Re: Apple's ways

[Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com>]

Supertimer wrote:

> Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com> wrote:
>
> >Supertimer wrote:
> >
> >> An Apple-Intel partnership simply won't work because there
> >> will be resistance not only from the Apple side but also the
> >> Intel side which has a relationship of mutual blackmail with
> >> Microsoft not to mention several key PC makers.
> >
> >As a matter of fact, Intel would have loved to have such a partnership, and
> >might very well STILL like to have that partnership. An Apple-Intel team had
> >a rough port of MacOS to a 486 early in the 90's, but the switch to the
> >PowerPC killed that idea. Intel doesn't like having Microsoft control the
> >future of their chips, which is one reason they like Linux. If Apple
> >switched to the Intel platform, or at least ported to the Intel platform,
> >I'm sure Intel would drop a ton of money on the project, as it would: 1)
> >expand the market for Intel chips, 2) give Microsoft less control over
> >Intel's future
>
> Problem is, Intel is needs Microsoft more than Microsoft needs
> Intel.

Not really. Microsoft needs x86, and AMD, while doing some really nice chips,
doesn't have nearly the market that Intel does. Besides, M$ doesn't really deal
with Intel as much as with the clone makers who use Intel chips.

> I remember reading about the whole X-Box double-dealing
> last year when, after the Athlon hammered the Pentium III in
> clock speed and per-clock performance, Microsoft was
> supposed to announce that the Athlon would be the processor
> for the Microsoft game console.  Instead, Microsoft dropped a
> bombshell on AMD reps right at the press conference, that it
> was putting PIIIs in the X-Box.

Which just goes to show that no company can be safe if it ties it's future to
M$'s tail.

>
>
> If Intel started allying with Apple, all Microsoft would have to do
> is throw its support to AMD.

How many PCs does AMD make?
What contracts does AMD have to sell Windoze?
Right, none (or VERY little) M$ would still have to work with Intel if the
majority of box makers still used Intel. Otherwise, M$OSs wouldn't be as
competitive with the MacOS on the Intel platform. M$ will not shoot themselves
in the foot.

>

> With Microsoft's support, I have
> no doubt that it would quickly gain widespread acceptance in
> corporate circles which have been Intel's traditional stronghold.
> Then what's Intel left with?  Apple is too small a fish.
>
> With AMD, it is different.  AMD is the underdog.  It does not
> have Microsoft's full support in the first place so it has nothing
> to lose if it helps Apple.

How could M$ hurt AMD? Then ask if not at all, then they couldn't hurt Intel
either.
Besides, AMD isn't on as solid a financial footing as Intel is. Box makers want
to be sure that their source for chips will still be there when they need them.
Not too long ago, Intel got hurt by not being able to deliver chips, and AMD
picked up some customers because of it.

>
>
> >AS for Motorola, as the news this week revealed, they may sell or spin off
> >the chip division, as it isn't pulling it's weight. IBM may buy the
> >division, or, AMD might. In either case, now it the time for Apple to decide
> >to either add the X86 platform, or move closer to IBM, or both.
>
> I have wondered about that myself.  With Motorola, it is kind of
> like this big company with a name made of gold...if you think
> of cell phones and pagers.  But the better parts of the company
> are kind of dragging this dead weight around.  If AMD bought
> Motorola's chip division, it could be the set-up for Apple's
> transition to x86.  If IBM did, then the PowerPC chip may have
> a future.  IBM would certainly be more likely to preserve the
> chip as is but AMD might be better for the future of the Mac.

One news source pointed out that IBM was taking the PPC in one direction (more
raw mhz) instead of a direction that Apple and Motorola wanted to go. Of course,
both ideas should probably be pursued.

Roy