Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Another Theory on Apple's Move To Intel

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the got-to-love-theories dept.

Apple 316

An anonymous reader writes "Why did Apple really switch to Intel? Larry Loeb thinks that it has everything to do with the Trusted Computing Group's TNC (Trusted Network Connect)." From the article: "The Trusted Computer Group is a multivendor association that grew out of Microsoft's pre-emptive Trusted Computing Platform effort. Microsoft realized it couldn't force this down the manufacturers' throats, so it formed the TCG to give it the veneer of respectability and 'open standards.'"

cancel ×

316 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh whoopl (-1, Troll)

KaptNKrunchy (876661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083676)

i fucked pareis jhilton!

first! (-1, Troll)

DonniKatz (623845) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083693)

first!

Risky Business (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083694)

If there was any sense to the English language, the word "trust" would be a four-letter word.

Re:Risky Business (0)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083829)

"hope"?

Re:Risky Business (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083883)

here's the funny thing with apple's switch to intel.

1. G5s are slow. really slow. OK, not in an absolute sense but there are very few areas where they excel in speed over x86 chips. PPC vs x86 ISA design notwithstanding, the actual speed of the real products at any one moment in time reveals the intels to be quicker.

2. Apple want quicker machines.

So what's with all the conspiracy theories? It's like a guy going out to pick up, and chasing the red-hot sexy young thing instead of the fat 35 year old in the corner who doesn't wash, and having all his friends go "whoa. wonder why he's going for the hot one?"

Re:Risky Business (2, Interesting)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083917)

The reason for the conspiracy theories is that your assertion about G5s being slow is just false.

But I think the truth is obvious and was given to us by Apple: The ROADMAP for intel is superior for thier needs, possibly including DRM or other features.

People look at IBMs recent announcements of processors and assume Apple was making a decision about the next 10 months, not the next 10 years.

Even with IBM releasing chips significantly faster than intel, what the next 10 years holds is more important for the mac platform.

Re:Risky Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13084007)

"Only Faster Under Certain Limited Circumstances" is the same thing as "Slow".

Really, look at the SPEC scores Apple published for the things, and then go to spec.org and look at the compeitition's. Then look up various cross-platform benchmarks. Only in the case of Altivec-freindly code is the G5 competitive.

Re:Risky Business (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13084025)

SPEC???

Did you just actually mention SPEC???

HAHAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
HAH AHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Go back to your SPEC circle jerks on aceshardware x86 fanboy. Don't forget your lube.

I guess it is true (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083698)

Any idiot can be an analyst/journalist. That is just plain scarey, that the storey was that dumb and was accepted.

Trusted computing (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083702)

Mod this flamebait if you like, but Apple isn't the paragon of virtue that many in the Slashdot community have made it out to be. DRM in iTunes. Okay. I get that one. They are out to portect the musicians and groups that make it possible to have iTunes in the first place.

But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes. For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple. How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.

Suing folks who scoop them on news. Embracing trusted computing (misnomer if I ever heard of one). Sorry folks, this ain't the apple of the 80's.

Re:Trusted computing (1, Troll)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083727)

Correct. Apple is a business and it's trying desperating to hold on to it's trendiness as iPod fever dies off.

Not that I have anything against Apple, I'm typing this on a Powerbook.

Re:Trusted computing (5, Insightful)

Basehart (633304) | more than 8 years ago | (#13084014)

"Apple is a business and it's trying desperating to hold on to it's trendiness as iPod fever dies off."

Pet Rocks, wearing pants around your knees and sticking safety pins through your nose are trends, not the iPod.

It's too functional to be trendy, and it's evolving too fast to simply fade away any time soon.

Re:Trusted computing (1)

hayalci (807196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083740)

I agree to your points. Look at all these locking attempts, they might just be the *future micro$oft*. Ot they may already have been if macs were so popular.

Re:Trusted computing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083746)

Protecting their deal with RIAA labels? Oh no!

Suing people for violating an NDA? Double oh noes!

Embracing trusted computing? Even though this article is complete rubbish, oh no!

Re:Trusted computing (2, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083755)

So, oh wise AC. Why does Apple sue folks who port iTunes over to Pocket PC?

Re:Trusted computing (1)

rebug (520669) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083782)

I'm sure Apple's contract with the record labels covers which platforms they will provide iTunes for.

