered chips for embedded devices. IBM's PowerPC 970 and its supposed kicker, the PowerPC 970MP with dual cores, was a high volume product in relation to Power5, but it probably didn't make IBM as much money or Big Blue would have fought to retain the Apple business. For all we know, IBM made such promises. It doesn't matter. This should have happened in 1995. So why will it take 18 months to roll out the Intel-based Apple machines? Because Apple thinks it is a hardware manufacturer, and it is in love with the idea of designing and building computers. And that is fair enough. Let's face it: Apple has the sexiest computers on the market, whether they are desktops or iPods or xServes. But if Apple is really interested in taking the X86/X64 market by storm, it may be time to let Mac OS X go--and really let it go. At the very least, Apple might be smart to create an open source community and let that community do a port of all the relevant pieces of Mac OS X to all kinds of X86 and X64 machines. For native Intel code, this would be a great strategy. Cringely thinks it's about Microsoft, and that Intel will buy Apple. Since Apple says it's about chips, here's an article on chips and heat. Intel has a statement on Dave Farber's IP, reinforcing that it does not have DRM embedded. This touched off an interesting thread you might like to follow. You might also find this Intel page fascinating, on DTCP, Digital Transmission Content Protection, and how wondrous it is.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:46 AM EDT |
Please place corrections here for P.J.
Charles
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
For current events, legal filings, 3rd amended complaints and Caldera®
collapses.
Please make links clickable.
Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:48 AM EDT |
Please use link code to make your links clickable:
For example <a href="http://www.example.com"> Link Text
</a>
Set the Post Mode "HTML Formatted".
Charles
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
PJ, I think you might be judging Apple based on mistaken stories. It appears
that Intel's alleged DRM in the 945 chipset/Pentium D doesn't exist. At least,
not according to Intel. Check out this Google News search for Intel DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: neodlr on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:52 AM EDT |
Greetings PJ, I'm a long time reader, first time poster, and so on.
I am not a kernel developer, but I am an iBook-toting 2L. I do not think Apple
is switching to Intel for the DRM; hardware alone cannot implement DRM. The
kernel is involved in the process; since the kernel controls the hardware (and
Mach in particular excels at injecting code in processes), the kernel must
"consent" to the DRM scheme. Apple's kernel being open source, I
don't see a way for them to prevent users from circumventing any copy protection
scheme they or Intel may have in mind, DMCA notwithstanding.
I'm trying to have a bit of faith in Apple. I like Power myself, and I'm sorry
to see it go. In the interest of ojectivity, no matter how much optimism one
puts forward, it will come down at least somewhat to wait-and-see for die-hard
Mac users and OSS advocates.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:53 AM EDT |
| Apple's motive for switching to Intel cannot be DRM, because there is nothing
magic about the Pentium D. Similar features can be put into any processor, or
they can be put onto the motherboard if desired.
Besides, Apple isn't going
to poof away all their already-shipping machines; in fact, it's going to ship a
lot more PPC machines in the next year (or at least it's going to try; people
might not want to buy a soon-to-be-discontinued line). And Hollywood isn't
going to be able to force everyone to buy a new machine.
Finally, GNU/Linux
is going to run just fine on the new dual-core Intel processors.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
I am not entirely sure Intel wishes to go down the drm route. Doing so will
leave a hole a mile wide for AMD to jump in and steal the show. The cat has
already been let out of the bag, attempting to restrict what people can do with
their computers is going to crash and burn in a revolt. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
Well, I've very mixed feelings -- I've always admired Apples thorough
engineering, much in the same way that I admire a BMW even though I can't afford
one. The legal/economic ramifications of switching to Intel will be interesting
to say the least, let alone the reasons *why*.
Also in the news today (shamelessly taken from a few slashdot comments:)
Debian stable has been released
The Pope died
The identity of "Deep Throat" in the Watergate scandal has been
revealed
Boston won the World Series
... go figure.
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: newton on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
Apple doesn't need the Pentium M's features to "lock down" Movies, any
more than iTunes needed Pentium M's features to "lock down" music.
Movies, Music, PDFs, whatever -- it's all just streams of bits. If you have DRM
which works for one of them (such as the stuff embodied in iTMS) then you can
apply exactly the same techniques with exactly the same hardware to anything
else.
I wouldn't get too distracted by this. Occam's Razor says that Apple has moved
to Intel because it's the only way they'll get a 3 GHz processor which won't run
hot enough to burn your house down, and because IBM simply wasn't delivering G4
and G5 processors in sufficient volumes to satisfy demand.
That's been a long-standing feature of Apple's product lines: They pre-announce
a new product, demand spikes, and then there are two-month waiting lists to buy
their stuff. Look at what happened with the Mac Mini when it came out...!
Switching to Intel is the solution. You don't need to look any deeper for
industry conspiracies to work out why they've done it; They've simply changed
their business to address one of the longest-standing and loudest criticism's
which their customer base has been pointing at them for years and years and
years.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: aitala on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
I agree that I think PJ is off the mark here.. I think Apple is hedging their
bets
on their processors. If IBM continues to falter in developing the G5 or focuses
on the game market, Apple has Intel. If IBM makes serious progress, Apple
could continue to use both processors for quite a while.
EMA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bcomber on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 02:40 AM EDT |
John is at it again. His usual negativism (is that a word?) shows that he knows
absolutely nothing about linux or it's community. I'd be willing to bet he's
never even run or seen a linux desktop machine.
It's such a shame that people actually read articles such as this.
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: newton on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
Don't read anything sinister into that.
Remember that despite all the OS-X hype, Apple is fundamentally a hardware
company. They make billions of dollars per quarter by selling Macs, vs tens of
millions per quarter by selling operating systems.
If MacOS was "allowed" to run on generic PCs, Apple would suddenly be
a pure software company. By tying their software to their hardware they're
making customers buy their high-margin hardware to run their low-margin
software; if customers could get a sub-$1k PC and run MacOS-X on it, Apple
wouldn't be able to make billions per quarter on hardware anymore.
The other thing Apple cannot allow itself to do is to become a competitor of
Microsoft's. We all know what happens to companies which try to compete with
Microsoft, don't we? If Apple released a non-Windows OS to run on XP's turf,
Microsoft would annihilate them just like they annihilate all their other
competitors. As long as Apple's business strength is hardware, they don't have
to worry (much) about Microsoft.
So I don't see the "Will Not Allow" comment as a corporate interest
trying to control freedom, I see it as a simple survival instinct on Apple's
part. They'd be insane (rather than "insanely great") to release
their software on generic hardware. Absolutely insane.
- mark
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
| John Dvorak is a professional troll. Contrived controversial opinions with
logical fallacies such as:
The Linux world suffers from a lack
of modern intuitive menus and commands. [...] These stem from old Unix roots and
none of the Unix-trained Linux users find it peculiar or
difficult.
According to SCOG Linux users are terrorists who
commit DDOS attacks and accordding to Dvorak Linux users can't
program intuitive
software. Both committing the Hasty Generalization
fallacy.
Apple was scared that after SCOG got the $699 owed them
by
every Linux user SCOG would also get a fee for their BSD derived kernel.
Yeah right.
Apple doesn't need any help from anyone on DRM, they
already
know how to control media content with closed file formats and limited copying
ability as they have done in iTunes.
It's amazing how much emotion is put
into a computer hardware brand. The intensity is like a religious issue where
there's just a "dialog of the deaf" and people are quick to offer
uninformed opinions. If you haven't used both platforms then you really aren't
qualified to judge them against each other. OTOH just because you use only one
doesn't mean that you have some personal failings.
Is there a comparable
non-techie analogy to what's going on? Closest one I can think of is Porsche
building an SUV after always being known for sports cars as a major shift in an
established brand.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: leguirerj on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
"03:28 - Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run Windows on
an x86 Mac but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple
x86 systems. What’s behind that?"
