Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  It's True! Jobs Switches to Intel: A Review of the WWDC 05 Keynote
Subject:   Unequal Partners
Date:   2005-06-08 02:49:55
From:   mpmcdonald
It's a shame to see the loss of diversity in the PC market that this move represents. With Apple's tiny share of the market they are going to have little leverage with Intel.


The Apple deal represented a single digit percentage of IBM's Power business and it seems that they could not translate this into real influence.


Apple are going to represent an even smaller percentage within the Intel business and I think that means that Apple will get what Dell (and perhaps MS) etc, with their much larger volumes, want.


Whose call would you take first?


The headline numbers on the intel chips will continue to be bigger, but who owns, or even guides, the architecture? Not Apple.



Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

  • Unequal Partners
    2005-06-08 12:10:43  Demarcnt1 [View]

    I fully agree with "mpmcdonald". This is a sad day for "innovation" and "free markets" (to the degree they exisit). Intel's already-monopoly status guarantees that Apple will be forced to ask "how high?" Does anyone here remember the "anti-trust" lawsuits against MS and Intel??? There are good reasons for them being brought to court. While I do not suggest that Apple should rely soley on the IBM architecure, why Intel? Besides the move to make the computer industry adopt the CheezWhiz philosophy, doesn't anyone have any conerns about Intel security "flaws" now applying to the Mac world? I do. Perhaps, Homeland Security is the motivation....full circle back to 1984. That's "progress"?
  • Unequal Partners
    2005-06-08 11:36:03  NeuralizR [View]

    The point here being that it's going to be using the same chips already in use in Windows systems and therefore all of the pressure from the Windows side for faster/better chips will apply to Apple as well. I hightly doubt Apple entered into this relationship without some type of assurance that Intel would not make Windows specific chips.

    I'm not so sure that Apple guiding the architecture is very beneficial to them. Apple didn't guide IBM's decisions either. Apple makes a great OS and that's all people should really care about.

    Of all the benchmarks done previously by Apple with respect to G5 vs P4, the only ones the P4 did not win were tests where Apple decided to compile the code for P4 without using the floating point unit and such. But we really shouldn't get into that argument here. ;)

    No matter where Apple goes unless they decide to start their own chip manufacturing plant, they will always be the minority. So why not go with a company who is actually pushing the limits on PC processors?