Re:Trusted computing (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083789)

Maybe. But to me, it smells more like "you must use our hardware so we make more profit"

Re:Trusted computing (1)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083756)

This is like the "Who" song. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Whenever you are new (young), you have nothing at stake in the system, so being rebellious is cool. Thus, Apple in 80s was cool, taking on the suits at IBM, which was the corporate establishment. Even Bill Gates was considered a cool rebel, showing up to IBM meetings without wearing even a suit. But now, the iTimes they are a changin. Steve Jobs is now older and corporately wiser. He wants to become the IBM and the Microsoft and has a good chance at it. But he has to sleep his way to the top, meaning getting in bed with the RIAA & other companies. The only question is, who is screwing whom

Re:Trusted computing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083759)

I've got a better theory, it's quite simple

G5s are fine
G5s cannot go into laptops
Laptops use G4
G4 delevopment stalled
Laptops account for MORE THAN HALF of apple computer sales.
going intel takes the risk out of competition with wintel, as they will never be greatly faster or slower.

so stop it with the conspiracy theories ok, it's pretty simple reason to change when more than half of your product line is stalled. Do you see a mobile G5 in thinkpads? Do you see motorola improving the clock on the G4?

STFU you troll journalists who make up these STUPID stories to get slashdot-driven ad revenue.

Next up "Linux performance sucked, so steve jobs engineered the intel switch with the help of darl mcbride, a beowulf cluster of the new PCs will be used to render the newst Lucas movie in the star wars series in which Jar jar binks returns!!!1" or maybe a dupe.

Re:Trusted computing (1)

kinzillah (662884) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083771)

But they will be greatly faster. Each OSX revision gets faster and cleaner. This is opposed to certain other companies' operating systems which tend to do the opposite.

Re:Trusted computing (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083843)

There are diminishing returns on time spent improving performance. At some point you will reach x% of the theoretical max and your done. And when your theoretical max isn't going up, you have issues. It is just delaying the inevitable.

Jeremy

Re:Trusted computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083822)

Yea, but IBM just announced a range of G5s perfect for laptop usage. Apple must of knew that these were coming ASAP.

Re:Trusted computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083831)

nice try AC, link us up on that one maybe? hehe, pretty good troll though, hope others get sucked in.

could start a classic troll with "IBM G5 laptop rumour" post to cut+paste everytime apple, IBM or laptops are mentioned

Re:Trusted computing (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083863)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

How about a link to the Slashdot article [slashdot.org] about the unveiling of the low power G5, aka 970FX, that uses as little as 13 watts.

Re:Trusted computing (1)

didde (685567) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083879)


You must mean these [macdailynews.com] ones [theregister.co.uk] .

FTFA: [A new, low-power 970FX consumes between 13W and 16W at frequencies of 1.2GHz, 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz. That's more than the 10W that the Freescale MPC7448 found in today's 1.5Ghz PowerBooks consumes, but around half the maximum power consumption of Intel's Pentium M, which powers today's Centrino laptops. IBM is also unveiled the dual-core 970MP codenamed 'Antares', at clock frequencies of 1.4GHz to 2.5GHz. Each core has 1MB of L cache, and one core can be turned off to save power.]

But surely, Apple should have been in the loop with IBM, knowing these puppies were to be announced. Or is it perhaps IBM trying deperately to keep Apple tied down to the G5's?

Re:Trusted computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083938)

Watts consumed, watts dissipated as heat, etc, etc, may seem like apples-to-apples measurements, but are still subject to a lot of vendor whims.

How does a chip that dissipates a maximum of 15W compare to a chip that consumes an average of 13W? Hard to say. Apple definitely knew what IBM had coming, it just wasn't good enough for them.

Re:Trusted computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083905)

>STFU you troll journalists who make up these STUPID stories to get slashdot-driven ad revenue.

eWeek gets enough hits that an extra 10k or so /. hits wouldn't make them blink. Now, if you were talking about trollish linuxworld or OSNews posts...

Re:Trusted computing (2, Informative)

goMac2500 (741295) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083811)

Huh? Plenty of applications sync iTunes to PocketPC, and they haven't been sued. I can think of Mark/Space right off the top of my head. They're well back by both Palm and Apple.

Re:Trusted computing (2, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083832)

Reference to some incidents [macobserver.com] I referred to.

Re:Trusted computing (3, Insightful)

goMac2500 (741295) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083922)

I think Apple has a problem with programs taking AAC files that are Fairplay enabled, breaking the DRM on them, and moving them to PocketPC. The software you are linking to was never taken down by Apple.

Huh? (2, Insightful)

LKM (227954) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083858)

For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to.

Do you realize that your whole point is based on this nonsensical sentence? What do you mean by "try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes"? Are you castigating Apple for not releasing iTunes for Pocket PCs? Or is your problem that you can't buy a Pocket PC with iTunes preinstalled? Or were you not able to sync iTunes with your Pocket PC? Or what? And who exactly got sued by Apple? I don't know of any Pocket PC software developers who got sued by Apple.