I think Apple is afraid of Microsofts reponse if they were to invade their
territory. There definitely seems to be a non-public agreement between Steve
Jobs and Bill Gates not to interoperate with each others hardware. Of course, it
could be completely one sided. Non-Apple x86 hardware belongs to Microsoft,
interlopers will be dealt with severely.
It would have been interesting to hear the response by the media and Windows
proponents if Apple did say that they wouldn't restrict OSX to run on Non-Apple
x86 hardware.
Linux is everyones whipping boy because it respects no boundaries, it runs
everywhere on anything because of public access to the kernel source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kb8rln on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:25 AM EDT |
Does Intel forget the problem they had with a serial numbers in there
processor. Now they want control of the data on your computer. Next they will
tell us the Linux will not work. BECAUSE IT Bad data...
I will never buy
and Intel/WinTel chip again. AMD here I come.
Enjoy
Richard
Rager
http://penguinman.com
PS: AMD if you are reading this and
want to take over the whole Intel market and make a public statement saying. We
will support Linux running on all are chip forever and for go any DRM support
unless it can be disable or the SPECs and APIs fully disclosed publicly on your
website.
---
Director Of Infrastructure Technology (DOIT)
Really this is my Title so I not a Lawyer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:28 AM EDT |
If you think about the fact that all the neat hardware advances, USB, 802.11b,
firewire, and the form factors iMac (original), imac (desklamp), imac panel,
along with how wonderful powerbooks/ibooks look as compared to say a
Dell, came from Apple. You can see how happy Intel is to have Apple fully
play in their area. Out of it Apple gets perhaps quad core high Ghz low
powered chips for cool laptops and put them into in a very nice package at a
cheap price. The rest of the Wintel clones will still ship black plastic, noisy
fans
and flaky support (software/people/hardware/etc), but I'm sure XP will run at
full performance rates in emulation mode (VMWare?, let alone VirtualPC) under
os-x, or at least with some help from Wine. So I'd want to buy those wintel
clones because? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
DRM speculations are interesting, but at moment completely unfounded.
I hope nobody forgot those embarassing delays in Motorola's G4 releases:
Motorola was about 1.5 year late crossing 1GHz barrier. Now it is completely out
of desktop CPU business.
Nobody I hope missed news that notebooks outshipped desktops for first time? -
and IBM is still to deliver low voltage G5s.
Price of supporting PowerPC for Apple - especially when there is no-one else
supporting it - go uphill all the time: chipset development, mainboard
development, supporting periphery development. There is no-one to share this
development consts. And since top line PowerPCs are used by no-one else - e.g. I
was quite surprised to find out that IBM doesn't produce PPC systems, only POWER
ones - Apple has to invest all by itself into development of PowerPC. How good
PowerPC is and how technically it is superior to ix86 do not matter: it is just
way to expensive to keep up to Intel/AMD performance level. Both IBM &
Motorola wasn't much successful in persuading desktop CPU markets. And it is
quite embarassing for high-end PC line producer to have low-end performance
chips.
PowerPC will live. Embedded market/telcos loves low voltage and feature-rich
PowerQuicc from FreeScale (former Motorola CPU development hand). IBM's PowerPC
440 family is well known for its reliability. My former employer used chips in
development, and problems of Motorola were quite apparent: by the time of our
product were reaching beta phase we have had about 110 errata (CPU bugs) filed
for Mo's PowerQuicc, compared to about 15 of IBM's 440Gpr. As of now problems
seems to be solved, but no-one can be sure that the situation will not happen
again.
Apple just plays safe. That's it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:50 AM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
Is it just me, or does it seem like Apple has undergone a change in the past
couple of years?
I'm thinking back to things like the Ridley Scott commercial for the Mac that
ran during the Super Bowl. How it signaled a revolution.
I've been hearing funny things about recent Apple ventures. Supposedly, iTunes
tracks your purchases (I just go to a local store and have the tunes burned to a
CD to avoid being harvested). I have no qualms with companies wanting to make
money. After all, that is why they are in business. But it seems like Apple
has been drifting away from the reputation it has enjoyed for so long.
I wonder how much damage this is going to do. Supposedly, every time Apple has
come out with some massive changeover (OS X was an example given), it has
further marginalized the company rather than increasing its market presence. If
this is another blow to Apple's following, where will everyone go, Windows or
Linux?
It was about a year and a half ago, after hearing all the fun stuff coming in
Longwait, that I decided to bail on Windows. I had thought about going with a
Mac but didn't like the high price. I took Linux for a test spin, and was
shocked that the cobbled together computer of mine that Windows always had
problems with worked like a dream. The Mac Mini is cute, but Linux has become
too ingrained in me to switch. Now, I'm not sure I would even if I wanted to.
With Apple angling to be a player in the entertainment industry, how long until
they start using that position in ways that benefit them instead of the
consumer? A way to control what people are exposed to and they can make money
off of it (Windows, Tivo, and others). I'll stick with Linux, FreeVo, and such,
thank you.
Apple, I hope you know what you're doing, and don't forget the customers. Part
of the reason people choose you is they feel you have their interests at heart
more than M$ does. Don't prove them wrong.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
"Yay! My heart fills with hideous despair! Ooo, and behavior controlling
drugs!"
--Fillerbunny[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ccsaxton on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:51 AM EDT |
DRM!? If people think that Linux hasn't been included in the DRM model then you
are all mad...Linux will be able to work with DRM...it will be a matter of
choice!
Why would Intel build a chip that would lock out the most widely adopted Server
OS on this planet? (And is gaining ground on the desktop at an unbelievable
rate!)
Linux is definetly here to stay and Intel D chips, Microsoft and anyone else are
not going to change this. DRM is about protecting something that you have spent
millions on in the first place. What goes into a film is *alot* of money and I
can understand when the producer loses this to some back street pirate cowboy!
However, that said, DRM could also be used to create a cartel which is what the
OS guys, including myself, are worried about...It will all play out but I'm
quite sure that you will still have Linux here...for the simple reason that you
can't stop an asteroid by parking a ford pickup in front of it! ("Too
big" are the words that spring to mind!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
and Apple took the road less traveled by until IBM quite making their engines.
Or maybe it was iNTEL took one road and Apple took another, and IBM has been
doing the dirt-buggy thing.
Anyway, the reason is probably exactly what Jobs says -- IBM's road map is
taking them on a journey through a place Jobs doesn't think Apple should be, and
iNTEL has a road map that will allow Apple to stick closer to its current road
map.
Iff iNTEL can stick to their road map.
Monculture, here we come. Except I'm getting off the train.
Joel Rees
http://reiisi.homedns.org/~joel/cs/law/softpatents.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: urzumph on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
I honestly don't know what this means for apple, and I don't really know squat
about the IT marketplace.
What I can take a decent guess at is the un-intended consequences.
PPC is a popular emulation platform, precisely so that people can run OSX on it.
That's the whole point of the very successful PearPC project. If OSX and many
OSX apps are ported to the x86 aritecture, then the performance hit of emulation
drops dramatically. (Even if we still have to emulate other, non-processor
architecture, such as the sound and graphics card, to fit with apple's OSX must
run only on Macs software)
Thus, with a bit of effort, OSX will be able to run on (almost) any x86 PC at
_almost_ full speed. (For those willing to go to the effort of installing an
emulator).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run Windows on an x86 Mac
but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple x86 systems.
What’s behind that?
Little Billy wants to rule the world!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MeinZy on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
"We will not allow." How those words resonate. The corporate world is
dividing into two camps: the controllers and those that treat their customers
like human beings, with a measure of respect for what freedom means to the human
spirit.
Those are words that could have been mine a year ago. But
now that I've been on a Mac G5 for ~6 months, I finally understand Apple's
"control freak" mentality, something I laughed at for 20+ years. It's called
Quality Control. Everything works. Without any hassles or system tweeking.
It's a very carefully controlled environment designed so the user can focus on
the task at hand, not the computer. I never really think about the hardware or
OS anymore, unlike when on my PC.
