Cringely is off his rocker on the Apple Intel merger

intelappleThe funny thing about Bob Cringely is that while he is one heck of a computer historian and is often spot on with his analysis; he’s just as prone to delving out flights of the imagination and repackaging them as educated-guesstimations.

In his latest installment of I, Cringely, Bob reckons all this Intel hub-bub basically boils down to Intel buying Apple, with the goal of pummeling Microsoft into submission and for Job’s to exit Apple, devoting his full attentions to Pixar. Phew that was the longest line of fantasy I’ve typed since I tried to write a screenplay. While I absolutely agree with Cringely that AMD would have been a better fit for supplying processors to Apple, I just can’t see Job’s leaving the helm of Apple to go off and play studio head. And for that matter I cant realistically see Intel wanting to pick up the Apple torch with a merger, don’t see it happening.

That’s the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company

Bob if you happen to read this, no hard feelings ok? I still think your take on the Mac mini as a video hub was spot-on, but you really lost me with this one.

P.S If you’re right, I didn’t write this my alibi will be alien abduction. After all I didn’t believe the Intel rumors in the first place.

P.P.S Thanks to Jason.S for the cool Apple-Intel logo.
B.Greenway




14 Responses to “Cringely is off his rocker on the Apple Intel merger”

  1. Jonathan Greene Says:

    I could not disagree more with the assessment of AMD as a better parter for Apple. Sure they have a 64bit dual-core chip today, but they don’t have the resources or the vision that is within Intel. The platforms that are being developed for mannufacturers like Apple to take full advantage of are in their own league.

    I think once we get a taste of OSX on Intel we’ll wonder wha the heck took so long. BSD has been running on Intel for a long time… it’s supposedly MUCH faster than Windows on similar hardware. Time will tell for sure here.

    All the thinking we’ve been doing here about the mini in the living rorom as a home theater device should really pay off through the Intel vision. They are already pushing hard in that general direction as noted by last weeks mini pc machine which was an Intel prototype, built by someone else. Intel knows how to pack a great deal of juice in there and with some Apple style and software it’s going to rock.

  2. B.Greenway Says:

    “last weeks mini pc machine which was an Intel prototype, built by someone else”

    And I’m hoping now that Intel is on board they might be able to call off the dogs on the mini clones, a strong recommendation at least would be nice.

  3. Jonathan Greene Says:

    I hear you… Intel actually develops those machines and offers an OEM license to partners at no cost. If they expect Apple to carry the design and innovation torch as was mentioned in Otellini’s statement at the announcement then let’s get rid of the mini clones indeed. By the time an Intel powered Mac comes next year though we’ll be seeing some cool stuff for sure from the new partners.

  4. B.Greenway Says:

    Jon I hear ya on the Intel roadmap, but in a way that’s what has me kind of worried at the same time. Intel is synonymous with Microsoft in my opinion anyway. A week ago when the word Intel was said most people automatically attached a mental image of PC running windows to it, now that has changed somewhat, but not entirely.

    AMD on the other hand has always (to some degree) been an outsider although admittedly less so lately, what I’m getting at is this whole Intel thing in my estimation saps just a little of Apple’s soul away, Does it bug me enough that I wouldn’t buy a 3+GHZ mini? Of course not, but I don’t think anyone could argue that Apple won’t be forever changed, for the better or worse remains to be seen.

  5. Jonathan Greene Says:

    I think the MS / Intel relationship is love hate. Clearly it’s profitable as hell to be the dominant player as a team, but the fact that Windows actually hurts the Intel technology is another issue. Would you want to be associated with Blue screens of death, worms, malware and general insecurity… let alone general system complexity.

    Apple brings a smart, simple and powerful mind to the already powerful technology. Could AMD have done the same? Maybe, but probably not as broadly as the current and future product lines. Intel has much more to offer…

    The change is definitely forever… good or bad.

  6. grovberg Says:

    AMD wouldn’t be a step forward for them. Apple is doing this because they are tired of prcoessor supplies holding back products. It’s happened over and over. Apple thought they had overcome this when they jumped over to IBM, but the problem still exists to this day. As much as all of us love to root for the underdog, going with AMD would be once again taking a chance on an underdog, and Apple and Jobs are frankly sick of it. Intel isn’t going anywhere and Apple no longer has to be worried about products shipping late because of CPU supplies.

  7. SteveG Says:

    Have to agree there. AMD may have the current lead in performance (and of course who knows if they can keep that lead in the future), they certainly could never keep up with Intel in terms of manufacturing. From what I’ve read, AMD is currently running backlogs for their current crop of customers.