Re:Trusted computing (2, Informative)

kponto (821962) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083865)

But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes. For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple. How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.

The reason that 3rd party plugs aren't allowed in iTunes is because they would be used to circumvent the measures that Apple has taken to apease the labels, and I think we can all agree that if they were allowed, that's exactly what most of them would do. Apple originally was against a DRM scheme for the iPod and iTMS. If they weren't, I highly doubt it would be as easy as it is to pull songs off an iPod, or that the restrictions on DRM'd iTMS files would be so lax.

I think DRM goes against what Apple stands for, and not because Apple is a "paragon of virtue". It has nothing to do with high moral ground. Everything Apple does, everything it designs, is all based around a seamless and smooth user experience. All DRM does is hamper that experience. You'll notice that there's no serial number/authorization/challenge-response for OS X. There's no extreme verification for any of their other software. Why? Because it sucks from a users standpoint. What they loose in piracy, they more than make up for in people choosing Apple because it lacks these hassles.

That, and they want to sell iPods... but chances are you want to buy one, so it all works out.

Of course, that said, I still won't buy any music with DRM, fanboy or not.

Temporary alliances (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083897)

The reason that 3rd party plugs aren't allowed in iTunes is because they would be used to circumvent the measures that Apple has taken to apease the labels, and I think we can all agree that if they were allowed, that's exactly what most of them would do.

I agree. One of the problems with these conspiracy theories is that they ignore the realities of give and take in a competitive environment. Apple had to get in bed with the RIAA in order to get the ball rolling with the iTunes store, which was a critical component of their iPod strategy. Apple seems to have figured that there's money to be made in a legal download market that doesn't include draconian DRM.

Apple may or may not like the RIAA, but that's beside the point. Their goal is to grow the digital music market and take a slice of that growing market. The only way for them to do that was to come up with a compromise solution, and they only way to protect that compromise is to keep iTunes from becoming a Trojan Horse for pirating.

You can look at Apple's use of DRM as the first step on the road to further restrictions on fair use rights, or you can look at it as the first step toward getting the RIAA to see that there's middle ground between totally unlimited sharing and no sharing at all.

It's about trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083940)

I already modded here so it's AC-ville for me. But since you're already at +4 and there's no proper reply I thought I'd point this out for you:

Suing folks who scoop them on news is a different matter than suing folks who make unauthorized extensions to their DRM technology. And if you have a third party selling a mechanism that allows unauthorized duplication of the product they are selling then you are threatening their entire existence - if I can easily duplicate my itunes files to an insecure device then their packages amount to nothing more than MP3s.

THAT is how this is about "protecting the musicians." And protecting Apple's business model as well. The DRM is a "feature" for Apple and they have to protect it in a credible fashion.

If you have a pocketpc and it won't play itunes, don't fucking pay apple for downloads - problem solved. Go get music from some other website... or from the newsgroups and p2p like everyone else.

Re:It's about trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083954)

You lost the points unless you anonymize. Sorry.

Re:Trusted computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083958)

DRM in iTunes. Okay. I get that one. They are out to portect the musicians and groups that make it possible to have iTunes in the first place.

Er, no. They identified music downloads as a potential revenue stream and added value to their iPod range. The music labels would never agree to DRMless music downloads, so Apple had no choice but to slap on some rudimentary DRM.

Apple don't give a shit about the musicians. Apple care about what they can and cannot sell, and how easy it is for their customers to buy from them. Basic, lax DRM is the only real choice they had. It's either that, or don't bother with the market at all.

But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes. For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple. How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.

Like I said, it's nothing to do with the musicians. iPods and iTunes' close coupling makes them money. Third parties getting in on the act means they make less money. So they do their best to prevent it.

Sorry folks, this ain't the apple of the 80's.

Every publically traded company has a fiducary duty to their shareholders. If the directors do something that puts anything else, be it user rights, musicians' livelihoods, whatever, then they can be sued by Apple shareholders. That is the nature of capitalism as practiced by the USA.

Re:Trusted computing (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083973)

But then explain to me why Apple has been so against 3rd party extenders to iTunes.

They haven't. They haven't sued a *single* company for merely "extending iTunes".

For example, try to get your Pocket PC with iTunes. Until recently, you haven't been able to. Why? Companies that provide the apps get sued by Apple.

Again, wrong. Any company that wants to can write a plug-in to enable a PocketPC to sync with iTunes. What they *can't* do is circumvent the iTunes Music Store's DRM. If you want to listen to those songs on your PocketPC, you still can (legally) via burning to CD, then ripping into a format for your PocketPC, or (semi-legally) via Hymn.

How does this fit the "protect the musicians" model? It doesn't.