Apple could make a killing by opening up
OSX to PC's at large. I have huge respect for the fact that they won't slop it
up by dumping it onto God only knows what kind of hardware environment. Not
unlike my appreciation that Lexus doesn't decide to drop in Corolla engines for
lower pricepoint and wider market penetration.
Apple serves a solid niche
market of creativity professionals (primarily publishing and multimedia). And
Apple's not crying about being unfairly denied market share. It's Apple's
choice to maintain the quality their market expects and is willing to pay
for. At the expense of easily glommed market share. It's not the elitist
market I once thought. Just a market that doesn't want to dink around with
their computers when there is more important work to accomplish.
I can't
help but suspect that some may feel it's not fair that Apple doesn't have the
same burden of supporting untold numbers of potential hardware configurations.
As for me, I'll gladly pay a bit of a premium to give OSX the "controlled"
environment that allows it to breath freely.
Would I like to put OSX on my
PC? You bet! In fact that was one of my first reactions to the Intel
announcement. But, on relection, it probably wouldn't or couldn't perform the
same as within the comfortable little world inside my G5.
I say it's hats
off to Apple for resisting the temptation ($$$) to sacrifice Quality
Control. As long as they continue "controlling" that quality, I'll consider it
a demonstration of their respect for this Mac user's needs. ---
Zy --
'Square peg in a round Earth' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ceri on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
| This whole article is off-topic. I come here to find out about legal actions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nulleh on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
Errr.... it means that Apple believe that Intel chips (and chipsets) will give
them better price/performance than Power?
And lets face it, MacosX is based on Darwin is based on *BSD (forget which one)
so its not like its portable.
Of course that does make Apple another *nix vendor in the Intel space for SCO to
compete with...
---
__________________________
Nullboy.
My opinions are my own. I value them highly but I can't blame anyone else for
them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: drg on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 05:39 AM EDT |
| Look, everyone who is crying because Apple won't allow OS X on third-party
PCs
is being rather unfair and short-sighted.
OS X isn't an open-source product.
That doesn't make it evil. It may
eventually make it obsolete, but (as many
here claim to believe, but fewer act
like it), being a proprietary product is
not itself evil.
You've got to realize that to Apple, the Mac and the Mac OS
are one product.
The OS can be updated, and if you choose to update it, you go
buy OS X from
the store.
But to Apple, a retail copy of OS X is ALWAYS an
update. You're paying for
maintenance on your Mac. You're not buying an OS
per se.
OS X is a proprietary component of a proprietary computer. Apple
could
extricate this, the most valuable component, and sell it stand-alone, in
bring-
your-own-hardware fashion. However, Mac hardware sales are part of the
same revenue stream, and they pay for a huge portion of the cost of
developing
the Mac OS.
If Apple were to sell OS X standalone, they would have to charge
a great deal
more, such as $400 per license, to replace the revenue from
the other half of
the product that they are no longer selling. Then they might
still have update
maintenance, for which you would pay $130 every two
years.
And maybe once they get big enough, they will do something like that.
The
fact that Microsoft made huge money even before Windows was a monopoly
can't be lost on them.
At the moment, Apple considers it too risky to do
this. So they are going to
stick to their existing model. It's far less risky
for them to change the
hardware component of the product than to sell only the
software
component, even when the change is as radical as switching from PPC to
Intel.
But if you're going to be honest, you've got to recognize that
expecting Apple
to sell you the whole OS for the price of its updates is like
going to Costco
and complaining that they won't sell you anything unless you
have a
membership card.
This may seem unfair but it's not. In fact, it's a
rather honest way of doing
business: at least you pay UP FRONT, instead of
being tricked into using a
product that seems cheap or free, and then finding
out later what the cost
really is.
And before you call me a troll, I run a
network of about 20 Linux servers,
have about 3 Linux machines of my own, and 2
Macs. I am a consultant and I
deploy and recommend Linux to my customers.
Where I deploy Linux, I
recommend Debian, and where I deploy Debian, I educate
the customer on
where the software came from and show them the SPI website and
suggest a
donation on the order of $100 per server. Where the customer
wants
commercial support, I specify Red Hat.
I believe in FOSS and
especially the GPL, but you've got to realize that
proprietary companies built
the information industry, and they aren't all evil.
I believe that FOSS will
change the landscape, but by obsoleting, rather than
conquering, the
competition. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
Microsoft and Intel are fighting over the final few pennies of profit in a
computer industry which is becomming a lower and lower margin business. PC
prices continue to decline and it's important to Intel that software becomes a
commodity faster than hardware; just as it's important to Microsoft that
hardware becomes a commodity faster than software.
Microsoft does this by ensuring that it's software runs on more than just Intel
chips (AMD, Alpha). Now they even went so far as to use XBox chips from their
worst enemy - the guys pumping billions into Linux who make PowerPCs.
Intel does this by ensuring that it's hardware can be used with more than just
Microsoft OS's. In parts of the corporate world, F/OSS hasn't caught on yet; so
it's important that Intel have other proprietary OS's that run on it's chips to
(SCO unix, HPUX). But with those dying, Apple's a nice candidate.
My bet -- Intel paid Apple to take the chips, just to pay back Microsoft for the
XBox.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 05:53 AM EDT |
| GNU/Darwin (the kernel and core system) already boots on a variety of
generic
Pentium PC's. The upper level stuff is largely specialized libraries and
applications which seperates a "Darwin" from a "OSX". Video and sound
drivers
may be more specific, but this would only mean one might have to be
more
careful which generic Pentium and which video card one uses. I am
curious then
how they plan to stop generic PC's from running OSX and what it
means for their
existing "Open Source" kernel project (Darwin). It would seem
to me offhand
for Apple to try and successfully "lock down" x86 OSX, then
Darwin has to die.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
I have noticed that everybody assumes that Apple is the
initiator of Apple's move away from IBM chips. Could it be
that this is backwards and that IBM is the one initiating
the sequence of events that lead to Apple making the
decision to change suppliers. If one considers IBM's recent
moves concerning laptop and desktop computers and IBM's
strong support for Linux maybe the prudent question would
be ?Where is IBM headed?? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Probably not - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:20 AM EDT
- Probably not - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 12:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:26 AM EDT |
03:28 - Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run
Windows on an x86 Mac but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run
on non-Apple x86 systems. What’s behind that?
Behind that is the
desire to actually make the system stable and not having to
support all that
zoo that the modern PC world is. That will allow Apple to
continue making the
best OS in a world, supporting just a limited set of
hardware.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sela on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:27 AM EDT |
Transition from one microprocessor architecture to another is a very pricy and
risky process. Apple did it once before, true, but it wouldn't do it again
without a very compelling reason.
The idea that DRM support is such, is quite rediculous. First, there is no need
for processor support for DRM. Hardware supported DRM can be implemented in the
chipsets that are already developed by apple.
Since adding hardware support for DRM does not require switching processors, it
is highly unlikely this is one of the main reasons for such a switch.
So what are the reasons for Apple to switch to Intel?
There are many, much better reasons:
1. Price: the price of PowerPC CPU and chipset, comparing to the highly
compatitive x86 market.
2. Avalability: x86 processors are designed and manufectured by two different
companies: Intel and AMD. Furthermore, this is the main business for both
companies that are dedicated for creating CPUs. For IBM, the powerPC is just
small part of their business. Maybe they know something about the future of
PowerPC that we don't?
3. Software compatibility: using the same CPU as the one used by the windows
world means it would be much easier to run windows-based software on Macs. Maybe
Apple is interested in Wine, or similar technology?
I wanted to write something else on misconceptions regarding DRM and so-called
"trusted computing" technologies, but I will do it in another post.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zztab on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:42 AM EDT |
I think it is simple:
- *IF* Apple decides to sell OS-X into the general PC market they are now well
positioned to do that. And they have gotten there without making a commitment.
Good strategy.