  8. Ronnie Dan Says:

    You folks might recall some dismisive remarks from Steve Jobs, when asked about Apple’s response to Microsoft’s Media Center, where he said things along the lines of “decoding and recording video is a heavy duty task, and you don’t want your PVR doing other ‘PC’ things at the same time…”. Well guess what, Pentuim-D’s multi core should take care of that problem quite nicely, no ?! I’ll bet my pants that Apple is working on an HTPC, a Mac Mini with a nice firewire breakout box to accomodate all sorts of video I/O (A.K.A Asteriod).

  9. 813 :) (|] Says:

    for the Intel vs. AMD debate…

    2 WORDS: MASS MARKET

    Intel has it… AMD doesn’t. After the ipod what did you think was next?

  10. Danica X Says:

    AMD was not an option for Apple. AMD has nothing to offer Apple, likewise Apple has nothing to offer AMD. Apple’s own custom Dual 1.35Ghz 64bit bidirectional DDR FSBC (FrontSide Bus Controller) will benefit Intel. AMD has no interest in this technology, further AMD has no reason to work with Apple to improve their Processor’s ability to maximize the FSB speeds, PC Boards FSB speeds are only currently 400 – 800 Mhz typical (for processors with FSB speed in the Ghz range you would need to buy an Intel Extreme Classed Processor). Intel on the other hand designs and makes PC boards.

    They’re struggling to keep pace with Boards being designed by other manufactures. It’s my feeling that Intel is looking to work with Apple to learn how to increase their processor and PC Board FSB speeds over all. Intel’s Extreme Classed processors are only created in small numbers by Intel (FSB speeds of 1.0 to 1.25Ghz typical). One of the big points of the G5 is it’s FSB bandwidth. In the non-PPC world this class of processor is rare and expensive.

    While both AMD and Intel are pushing the CPU speeds the PC board architecture is still years behind Apple’s architecture. PC Boards have PS2, Serial, Parallel port, ISA and Floppy Disk Controllers on the board even if the board does not have the corresponding port/device. All of this out dated and extra hardware slow PC Board throughput. Further IRQ dependent PC Board architectures further reduce PC Boards throughput.

    AMD does not have the resources and they have no interest in delivering Processor FSB speeds or the throughput that Apple will want or, will certainly need, in the future. While, Intel has the resources and I believe, with Apple’s help, can deliver processors with FSB speeds equal to the speeds of the processors. So, (2) 64bit Xeon or P4 @ 3.5Ghz will have a 64bit bidirectional processor FSB of 3.5Ghz. A Mac Intel 3.5Ghz system with the Apple Dual 3.5Ghz 64bit bidirectional DDR FSBC would smoke any PC using the standard PC architecture with the typical FSBC of 800Mhz on the PC Board no matter how fast the processor.

    But, If Intel produced a board with an Apple style Architecture (stripped of all the slow unneeded, unused bits, with just (USB2, Firewire, SATA, PCI-X, AGP 8X-Pro with DVI only) for MS Windows then Intel would then once again also lead the PC Board market for best performance and design. And, only Intel has the clout that would be a must to get Microsoft to release a Windows update to support such a fundamental hardware architecture change.
    Just my rant.

  11. B.Greenway Says:

    Danica feel free to rant here anytime 🙂 I suppose my assumption AMD would have been a better fit for Apple, was the work AMD and IBM had done together, but I’m starting to see that as irrelevant.

  12. Mike Barrow Says:

    I know only one thing about the Intel/Apple agreement and that is the fact that I am upset that I have to wait almost 18 months for my new Yonah class Pentium M Based Mac Mini dual booted with Longhorn Media Center Edition and Mac OS X Leopard. 🙂 🙂 🙂 I cannot wait for these Intel based Macs to roll out and I have never owned a Mac in my life, but have always admired them from afar…

  13. Eyepoper Says:

    Do you really think that you could do a Dual boot? I don`t think so. The CPU will have only the instructions to run Mac Os X. You would run Win32 by only emulating it with Virtual Pc.

    I just hate that Intel now is going with apple. There will be no really competittion now. Intel and AMD are the same CPU . But they are just fooling us. If you look close both AMD and Intel have same instructions etc.. SSE3 ,3DNow etc… both have all that, but they not telling us. Marketing of course. So now the all the fault is on IBM. Now that apple signed the contract, IBM now anounces new Tech etc… They just suck. Why couldn`t IBM just build a new CPU for Apple ….
    Damn..that makes me very Mad

  14. B.Greenway Says:

    We dont “think” they’ll dual boot we know they will. Apple is re-writing their entire codebase for the intel chips, not the other way around.

Leave a Reply

Follow Us

RSS Feed Twitter


Mac mini closeout deals