It most surely does, both directly and indirectly. Directly, it's necessary in order to sell music online. More sales == money, duh.

Indirectly, it challenges the music industry cartel's stranglehold. This gives smaller labels, and individual artists more opportunity and greater ability to control their own music.

Apple isn't stopping you from playing your music on your PocketPC, they just aren't letting others break their DRM. Even if you have 300 songs purchased, though, it would take less than a day to, fully legally, convert them to a format that plays on your PocketPC.

Beyond that, you can still just buy the CD's, or (gasp), buy an iPod (a far superior music player than the PocketPC).

But, in the end, even with DRM, the iTunes Music Store has provided *more* options for the consumer--even you--and has done so with extremely unobtrusive DRM.

Re:Trusted computing (3, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 8 years ago | (#13084000)

Any time you build a product that's popular enough with a niche market, you get a certain group of fanatics who try to describe the business as something greater than what is really is.

Those folks aside though, I think Apple is focused more on becoming a "media company" than a "computer company" these days. That's the biggest difference between the Apple of today, and the Apple of the 80's.

After all, when your C.E.O. also happens to run a major motion picture studio, and when your "flagship software applications" include such things as Final Cut Pro, Motion, DVD Studio Pro and Shake - you have to think this is a company with a primary goal of being a big player in media production and editing.

Computers go hand-in-hand with all of that, of course, but success in offering the "whole package" includes such concepts as retaining control and big market-share of your music downloads and playback mechanisms, tools to ensure your products "play nicely" with copyright restrictions on the use of commercial media, and so on.

I don't say any of this as an "excuse" for Apple's behavior. Rather, it's just important to understand that they *are* looking at things differently than they used to. And not doing so would leave them in a much more place, financially speaking - since they'd be in the exact same marketspace as the rest of the PC clone builders (HP, IBM, Dell, Sony, etc. etc.).

Nice theory (4, Insightful)

utlemming (654269) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083709)

but wouldn't anti-trust get involved real quick? If the Intel Silcon is exclusive for the TNC protocols, I can guarentee that a competing scheme will come up or the government will force it out to other people. And if it is on the Intel CPU, then AMD is really going to scream. So while it is a nice theory, I think that have a protocol which identifies the computer via a chip and then forces it to use the TNC scheme is doomed to failure.

Re:Nice theory (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083726)

AMD is also a member of the TNC initiative. Perhaps because they had no choice but to join.

Its coming whether we want it or not and both Apple and Microsoft want their platforms the center as the media hub of the future of the home. To do this means backing by hollywood and of course they want a standard and Microsoft is doing everything possible to cater to them so they can be the new gatekeeper of data and information.

Re:Nice theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13084036)


Its coming whether we want it or not and both Apple and Microsoft want their platforms the center as the media hub of the future of the home


It might be coming, but the market will decide the fate of DRM, not the *AAs.

In short, there is no public appetite for DRM. There is no public appetite for computers and DVD players with secret hardware ports that can phone home.

There is no public appetite for 'secure monitors'.

There is no public appetite for crippled music that self destructs or can't be moved to copied to a different volume.

There is no public appetite for only running applications that the OS says is ok.

There is no public appetite for desktop OS's that are not under full control of the purchaser.

There is no public appetite for a new style of 'leasing' your computer on certain strict terms and only using it in a certain way according to how the manufacturers dictate.

There was certainely NOOO public appetite for secret unique CPU IDs available across the network which may or may not be turned off.

DRM and Trusted Computing are concepts to do with *AAs trying to reign back some control and nothing to do with actually shifting boxes. What may happen is that heavy DRM as intended is simply not sustainable as a business model and that it will in time look ridiculous. It alreadly looks ridiculous on paper.

It will be interesting to see how much more money industry is prepared to piss down the toilet on DRM schemes. There will come a cut off point because the world has moved way beyond what DRM is trying to do. DRM is a step backwards in time and well..kinda trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Intel is far from alone (3, Informative)

msobkow (48369) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083821)

From http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/standards /st01041.pdf [intel.com] :

TCG is currently comprised of a variety of vendors, including PC platform, operating system, and TPM vendors, with the board of directors consisting of representatives from Intel, IBM, HP, Microsoft, Sony, Sun Microsystems, Seagate, Verisign, and AMD. TPM vendors include Atmel, Infineon, National Semiconductor, and STMicroelectronics. Until now, TCG has focused on specifying a TPM for the PC.
Over four million PCs have been shipped with version 1.1 TPMs installed, mostly by IBM and HP. However, Intel has also begun delivering this technology and has just released the Intel® D865GRH Desktop Board, which has a version 1.1 TPM and ships with a software suite that provides better security for users' personal information. Version 1.2 of the TPM specification was recently released, and TPMs conforming to the new specification are under development.
Now that TPM definition for the PC platform has evolved, the TCG is expanding its membership and beginning to define TPMs for cell phones, handhelds, and servers--continuing to work toward the vision where all devices can talk to one another and communicate their trust state. Work is also moving forward on defining protocols necessary for communicating and interpreting the trust state.