- The economies of scale will make AMD/Intel chips cheaper faster and better
than the PowerPC, especially now that Intel has a strong competitor.
Someone said that Apple would not compete with M$, I think the new situation is
that everyone (Linux, IBM, Apple, etc) is competing with M$. Businesses are
realizing that M$ is just plain bad for business (duh!) and that M$ is now
vulnerable. And if a wolf pack is forming, perhaps it would be a good strategy
for Apple to be prepared to pick up some of the business when people with
Intel/AMD chips look for alternatives to windows. :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
All I hear about is the hardware side where IBM hasn't delivered competitive low
power high spec chips for the laptop market. That put's Apple in a competitive
bind. For now. Job's can't afford to get too far behind intel.
OTOH, what will be interesting is to continue to watch IBM and Lenovo over the
next couple of years. I would not be surprised to see very competitive hardware
developed outside this country running open source OS's and poised to jump on
back into the market in a big way. IBM has the name and marketing channels to
put something like a good $200 business desktop into the same market that buys
their servers in numbers that would keep the accountants happy. The same units
at $100 in India and China will fill the market the old line Wintel folks are
salivating over.
nothermark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
Qutoe: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple
Mac."
Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory, again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
You all may think I'm being paranoid, but I can't help
but suspect collusion between M$ and Apple. Linux
is an "enemy" to both of them. So now we get M$, Sun,
and Apple joining forces in a several interlocking
ways. Of course, M$ will minimize Sun and Apple when
the time is right.
One of the great claims of Apple fans is how superior their
PowerPC based H/W is when compared to Intel (I've never really seen a real
apples to apples comparison, forgive the pun, so I can't argue that claim either
way.)
The whole idea of Apple going to Intel just doesn't make any
sense. But, then of course, IBM may be trying to push PowerPC based machines in
the future. Then you got M$ Xbox
running on something other than Intel.
Good grief!
Nice thing, Linux runs on just about all of them :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ossworks on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
The Power PC, and its newly minted screaming 19-node on a chip carrier cousin,
the Cell, consume high wattage and, subsequently, generate a large amount of
heat. Apple circuit packaging engineers historically fight heat problems by
using these high watt chips in novel package designs. For example, the G5 went
through series of field modifications to reduce heat problems that had been
"solved" on the drawing board.
Right now Intel has the fastest, low power chips on the market. I have seen good
architectures fall by the wayside for issues that have nothing to do with the
CPU design. This looks like a case study in system integration where the
designers have to choose cooling and battery life over architecture goodies.
What's even more amazing to me is that this circuit packaging advantage is worth
converting their entire code base to a new architecture!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
I don't know why everyone is freaking out, it's not the first time Apple had
done this. Does anyone else remember Lisa? It's the single reason why I wound
never buy a Mac.
IANAAA
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
At first read many people who do not understand the industry will agree with his
article. Kind of sad, but those same people are usually descision makers for IT
departments in large corporations.
I can't argue with him, but wanted to point out some technical flaws in his
argument.
First, he talks about why Linux has not made a bigger impact on the desktop
market (and makes some valid points). "Let's face it, Linux is free, useful
and powerful. That alone says that it should have made a bigger impact on the
desktop market than it has."
What he does is claimes it is completely user interface problems, and that MAC
will be an alternative.
The problem with this theory is that MAC has not made a large impact on desktops
either, even with "slick intuitive graphics", because of Microsoft's
Monopolist programs and business practices.
Working in the IT field for 15 or so years, I am stunned sometimes by the people
who can not function without M$ Outlook, IE, Word, etc... Even though there are
many many applications that deliver the same functionality. I use the same hot
keys in OpenOffice Writer as I do in Word, but somehow other people seem to
think ctrl+b is different in a Linux OS and application from ctrl+b in Windows!
I do not worry about Linux growth, nor a mass of Developers jumping to MAC.
It's still a closed OS like Microsoft, and too many open source Developers still
want to make Linux the premier system! It's a matter of Pride, and a matter of
freedom.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
It makes perfect sense to me if you consider this is Steve Jobs talking. He and
his people feel they can get a better deal from Intel than they can from IBM,
over the long run. Just because it's way too early to know whether that is
true, is no reason to forget that he's pulled this kind of thing in the past.
People forget that while Dvorak is the latest to claim that Linux isn't bigger
because it isn't user-friendly the real reason it isn't bigger is because so
much marketing muscle is going into proprietary operating systems (duh). Last
time I was on a Mac the interface didn't seem that different from Gnome (which I
use because I'm lazy). You still had to mount and unmount removeable drives,
for example (and what's wrong with that?).
Jobs understands a certain niche of the technology market very well. Everyone
I've heard on the subject would like to see Apple appeal to a broader market.
He's always run his company for the young, hip, technology-savvy well-heeled
creative types, while Microsoft has done a good job selling to suits, and most
of us consider ourselves technology-savvy but really don't care whether we are
young or hip or not.
I definitely think this kind of bias is behind our reactions to the
announcement: Jobs thinks he can get more support for bringing his vision of
computers to the next level from Intel than he can from IBM. Again, it's too
early to tell but I'm as skeptical as the next troll. We want to know what it
means to us because we're trying to read more into it than is there.
Was it Allegheny, Pennsylvania or Oakland, California that Gertrude Stein said
"There's no there there" about?
jplatt39 (did I sign in?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: div_2n on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
"03:28 - Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run Windows on an
x86 Mac but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple x86
systems. What’s behind that?"
Most likely to keep support costs down. It is easier to support any environment
when the hardware is tightly controlled.
I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Apple gets to double-dip with revenue on both the
hardware and the OS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:34 AM EDT |
I must say I was shocked to hear that Apple really was switching from PowerPC to
Intel.
But after thinking about it for a while, I realized that I don't use Apple
computers because of the cpu inside, I use them because I prefer the operating
system and their hardware is much more reliable.
Because of the Big-Endian/Little-Endian conflict between Intel and PowerPC
chips, Apple computers have been limited in the selection of compatible pci
cards. This should no longer be a problem.
Apple has stated that the new Mactel's will run windows as well. I know many
people who would love to run the Mac operating system but have to run
applications that aren't available for OSX (Pro-E, Orcad, Delphi etc). By being
able to run windows as a process without the speed hit of emulation they can
switch to a Mac or no longer need to maintain two computers.
Apple won't want to support OSX on non approved motherboards (and I don't blame
them for that a bit knowing some of the poorly designed boards out there) but
just as their are programs available that will allow you to run OSX on older
Mac's people will quickly figure out how to run OSX on regular Intel boxes.
Apple may not be perfect but as far as I am concerned, they have the best OS out
there. Yes, I respect the fact that you may prefer something else, but in the
end all that really matters is interoperability. As long as we can share data,
the choice of OS and applications should be up to the user. Choice is good.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
I was oging to post a modified (spoofed) version of that old song "miss
america pie" (you know the one), but its just too sad really.
History will remember this as the day the Mac died.
So the Mac is now nothing more than another OS that runs on Intel like everybody
else.
so it runs OS-X? big deal! there will be nothing left to distinguish itself any
more.
OS-X lets you run MS's apple apps and run unix-like apps on the BSD side.
we can do all that with Linux. I can even run windows, which is what they're
complaining about - or rather boasting about adding. yawn, this is so last
week...
I was very close to buying a mac mini. because I wanted something that would run
unix stuff and run things like photoshop in a native environment. Now there's no
point.
why would I buy a new intel mac when I can buy a cheap super powered PC and run
linux? and use wine or vmware? todays superfast pc's can run all that stuff
without skipping a beat and run em as smooth as silk.
so why would I pay more for slower intel hardware (or I guess the same intel
hardware) and a slower OS that does less than my $300 PC will do? especially
when the $300 pc will beat the crap out of the new mac in every single feature
and option?
even now, for less money than a mac mini (fully loaded) I can buy an AMD-64
notebook with very decent specs and even greater capability than the mac will
ever have.
whats the point?
apple was a hardware company and the only reason people bought it was actually
two reasons - one- it wasnt on intel, and two - it wasnt microsoft. now its
BOTH. hurray!
