[KLUG Advocacy] Apple using Intel chips ...

[Greg Mason]

> I'm not as against AMD as you are; I've had decent luck with their  
> newer
> Athlon 32bit processors (much better than the early Athlons, IMO).
>
> But if nothing else, AMD has to hang around to drive down Intel's
> prices.  Without any competition, Intel would charge whatever they  
> like,
> and IMO that's a really BAD situation.

I've had pretty decent luck with AMD chips. The only prob with them  
is they are hot enough to cook an egg on.

> But have you ever been in a hot-tub with him?  ;-)
>
> Or more software.
Hardware makes up ~45% of Apple's income. It'll take an awful lot of  
software to make up for that gap... Unless they use Microsoftian  
pricing schemes.
>
> I have taken a recent liking to OS-X, and if I could buy x86 OS-X and
> install it on existing PC's of mine, I and/or my company would be
> purchasing some copies.
>
> IMO, Apple should forget about PC hardware sales (unless they merge  
> with
> Intel as Cringely predicts), and sell software (and IPOD's and that
> kinda crap as long as people buy them).
>
> OTOH, if I need to buy a Apple-only Intel PC to run the new OS-X,  
> then I
> don't get it.  What's the point of switching to Intel?

cool chips that have no supply problems. Apple got tired of getting  
shafted by IBM and Freescale. Take a look at the chips going into the  
new game consoles. If the Xbox 360 has THREE PowerPC 970FX  
processors, running at 3.2 Ghz (same as the G5), then why hasn't IBM  
been able to deliver on their promise of 3 Ghz to Apple?

Also, the only thing we know for sure is that Intel will manufacture  
the chips in the new Macs. We don't know what kind of firmware will  
be used (Open Firmware, or the old BIOS system. To retain the user  
experience on the Mac, I suspect the former). We also don't know what  
kind of chipset will go in these machines.

> I would probably buy the Apple-only Intel PC's when I need a new  
> PC, as
> long as Linux runs fine on it, just to avoid the M$-tax and get an OS
> that I find somewhat useful.  But that's not going to generate near as
> much sales from me since my upgrades don't happen very often.   
> OTOH, if
> I only had to buy the OS and use my old hardware, I could see some
> immediate software purchases on my part.

Apple also has the tendency to make things Just Work (tm), as far as  
their hardware goes.

Where does Apple make more money? From one $2,000 to $3,000 computer  
purchase, or a software license?

> And if Apple/Intel make a PC that only runs OS-X, then they get to set
> their own prices, just like they are doing now.  And Apple hardware is
> more expensive now ...

I suspect that will change somewhat once the Intel Macs come out.

> Unless he's talking about something like VMware, which would be much
> easier on Intel hardware.

I suspect Virtual PC might come to an end if there's an OS X port of  
VMware.

>> "If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the
>> OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft"
>>
>> Yeah, Ok.  How?  If Windows moved to the PowerPC everyone would be
>> buying PowerPC boxes in droves.  It is about the applications.
>
> If Apple started selling OS-X that would run on existing PC hardware
> (with a reasonable HCL), and included some kind of VMware/Wine/...
> package that ran Windows software in it's own chroot environment (that
> can easily be trashed and restored), then people may seriously  
> consider
> buying OS-X instead of Windows when they upgrade OS's or buy a new PC.
> Especially if they can get some if the big boys, like Dell, to buy in
> and start offering a choice of OS-X & Windows.

Steve would rather die than make a partnership with Michael "look at  
me, I'm trying to be Steve" Dell.

just my $0.02

-Greg (the Mac hippy)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/advocacy/attachments/20050610/d9be2a9f/attachment-0001.html