In other words, there are other vendors producing TPM silicon. Intel is one of the late-comers for sample hardware, not the sole driving vendor that Larry Loeb seems to think they are.

I'd file Larry's theory under "Tinfoil/Paranoia."

Compare (0, Troll)

hayalci (807196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083714)

This x86 switch will surely cost a lot to Apple, changing all the architecture and going over all the code base to make it work on x86 architecture.
I think it is not so certain that they are doing all this just to comply with TNC, which is not guaranteed to be the rule...

Re:Compare (4, Informative)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083747)

osx already runs on x86, has for years.

Re:Compare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083787)

Also, according to Jobs osx has always had a x86 port. They knew there was a high likely hood that they were going to switch to intel eventually.

Re:Compare (1)

paperclip2003 (732025) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083853)

NextStep was on X86. They did not have to "rewrite" anything ;). OSX has been on X86 the whole time, why do you think darwin was being activly developed. I don't think there was any conspiracy there. I think Jobs had planned to do this from day one but did not want to hurt the floundering Apple. Apple was bankrupt.

Re:Compare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083929)

Hello! did we miss the keynote Jobs gave, that part about OSX and all iApps being dual builds from day one (the "secret life" of OSX) i.e. the last five years?!

Or for the slightly less paranoid... (5, Informative)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083718)

Or for the slightly less paranoid... Cringely [pbs.org] .

Personally, I think the Cringe is on target, as the "iFlicks" version of iTunes has been on the radar for years now.

Of course, being on /., I suppose we have to support the conspiracy theorists...

Re:Or for the slightly less paranoid... (2, Insightful)

Zevets (728720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083769)

His argument is somewhat logical, except when Cringely starts talking about the retinal scan viewer for the movie iPods. That is lunacy, as is his comparison to Apple's Cinema Displays.

LCD displays were proven technology before Apple picked it up, but as far as I know, these "retinal scan" things exist only in tech demos and have never been mass produced(and apple has to do that succesfully with good yields, which is even harder).

Re:Or for the slightly less paranoid... (1)

BitGeek (19506) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083939)


Actually, calling them "retinal scan" implies something they aren't even though it is literally true.

These devices have been around for about a decade, they work really well, and they HAVE been mass produced, just not economically... though that has always been the goal of the company.

If the company has developed a full color display (it was green when I tried it) and worked out production problems, theres absolutely no reason it can't be mass produced.

Not saying Apple is goign to use it... but its the kind of just-cutting-edge technology they have adopted in the past.

So 1984 won't be like 1984, huh? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083724)

It looks like Apple finally(?) joined the other big brothers. Anyone remembers their 1984 ad?

Re:So 1984 won't be like 1984, huh? (0, Troll)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083770)

Well, you see, it was only bad when Big Blue was the Big Brother, now that Big Aqua is a Big Brother it's all good.

Aqua is much easier on the eyes afterall.

Apple Zealot's can't handle rhetorical questions. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083991)

They don't have a sense of humor and are armed with modpoints and wield them like drunken musketeers.

Mac is all about "style" and if you ask a tough question that they can't breezily smile and wave a hand at to dismiss, then they get angry.

Hell, apple was a bunch of hypocrites back in 1984. Woz dumped 'em; he was the real rebel spirit of Apple. Jobs was and is the ghoulish ghost that made Microsoft the King. Apple functions as a jail for non-Microsoft users. It's a pretend Wintel independent realm subsidized by Microsoft. Apple users conveniently forget that Bill Gates saved them many times, including the time he bought Apple's near bankrupt stock. "Gee, those I can't control will flee to the new Linux thing, better prop Apple up again" thought Bill. Things sure worked out for Bill on that one.

Apple: making the world safe for DRM and Microsoft and Intel.

The 1984 ad was a hypocritcal joke in 1984. Apple remains a hypocritical joke in 2005.

Oh please!! Read this Instead (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083742)

It figures slashdot would post anything than comes back to some half-baked Microsoft conspiracy. On the other hand, you can also read this ars technica article [arstechnica.com] that is well-founded, and much more reasonable than this claptrap.

Of course, if slashdot posted somehting more reasonable, it would hurt their ad revenues and click-thrus as it would generate the flamewars and trolling than the typical slashdot articles nowadays.