"...this'll be the day that the mac died..." ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
Well this will be interesting. I wonder if, when running on intel, it will be
possible to use a windows emulator and run windows games on macs. It would
remove the main barrier to public mac takeup I would think.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
I'm sorry if I have sounded as if I was into megaherz benchmark run.
Morotola desktop CPU division failed. Period. They haven't managed to improve
performance for about two years. And now they quit this business altogether.
IBM has even more problems now: 1. G5 for notebook; 2. 3GHz mark; 3. dual core.
G5 is great. Yes. But the same time it is awfully expensive. We have Intel &
AMD with their dual core chip already - IBM is yet to deliver.
In some situations G4/G5 is much faster that Pentium IV/Opteron. In other
situations it is strongly reversed. For example games are always optimized for
Intel CPUs, even not AMD ones. So performance of games on Macs was always sort
of disappointing. And it has nothing to do with CPU itself - but with software
developers. Top dual PowerMac can rip dvd in 2 hours, while it Wintel
counterpart which can do that in 2 hours will cost even more than the PowerMac.
But still: IBM has problems; Motorola had problems and already bailed out -
FreeScale still under old Motorola's contract produce chips for Apple, but no
new development is going on. IBM struggling to produce low-voltage & dual
core G5s. It is not yet there. Intel/AMD both already are. Sad picture seen
several times already by Apple watchers.
Well, it is just simple game of volumes: Intel/AMD out-ship IBM/Motorola by very
high ratio. Consequently they have higher profits, so they can invest in more in
development of new CPUs. Apple/IBM cannot do the same: profit from PowerPC is
not enough for Apple to invest in its development.
That's all about Apple's development costs. Period.
P.S.
As to PowerPC being chosen for XBox, Apple would gain not much by that: Xenon
CPU is way too different from any other CPU out there. The fact that it has user
level commands from PPC makes it not much similar to normal say G5 or G4 CPU.
PowerPC is used in bunch of embedded devices - and it doesn't help FreeScale/IBM
to improve desktop chips. For example IBMs 440 family is about 5 years old.
FreeScale's PowerQuicc I/II/II CPUs are infact simple G2 based - that's 602/3s -
it is about 10 years old now. No updates were made here and embedded market has
no demand for high performance chips (Cell actually is designed to fill that
niche).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
I read this comment on Slashdot<
/a> yesterday and felt that it got to the heart of the matter regarding
DRM:
"Cryptography - secret writing - is the practice of keeping
secrets. It involves three parties: a sender, a receiver and an attacker [...].
We usually call these people Alice, Bob and Carol. [A few explanations of
cipher, ciphertext and key] In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*. It's
not Alice and Bob and Carol, it's just Alice and Bob. So Alice has to provide
Bob - the attacker - with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext. Hilarity
ensues.
DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days.
Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's
not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw
in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common
vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the
key. At this point, the secret isn't a secret anymore."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
There are two things that want explaining
1. Why is Apple switching to Intel
2. Why is Apple planning to run MacOS only on Apple-made Intel computers
The answers to both can be found in the business books about Apple's business
problems in the 90s (e.g. Jim Carlton's book, and former CEO's Gil Amelio's
book)
For #1, Apple has known since the 90s (perhap even 80s) that they are struggling
to keep up with
(A) the performance improvements in Intel PCs [lesser reason, and some would
argue with that],
(B) and more clearly with the constantly falling commodity pricing of hardware
components in the PC world (whereas Apple using proprietary hardware is a
relative small market and high prices) [nobody seems to be able to argue with
that - the comparisons mentioneed in Carlton's book speak for themselves, and
they came from Apple in the 80s or early 90s]
For #2, the answer is in both books, especially Amelio's book: LOOK AT THE
CLONES
If you remember, prior to Jobs in the 90s, Apple allowed certain manufacturers
to make clones of the proprietary Apple hardware. When this was first allowed,
the pricing of the Apple component in a clone, was ~ $50.
Until Amelio, nobody bothered to see whether the ~$50 was a good deal for Apple,
as compared to selling the whole kit and kaboodle. Amelio did. He could ~$50
was way too low. A revenue neutral number (i.e. Apple to make the same amount
for a clone as for a Mac hardware sale), was ~$500.
But Amelio, while he did raise the prices to clone manufacturers, didn't have
the heart to raise the clone charges to ~$500. He says so in his book. (Amelio
also notes that most of the clones were taking share from Apple, rather than
making a larger Mac-compatible share of the overall market)
When Jobs came in, perhaps for this reason, perhaps because he preferred the
anti-clone faction in Apple (which has always been a strong group - and argue
that clones don't take market share from PCs in general, but mainly from Apple)
- killed the clones.
...So Apple ain't going back the clones. Hence they won't want MacOS to run on
non-Apple hardware.
It's best to view this as an entirely separate point from whatever the internals
of Apple hardware happen to be at a particular point in time.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
| Some people choose Linux for the unfettered freedom of it. Not everybody
does,
however. Many people also choose it due to the availability of free
software
that runs on Linux.
While I have no hard research to back this assertion up,
there's a lot of
anecdotal evidence. A lot of people, myself included, believe
that OS X has a
better GUI than any of the current Linux offerings. I think a
fair number of
people switching to the Mac, or considering the switch, consider
MacOS to be
a good platform to use and/or develop Linux applications
on.
Switching, of course, carries a high cost. In addition to the direct
monetary
cost of a machine, you need to make a mental commitment to different
hardware and a different architecture.
If OS X is "hackable" in some way to
run on commodity Intel hardware, I
believe that this has the potential to have
an impact on the market share of
Linux. I can see many UNIX developers wanting
to use the MacOS, since you
can easily make it behave like a pure UN*X machine
with full screen X11, or
booting straight to a shell prompt, but you can _also_
make it behave like a
straightforward, plug and play machine.
Personally, I
believe that Apple intends for OS X to be runnable in some form
on commodity
hardware. I don't expect them to officially support it, but I
think that at
least for the first release, they're going to see what people do
with it and
how things work out. They can always try harder in the next
release to make it
harder to run on commodity systems.
I don't think that Microsoft will have a
problem with this. In fact, I think that
Microsoft will be happy with this, for
two reasons.
Firstly, this gives people a UNIX-y OS to run on x86 that lets
you run Office. If
OS X on x86 can take any market share away from Linux,
they'll be thrilled -
at least during the 1990s, for example, Microsoft's
average revenue per
Macintosh was higher than per PC! Sales of Office for Mac
got them a lot of
money.
Secondly, I think that the competition will be
something they will appreciate
from a PR standpoint. As long as Apple doesn't
take too much market share
away, it'll be a good bullet point in their "we
aren't a monopoly, look at our
competitors" slides.
We'll see what happens,
of course, but I really think this will do interesting
things to the developer
and geek market... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
Apple are moving to Intel because IBM have failed to deliver!
1. High performance laptop processors.
2. Performance increases on the G5.
Steve Jobs will *not* have been happy at promising a 3gig G5 by this time last
year, and not having now ONE YEAR LATE!
Apple are moving to Intel, but nothing else is changing. The biggest impact will
be that Mac users will be able to run Windows at native speeds. Thats it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
Apples switch to Intel is a supply curve issue nothing more. They can't get
enough Power chips and so have decided rather then to let the issue keep
snowballing to jump to Intel as fast as possible and get there production
numbers back up.
The bad thing is now theres a second major vendor in the x86 OS space with a
well polished product on top of a BSD license. This fits into the corporate
development model much better then the GPL. With OSX comes the real possibility
of a divided *nix dvelopment community. Many many developers I've talked to have
expressed real interest in a BSD drive into x86 space.
GPL 3 better be written well, account for business interests and at the same
time remove the viral clauses and rights assertions it contains. If not Linux
will be relegated back to the niche product with poor vendor support we were in
2 years ago. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Dvork doesn't have a CLUE. It's not the CPU, it's the API that programmers
"target".... Dork.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
Apple's strength is creating a self-contained package in a cool-looking box, so
that your typical witchrafts and spells (aka liberal arts) major doesn't have to
customize it. Worst case scenario, people will start selling Antec Aria cases
with AMD64 and prettied-up Debian inside. The most trouble will be finding a
manufacturer for one-button mouse.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
Here are a few alternate theories that others may like:
#1) Apple is bailing on PPC in anticipation of a Microsoft buyout. Switching to
Intel would "ease the transition" for customers to Windows.
#2) Apple is concerned IBM is about to clean their clock by getting back into
consumer device (via Lenovo) running Power chips. That would put pressure on
Mac pricing for sure.
#3) Apple is concerned that SCOG is going to sue them next (since SCOG can't
shoot straight, anybody could be a target anyway). When the world was buying
the bilgewater about how SCOG was going to get $699 per Linux system, they
thought PPC and BSD would protect them. When SCOG started screaming about BSD,
they thought PPC would protect them. Now that SCOG is screaming about Linux on
PPC (is *that* what they're talking about? Who can tell?), Apple is in reactive
mode, and will kill their customers and products to placate their new puppet
masters in Redmond (If Apple thinks they had a little competition with Yellow
Dog, what are they going to do with a LOT of competition from every other Linux
vendor?). You can be sure Microsoft loves to watch their little puppet dance.
#4) Apple is going to start including more Microsoft components, and let's face
it: Microsoft is incapable of moving away from Intel.
#5) Apple is going to switch to Linux: it's getting too expensive to continue
Mac development, so they're going the commodity route, and Intel hardware will
be a less expensive path to get there.
#6) After 20 years, Apple is finally waking up to the fact that they have never,
ever, been price competitive, and as the entire computing world is getting
commoditized, they won't be able to support their outrageous pricing and biz
model much longer. Switching to Intel will be the first step in "getting
real" on customer demands for fair prices.
Anyway, just some theories.....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
I believe this is a targetted move on Apple's part to make their hardware appear
to be more "mainstream" i.e. just another "PC". They have
made a fortune of the iPod, not because it was the cheapest/best at what it does
(portable MP3 player), but because of the way it did it (style)
Now with this move you remove have all the niggles with moving to Linux on Mac
e.g. driver concerns, big end/little endian hiccups, etc. etc. Once you've done
that, then what's to stop home users buying these machines ? If they want they
can run Apple's OS, or if not they can install their own copy of Linux (or even
an Apple badged one) and they can run exactly the same apps they run at work
(because everyone will be running Linux in the workplace by 2007)
So, I wouldn't class this as the "end of Linux" but rather further
proof that Linux is going to be the OS of choice for the 21st century.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ssavitzky on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
...is that now all three major operating systems -- Windows, Mac, and Linux --
will be running on the same hardware. This means that people will be able to
make direct, apples-to-Apples comparisons of price, performance, and stability.
Linux will come out well in any such comparison.
---
Never anger a bard, for your name sounds funny and scans to Greensleeves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Dvorak needs to hire a child to help him navigate Open Office.
I converted an old HP pavilion that had been running Windows XP to Suse LINUX -
and more recently to Fedora. The PC is used by my kids - ages 15, 12 and 10
for school. They migrated from MS Word to Open Office with no problems - and
my daughter - age 10 - gets very creative with her writing - adding home drawn
graphics as well as charts and other visual improvements.
So if these kids can migrate to LINUX from windows with nary an instruction on
how to do what they need to do - it should be just as un-eventful for so called
office professionals. After all, most of them have probably gone through a
transition in their work career - Word Perfect to MS Word possibly? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mattw on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
1) It's not about DRM. Pentium D doesn't have it, and you really don't need a
special CPU to do DRM.
2) It's not about the current Dual Core Pentiums. They're only 32 bit for crying
out loud, and by the time Apple actually releases an Intel based Mac, which
will be either early or mid 2006, the current DC Pentiums will have walking
frames. Think 64bit dual core.
2a) A couple of people have mentioned endianess. Endianess shouldn't be
a big issue. The PowerPC architecture supports both endians.
3) Apple couldn't survive as a software only company, they _have_ to tie it to
their hardware. It also means the software fits the hardware better.
4) IBM couldn't/wouldn't meet demand.
5) IBM couldn't/wouldn't deliver a low power varient.
6) As someone else pointed out, 9/10ths of Apples market have no idea
what the CPU is, just that it makes their computer work.
7) Moving apps across platform. Apple have a thing called a Fat binary, they
used them in the transition from 68k to PPC. It includes binary executables
for both platforms. ELF can do this, but not too many people make use of it.
Basically the OS reads the first few bites of the file which says "If
you're x86,
execute from this byte in the file, if you're PowerPC, execute from this
byte."
Does make for some rather large application binaries tho.
8) While AMD undoubtably make the better CPU, they still have supply chain
issues. Intel can still produce more parts than anyone else.
9) Does mean that things like WINE can probably be used to run Windows
apps. WINE never worked on anything but x86 hardware as it only ever
replicated OS level calls, it never tried to emulate the CPU.
10) None of this makes me happy about the situation. As far as I'm concerned
the x86 architecture should have been taken out and shot before it reached
100mhz, and I like my PPC Mac, cos it means that unless someone goes out
and buys VirtualPC, they can't go installing Windows on it. This may not be
the case in the future.
Matt.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- endianness - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: AHGrayLensman on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
| It's not at all clear to me that Apple had much choice here.
When the
PowerPC architecture started in the mid '90s, there were two suppliers:
Motorola and and IBM. Motorola has since gotten out of the PowerPC
manufacturing business, except for some embedded products. IBM, on the other
hand, has been pushing the PowerPC architecture (including its own Power5) hard
in its pSeries offerings, running either AIX or Linux/ppc. That put Apple in
the uncomfortable position of competing with their own supplier. Apple was also
not getting what they wanted out of IBM as far as clock rate bumps and a
low-power version of the PPC970 for G5 laptops; I've heard rumblings that IBM
was more interested in making chips for their own products and the
much-higher-volume-than-Apple next generation game consoles than in doing
development work that might only benefit Apple.
Intel, OTOH, doesn't sell
computers; they sell chips, and they'll sell them to pretty much anyone. And
for all its warts, the x86_64 ISA is actually not too bad.
The Intel-based
Macs are probably not going to be standard PCs. They'll likely have
Apple-designed mainboards and chipsets, and use OpenPROM rather than EFI or a PC
BIOS for booting. They'll probably remain a generation behind PCs on things
like PCI Express, but ahead on other things like FireWire and (sanely
implemented) USB. And they'll still only have one mouse
button.
--Troy ---
"You are finite, Zathras is finite, this... is
wrong tool. No, not good, never use this!" --Zathras, "War Without End (pt.
2)", Babylon 5 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mouses - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: JSGasse on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
I was reading an article back when IBM sold its Lenovo division. The analyst was
saying that IBM might have sold Lenovo so it could buy Apple.
I am wondering if it is not buying Apple but coming out with a new line of PC
with PPC technology in it that they were looking for... If they told Apple, they
might have been angry, with the trouble they have getting the CPU in the first
place. If IBM also sold them too, they would most likely have worst inventory
problem.
Just a thought[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Business make decisions based on one motive, profit. They are switching to
Intel because their executives believe it will increase profit. One can only
guess how they believe it will increase profit.
I don't believe, they think , switching to Intel because of DRM technology will
directly increase profit. They probably believe switching to Intel will increase
the user base thus increasing sales business make decisions based on one motive,
profit. They are switching to Intel because their executives believe it will
increase profit. One can only guess how they believe it will increase profit.