Seems obvious enough... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083748)

It was all about laptops. Just before the merger was announced, a study was released showing that something like 40% of new PC purchases were laptops, rather than desktops. For Apple, the ratio is probably even more heavily-skewed in favor of portables.

Laptop CPUs were one key area where IBM just could not seem to get their act together. When it came to mobile G5 CPUs, Jobs probably just got tired of hearing one empty promise after another from IBM. You can't blame him.

I doubt the conspiracy goes any deeper than that. Laptops == the only PCs that still have any meaningful profit margins. Any computer vendor that wants to prosper has to have its laptop act together, and IBM was holding Apple back big-time.

Re:Seems obvious enough... (2, Informative)

(startx) (37027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083998)

It was all about laptops. Just before the merger was announced, a study was released showing that something like 40% of new PC purchases were laptops, rather than desktops. For Apple, the ratio is probably even more heavily-skewed in favor of portables.

Actually, according to their quarterly earning's report [thinksecret.com] , Apple laptops were 42% of there Mac sales, so just about even with your quoted industry average. Now, I agree laptops are a huge reason for Apple jumping ship to Intel, and they're probably hoping that percentage keeps going up.

You serious??? (4, Insightful)

lurch_mojoff (867210) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083753)

What's wrong with you people? Enough with all this conspiracy theories. Does this dude really expect us to believe that Apple got into all this trouble of switching CPU architectures because of some not-really-ready not-really-standard? He himself says:
Microsoft realized it couldn't force this down the manufacturers' throats, so it formed the TCG to give it the veneer of respectability and "open standards."
My dictionary sais that "open standard" is by definition platform independant!

Seriously, every reason beyond simple economics is complete nonsence. Apple switches to Intel x86 because thus they will get very, very cheap CPUs, which are just as fast as everybody else's, without investing huge sums in R&D, and geting nice chipsets as a bonus. That's it, period!

Re:You serious??? (1)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083804)

I just typed out a big tirade and then hit back and found this post which echoes my sentiment exactly.

Pure economics, mod parent up.

Re:You serious??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13084022)

OMG SAIS DICTINORAROY LOL U=DUMB LOOLL i am the very model of a modern major general i've information vegetable animal and mineral. I am actually kind of surprised someone didn't make a retarded joke about it earlier.

Right... so (5, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083766)

Apple switched processor architectures, an incredibly expensive and complicated multi-year undertaking... so that they could jump on to an unproven MICROSOFT technology, a technology that Microsoft isn't even using yet, a technology which consumers so far are reacting EXTREMELY badly to, and a technology that is based around a "Trusted Computing Group" that Apple isn't even part of?

Oh, and furthermore-- Apple did this by way of a cunning plan which keeps their developers totally in the dark about their Palladium plans, even after developers begin using receiving their developer transition kits? Great plan, that. Implement a major hardware change, go to great effort to get prototype hardware in the hands of developers so they can port their apps BEFORE the hardware change hits consumers, then suddenly spring "Hey guys, guess what? Here's ANOTHER major hardware change [Palladium] that your programs may or may not need to take advantage/caution of!" on the developers at the last minute.

Even if any of this made sense, why would Apple need to switch instruction sets? AMD is part of the Trusted Computing Group, and Apple's been using AMD technology (HyperTransport) since the G5. I see no reason treacherous computing and the PPC would be inherently incompatible.

I hate "analysts".

Re:Right... so (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083916)

That is a very good analysis of why the original article was 100% navelgazing. But given your talent for critical analysis, you're last sentence seems a bit off.

If It's An Open Standard (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083767)

Just my $/50 but, if it's a true Open Standard, Apple should have had to go to Intel to get it. If it's a true and valuable Open Standard then other manufacturer's would also provide methods of implementing it.

Off Topic Alert... (0, Offtopic)

Spock the Baptist (455355) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083898)

"Brooke Shields: Tall Princeton honors student. Tom Cruise: Short high school dropout. You decide!"

Ok, first of all Tom Cruise's recent looniness is just that, loony.

Now as to Brooke Shields--Princeton honors student.

I clearly remember that there was a issue of Life magazine in which a professor was lambasting the state of undergraduate education in the US. Brooke Shields Baccalaureate was used a something of a case study. Her complete transcript was published in the same issue.

At the time I had not completed my B.Sc., but had earned an A.A. with a concentration in Engineering from Tyler Junior College. Frankly, given the courses that Miss Shields took my lowly A.A. was a vastly superior degree. I can't recall the details of Miss Shields Baccalaureate, but I do recall that it totally lacked any courses in mathematics, and had but one or two courses in the natural sciences. If memory serves, I believe that Miss Shields had *a* descriptive astronomy course. What her transcript reveled was a total lack of any rigorous course work on the part of Miss Shields while she was at Princeton.