I don't believe, they think , switching to Intel because of DRM technology will
directly increase profit. They probably believe switching to Intel will increase
the user base thus increasing sales[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
Why is this so hard to accept? Why does everything on Groklaw need to be a
grand conspiracy?
Plain and simple, folks: mobile computing is where everything is going and
the PowerPC realm isn't following. Just yesterday I read a report that for the
first time ever laptop sales beat desktop sales. This is no small feat. It's a
sign
of the times, and one that Apple would be sitting on its fat arse watching
from a distance if it didn't do something about it.
There has been little evidence that G5s would be available (or even produced)
for mobile computers any time soon, if ever. That means that Apple would
never have anything better than their current G4 offerings moving into our
mobile computing future. Contrast that with Intel's mobile offerings and you
don't need to stretch very much to see why Intel processors look better than
IBM processors.
I'm a Mac user, and I'll admit there's a part of me that is still cringing at
the
news of Intel based Macs. Not because I'm a purist (I'm not, otherwise I'd be
moaning about defiantly sticking with PPC even though it's more or less a
dead end) but because it's going to throw the Mac industry into disarray for
the next few years. Regardless, I do think in the long run this will be a good
thing. I'm not selling my wonderously profitable AAPL stock just yet.
I guess you can go ahead and keep your conspiracy theories if you wish.
Everyone needs a hobby. As an actual Mac user -- not a commentator or
armchair pundit -- I think it's silly, but it's a free world so go ahead. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
There was one comment that showed up on Slashdot yesterday that seemed to make
the most sense for me.
The Xbox 360 is supposed to ship on November. The specs for the 360 currently
states that there will the 3 x 3.2 GHz PPC chips inside. That's 3 processors for
every single Xbox 360.
Then you have Sony's PS3 Cell processor, a group effort by Sony, IBM and
Toshiba. Nintendo hasn't announced the processor for their next generation, but
they currently use PPC and probably have no reason to change.
With at least 2, but probably all 3 console makers, using PPC chips, IBM's going
to be quite busy in the next few years.
Apple would probably be 4th in line to get PPC chips. Right now Apple is having
trouble getting their own systems to 2 Ghz. Hearing that Microsoft would be
getting 3 x 3.2 GHz systems in the next few months probably annoyed Steve Jobs
to no end, thus prompting the shift to Intel.
Course, this is all speculation...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
| Apple made it clear that it would be possible to run Windows on an x86 Mac
but that Apple wasn’t about to allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple x86 systems.
What’s behind that?"
It's simnple. Apple sells hardware. Hardware is
their business. Apple doesn't care what software you use; they do want you to
use Apple hardware. So, if you want to use OSX, which is immeasureably superior
to Windoze and is thus a great draw, you will have to buy a Mac. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rvergara on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Linux is being deeply embedded in the IT of major countries all around the
world. China, Brasil and many many more.
Even if all these theories about DRM are truth, do you really believe that the
absortion of Linux (and other OSS) in those countries has a way back? I don't
think so.
Mr. Dvorak and many US analyst have to understand that IT directions are not US
centric any more.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
Schocking! Not one of the posters took the oportunity to wish you a speedy
recovery from the fever (searched for "get well" and "get
better"). Well, Apple/Intel gets the emotions high, but its still only
hardware, not a human being. Therefor please accept my best wishes for you on
behalf of the rest of the posters (who probably just forgot to mention it...).
Linux_Inside[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Jobs mentioned one reason for moving is the performance/power consumption ratio.
PPC chips put out a LOT of heat.
That is why there are no G5 laptops. Way too hot. Apple already had lots of
laptop overheating problems. So what was Apple to do when they couldn't put out
a laptop with their most powerful chip?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sbungay on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
OK. So Apple is going to Intel. They're already using standard hardware on
their motherboards such as USB, PCI, etc. This will complete the trend and make
Apple homologous to all the other hardware out there. I just have to ask... what
then is the point in having Apple at all?
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
I think the Intel chipped Apple will not be a PC. It
will have different hardware registers and perhaps a
few quirks elsewhere. Mac OS/X-86 will address these
hardware differences, but will not run on generic PC's.
Apple could make the specs available to Microsoft, or
even provide "drivers" for MS Windows, so you could run
Longhorn or even Win 95 on the new Apples; but the reverse
would not be true. Since Mac OSX is proprietary, you could
not fit it with a driver to make it run on a PC.
Linux users would have no problem; the hardware dependent
modules would be out shortly. Apple is not concerned about
this, what concerns them is someone buying OS/X and running
it on a non-Apple PC.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
I just read this item and the posts to it ...
PC
World
The thing that struck me about the posters remarks is that a lot
of people seem to believe that they will be able to run OSX and Windows on the
same machine and also they seem to regard this same machine as an IBM PC clone
box.
Also my current understanding of the Apple announcement is
that Apple
really were between a rock and a hard place re dependancy on IBM ever since
Motorola pulled the plug as a second source supplier of PPC chips. This link
points to an item that believes Apple will go after any cloners...
ZDNET - Morning After
So
in summary, Apple seem to be saying this ...
1) We see a big opportunity in
the portable computer/device market
2) IBM are not as interested in our PPC
requirements as we are
3) Intels Mobile Pentium program looks like it will
solve our problems for far enough into the future that we are willing to buy
in
4) We do not plan to allow OSX to run on non Apple hardware
5) We do
not intend for our new hardware to be a useful windows box
So based on my
interpretation of the announce, I wonder why so many people seem to think that
the new apple boxes will be able to run Windows software ?.
Apple are highly
unlikely to include a PC BIOS in their hardware & that could be an immediate
Windows on MAC killer (unless a simple replugging of the bios chip were possible
which I doubt)
Apple seem most likely to build into critical parts of OSX,
code that can interrogate the motherboard/processor and decide if it is not an
Apple product and thus abort OSX. "BSOD: This version of OSX is incompatible
with this hardware".
It does seem that Apple have access to emulation
software that meets their needs for performance but it hasn't been made clear if
both the older OS9 and the newer OSX binaries will be supported.
Anyway, if
anyone has seen anything that contradicts the above interpretation, pls
post.
Cheers
Doug Marker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
Reading through the majority of the replies thus far, I can only come to the
conclusion that most have not bothered to watch the keynote feed or read
any of the transcripts that are available.
If people would take the time to read the facts about the situation there
wouldn't be the already answered questions being asked and the wild
rumours being tossed about like a game of hot potato.
So here's the key points:
Apple is moving to Intel because IBM has been unable or unwilling to provide
a processor with the specifications and in the quantity Apple requires. The
processor is the only planned change taking place in the hardware (change as
opposed to upgrades that are bound to happen over time). OS X will only run
on Intel and PowerPC-based Apple hardware, not any commodity hardware,
unless of course someone comes up with a workaround to enable it to do so.
Apple has no qualms about Windows being enabled to run on their hardware.
Applications compiled for the PowerPC will still be able to run on the Intel-
based systems through a transparent emulation layer. Apple still has a bevy
of new products coming out that feature the PowerPC, and the transition to a
full line of Intel-based systems will take place over a course of two years or
so.
I think that sums it up, save for the bits about universal binaries and flying
chimps.
It's doubtful the x86 market will be altered much initially, but over time there
is surely going to be gain and loss between the three major players
(Microsoft, Linux Vendors, and Apple). To think that any one platform is
resistant to the ripple this new development or any other will create is
ignorant.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
I would observe that many of the DRM technological "warts" on the
Intel chipsets have little or no bearing on the "big brother"
conspiracy theorist world some envision them being the harbinger of.
Intel has made many advancements/enhancements over the years which also could
have been used to foster a much more "1984" kind of world, yet none of
them (the advancements) have really come close to their individual or
collective potential.
Here are a couple of examples from the 90's when I worked for Intel:
a) PXE
b) Wake on LAN
c) Alert on LAN (LAN tether)
d) chassis alerts
e) and a number of other Wired for Management features
These were all sold as Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) features. Ways of
increasing unit sales, and improving "productivity" into the markets
from both the OEMs and the Intel divisions charged with selling them. They if
capitalized upon, could have been used quite effectively to track an individual
PC, even if powered off (although less so if unplugged) and all of it's software
and hardware configuration details to a very granular level and report back to
the mothership. These features are in almost every motherboard today, yet
extremely few companies know about or care to use even a fraction of them, and
there are few "Management Suites" (an example of one which takes
advantage of a few - MS SMS) which take advantage of even a significant number
of the features. The few companies who do use or exploit some, or even a
significant number of the features are generally not staffed to take advantage
of the data provided by the software suite.
So... my much belabored point ... I doubt ... especially given Linux rise to
power... that all these "new features" intel is putting into chips,
will have much (if any) impact on the industry as far as DRM. Yeah some hyper
moronic corporate, and educorporate jerks will insist on imposing DRM thru
whatever MS crams down their throats, but this will be the exception not the
rule.
VR,
mdw ;-)
Keep up the good work PJ!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vinea on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
The linux community should choose one desktop and concentrate its energy on that
if it wants one almost as good as OSX. Perhaps it takes a company to throw
large sums of cash at either gnome or kde and advance one to the point where the
other is sidelined.
The only two I can think of are IBM (eh) and HP (CDE? Ugh). But I doubt this
will happen. IBM doesn't care about the desktop and neither does HP.
The community never will bother and that's a shame.
Vinea[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 1N8 M4L1C3 on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 10:40 PM EDT |
Well, IBM announces new cell technologies... ...and a couple weeks later -
Apple dumps IBM. Hmmmm.
I vaguely remember something about Mickey$oft buying a 20% (?) stake in Apple a
decade back or so [not that my memory is anything spectacular]. So this recent
move has got me wondering if Mickey$oft still owns those shares?
It does strike me somewhat odd, that Apple choses this particular point in time,
to [strategically] change course on a technology that has elevated them back
into the black (financially speaking). While I appreciate Apple's aspirations
to spin this as "Intel running cooler than PowerPC", yadda, yadda,
yadda; and the various pundits commentary about DRM, et al; this move strikes me
as complete paradigm shift on the part of Apple. And way too convenient from
Mickey$oft's perspective... ...after all, who would like nothing better than to
take the wind out of IBM's sails at this juncture?
Simple speculation [not trying to start any conspiracy theories here], but food
for thought....
What if Mickey$oft convinced enough vendors (e.g. Apple) to migrate away from
IBM's Power-based technologies, this would leaves less commercial support for
Linux within that particular sector... ...which nails IBM on two fronts (read
short-term gain).
And, if there are some backroom deals going down with respect to embedded DRM on
Intel [leaving Linux out in the cold], this leaves AMD as the only serious
contender.
Now what happens, if a year or so down the road, we start to see large scale
migration towards Intel from a few other big players in the market?
What if, all of a sudden, the MPAA / RIAA product lines only supported Intel
technologies (to prevent piracy, of course)? Intel branding by default...?!?!?
Hmmmm.....
Comments...?!?
---
On the 7th day, Linus saw that which he created and it was good... ...on the
8th day SCO litigated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
PJ - you said it all - it is about freedom and choice and not limiting the human
experience to one interface if you like or not.
I personally don't think it will effect linux - all of these companies are in
with the riaa and the music industry - I emailed 2wire support about their media
center box and if they could put support for ogg in their box. They emailed me
back acting like I had asked to redesign their whole box - I just wanted support
for ogg added not the others eliminated.
before the movie industry sells it movies to people at home they want to control
the hardware so they can have their precious DRM installed on anything that is
downloading their product. And they want to do it with soldering and hardware
and not software because they know software will be hacked.
I wish they would just not allow any movies on any computers. If you want to
watch a movie then you have to play it on a standalone dvd player or vcr. I
don't really watch movies on my computer anyway - if I want to watch a movie I
get away from my computer and watch it on my tv.
I would much rather have this than have all this DRM pushed on innocent citizens
where it can do more harm than good.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
Don't overdo the conspiracy theories here. It is a fairly safe bet that Apple's
switch to Intel is calculated to make more money for Apple; it is a stretch
think the move is also calculated to make more money for Hollywood. If you take
Steve Jobs at his word, the driving factor was power consumption (and
consequently heat dissapation). I'm not a chip-level engineer so I have no
independent knowledge here, but surely someone can read the specs and comment.
Steve Jobs has always been a fanatic about low-noise desktops -- his proudest
claim on a number of historic Apple products was "no fan!" (Mac
Classic, iMac). Perhaps a bit of that fetish is pushing this move more than a
strictly objective comparison of the processor roadmaps would justify.
Actually, it sounds like Apple has been carefully preparing for this decision
for 5 years, since every version of OSX and bundled Apple applications have been
secretly running on Intel-based systems inside Apple. The conversion is
therefore just a remake of the 68K -> PPC transition Apple managed 10 years
ago: all old application will run on the new systems in translation/emulation
mode until dual binary versions are deployed, then will run native on either
platform. Apple did it right, following as they did in the wreckage of DEC
doing it wrong (VAX -> Alpha). [I wonder if my old 68K Mac apps will
continue to run?]
If you assume Jobs is telling it straight, I for one am encouraged. It
indicates to me Apple is going to aggressively pursue the low-end market, and
suggests the first Intel-based products shipped will be laptops. Look at what
they've done with the Ipod -- you may pay more for the Apple logo, but it's only
a little more, unlike the margins they have had to command in the desktop
market. If they can come out with an Apple-logo system at only $100 more than a
comparable Dell, I think they will sell very well.
Anyone can offer Windows; only Apple has OSX. If only it didn't cost so much
more to be a contrarian ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, June 09 2005 @ 08:17 PM EDT |
See this post in a more recent
GL topic
Cringely's
article
More deductions ...
If IBM wants, as we all should know it
does, to become the global leader in supply of computer chips (both for large
systems (POWER) and medium to small systems (CELL)) then who does it have to
dislodge ? = Intel
But, for IBM to win the battle in the PC market, what
software *must* be able to run on CELL ? = Windows
To get Windows to move
easily to CELL IBM would *have* to have Microsoft on board and as I have posted
many times already, Microsoft have purchased Connectix (VPC - Virtual PC) which
is a robust and very attractive emulation software that can run Windows on OS9
& OSX on PowerPc, so why not on CELL as well?. Connectix VPC can run
Windows, Linux and OS2 on PowerPC and can also run the same under Windows on an
Intel PC. It is an excellent product and I use it to prototype all the time.
Most recently I used it to demo eComStation 1.2 (OS/2 Warp 4 +) on Win2K for a
project with my present employer.
Microsoft have invested and are still
investing many millions in .NET and a Virtual Machine (a la Java), this will
give Microsoft and its customers the ability to run their .NET & VM based
software solutions on any architecture that the VM is ported to, as is the case
with Java.
Anyway, Cringely's theory that the real motive behind the Apple
announcement is because Intel & Apple may marry after some future date (yes
a pun :-), makes a lot of sense. But whereas Cringely says it is Intel's way of
attacking Microsoft, I argue that it is motivated by Intel's need for a 'safe
haven' market to secure its future against a successful CELL strategy by IBM and
Microsoft annointing CELL (as they have already done with X-BOX).
Steve Jobs
would *love* to have Intel focussing all their smarts on making Apple's PCs run
well in his market. IBM's CELL strategy is going to take time to ramp up, and
anyway, Apple can always jump ship if Intel loses their way. But because of the
way Apple works, the chip can be seen to be irrelevant if in fact Intel can come
up with a special 64bit processor even if not compatible fully with x86 as most
Mac users really don't care about the chip engine but do care about reasonable
performance and not being too far behind the Windows PC market.
SUMMARY:
This announcement is about INTEL's long term survival.
Cheers
Doug
Marker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