It's not the fact that you're a college graduate, nor is it the fact that you're an alumnus/alumna of an Ivy, or other prestigious university that makes you an educated person. It's what you did, your course of study, that makes you an educated person.

FWIW
STB

Free Shackles! Getcha Free Shackles Here! (2, Funny)

Michael_Burton (608237) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083780)

'Open standards' for closed computing?

I've been a Mac user for almost twenty years. But I'm not inclined to sign over control of my own computer. If that means I don't get the newest and coolest toys, I suppose I'll just have to suffer.

Long live Linux.

Brilliant, except ... (2, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083783)

IBM is also a member of the TCG. Getting a nub from IBM would be a whole lot less work than switching CPU architectures. Sheesh, Apple could do their own nub if it comes to that; they do their own system chips all the time.

Re:Brilliant, except ... (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083873)

Aye. Moreover, Microsoft seem determined to position the XBox2 as the PC of the future. That way they get to control the platform in hardware and software, right?

So why would MS migrate this shining new hope of theirs to an arcitechture that was going to be locked out of the net by a standard they created? That makes no sense at all.

If Loeb is right, there'd need to be a lot more to the story than is printed in TFA. I think I'm going to apply Occam's Razor here and assume he's just plain wrong

Re:Brilliant, except ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083912)

" Aye. Moreover, Microsoft seem determined to position the XBox2 as the PC of the future. "

Uh, Microsoft isn't likely to even keep half their existing xbox installed base with the 360. It is hard to imagine how things could be going worse for the 360.

That is if the rumors that Microsoft is ready to pull the plug on the whole mess aren't true.

The next xbox isn't going to be 'positioned' as anything other than another piece of hardware that needs OS/office suite money to sustain it in the marketplace. The only thing Microsoft has going for them right now is the weak 360 hardware will lessen the losses somewhat if the don't end up pulling the plug. Microsoft has been cutting billions like mad over the past year. The xbox fiasco is a giant target in the sights of the bean counters up in Redmond. They are eager to pull the trigger.

wha...?! (1)

mardoen (557915) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083786)

Man, that Microsoft initiative was one of the reasons that I switched. Not the initiative per se, but the overall impression of a Windows platform that is getting more and more locked down. A small part of my motivation was indeed the search for alternatives to such a restricted platform.

My impression was (and still is) that Apple recognizes when technology is restrictive to a point where it harms the user experience.

for the right to distribute content (1)

non (130182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083801)

i've been thinking this very thing for the past several days. on a hunch, i checked the registration for 'iflicks.' its no surprise that its already registered, but its registered to tucows!

seriously, maybe you've heard of East Fork [theinquirer.net] , and Secure Premium Content Module? in the inquirer article they talk about how this technology will be used to keep linux out of the contant market. and the article about 'Longhorn to Require Monitor-Based DRM' here [slashdot.org] makes it quite plain why apple 'switched.'

in another report [cabledigitalnews.com] about next-generation broadband services from cablevision, speeds of 100 Mbps were achieved in a trial deployment.

so the answer is quite plain, apple wants to be part of the future of content distribution, and going with intel is the only way they can get there.

John birch society (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083817)

Oh well, people need entertainment, conspiracy theories concerning computer manufacturers is kinda funny.

That said, this theory may not be so wacky. Apple makes deals, they are not some divine group bringing together MASSIVE media companies because they are 'cool', but because they are in the belly of the beast. In order for ITunes to remain 'competetive' (with what, I am not sure), they have to take it up the ars from VIACOM/SONY/BGM. If one or all of the MEDIA GIANTS were to 'demand' better DRM from Apple, what would they do? Comply or throw their hottest product line in the trash?

Anyways, I am not reading into this too much, even if it has an air of plausibility.

I am inclined to take Apple at their word (1)

jockm (233372) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083819)

That they felt that the x86 had a better roadmap, and would unlimitedly be the right platform. I honestly don't see the need for alternate theories (some of them quite out there). While not defending DRM, you have to admit that Apple's approach to DRM hasn't been especially draconian (when compared to others out there). This latest theory would make more sense to me if we saw an existing push by Apple to stronger DRM.

Re:I am inclined to take Apple at their word (1)

Colol (35104) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083981)

Being burned as many times as Apple has, the explanation Steve Jobs presented certainly makes sense to me. I love the design of the PowerPC, but damned if the suppliers haven't bitten Apple in the butt repeatedly.

PPC hasn't exactly been stagnation-free for Apple with the G3, the G4, and now the G5. Even worse, though, are the shortages Apple has run into with nearly every new system launch because suppliers -- often IBM or Motorola -- weren't able to churn components out fast enough.

Intel has the capacity to make smooth launches happen. And that, when you talk to users and Mac journalists, is only a good thing. Shawn King of Your Mac Life [yourmaclife.com] sounds like a broken record every time a new Mac comes out because Apple can never fill orders. As an investor and a fan of the platform, that's not good news. You've got to capture the market while it's fresh. Repeat customers dig the hype of a new product, but once the dust settles they may decide they can keep going along with their current Mac. And switchers... "Hey, we've got this cheap introductory Mac for you" only works when you have enough product for people to actually buy it.

Intel's got a hell of a thing going with the Pentium M. If the derived desktop processors work as well as they're claiming, this will be a huge move for Apple.

Re:I am inclined to take Apple at their word (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13084017)

So you are dealing with IBM dumping Apple and having to run to Intel for a lifeline is to pretend this is all some grand plan for "cheap and fast" Macs.

I was a diehard Mac users since the late eighties until this hardware disaster happend. Just listening to Mac wackos makes me nauseous now.

I Can Only Laugh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083820)

Welcome to Reality to all the Mac diehards who are going down with the good ship Jobs.

Jobs knows the only growth area for Apple is DRM laden media devices. He'd love to jettison the whole OS X/Mac hardware stuff today if he could get away with it.

Jobs has to be on his knees praying the iPod fad can continue for at least another year os he can get the transition form computer/OS company to consumer media device company able to support the whole company. The first full quarter of Mac sales after the WWDC announcement of being forced to turn to Intel is going to be ugly, real ugly. Only an idiot would wasted money on obsolete hardware.

Thank god I abanonded ship, I'm able to use OpenGL post-twentith century extensions for the first time in my life on my new platform...but I will miss the always fun ride down a company's death spiral. Have fun my former Apple comrades!

Re:I Can Only Laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13084038)

Did you not get the memo? Apple sold even more Macs this quarter than they did last quarter. They posted record-breaking profits. I think you're a little confused.

Another Theory on Apple's Move To Intel (4, Funny)

craXORjack (726120) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083825)


I have my own theory on why Apple fell.

Gravity.

A little bit late, Larry (1)

aglerickson (807704) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083830)

Where have you been the last two months? Apple and Intel both stated their cases for the switch. We're suppose to take you seriously because why, exactly?

Larry, the problem with the argument from silence is that it runs both ways, and has the same amount of proof.

You are a fear monger, sir. There is no threat to Microsoft or Linux on the desktop. MS is firmly entrenched in the business world, and Linux doesn't have a real desktop/Joe User experience. Not that GNOME and KDE aren't trying, mind you.

IBM hasn't delivered on promises to Apple re: CPUs. And they don't seem to care if Apple moves on. No news here, Larry. Or I suppose that's why you're engaging in make-believe. Did your editor tell you s/he had whitespace that needed filled, or what?

*sigh*

F) All of the Above (5, Interesting)

Marillion (33728) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083834)

It seems a lot of really bright people have come up with "The Reason" Apple switched. It's as if there is only one reason.

I'm sure I've missed one, but we've heard, A) Faster CPUs, B) Less power consumption, C) Cheaper CPUs (preferred vendor prices), D) Cheaper iPod CPUs (XScale is an Intel), E) Trusted Computing Platform.

I think Apple weighed several factors before switching. In short, F) All of the Above.

Re:F) All of the Above (2, Interesting)

Dan Berlin (682091) | more than 8 years ago | (#13084015)

Apple doesn't get preferred vendor pricing. They don't come anywhere near the volume necessary

OT: Apple's best ever quarter (2, Interesting)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083839)

Ok, that's almost completely off-topic, but not looking for bad karma, I find strange that /. eds haven't published anything about Apple's financial release last week: best quarter *ever*.

Apple has announced their Q3 2005 Financial Results today:
Apple said net income for its third fiscal quarter ended June 25 rose to $320 million, or 37 cents per share, from $61 million, or 8 cents a share, a year ago, on a split-adjusted basis.

Revenue rose 75 percent to $3.52 billion from $2.01 billion.

Highlights
- 1.182 Million Macs shipped for quarter (35% growth)
- 687,00 desktops; 495,000 portables shipped
- 6.155 million iPods shipped for quarter (616% growth)
- iTunes Music Store market share 80% according to Neilsen
- Tiger revenue $100 million in quarter; installed base of Mac OS X is close to 16 million
- Still planning on Intel based Macs to be available at this time next year.
- Apple noticed no significant drop in Mac sales following the Intel announcement, but only have a few weeks of data. Still are being cautious about 4th Quarter predictions/results. (maybe I'm not that much off-topic ;-)
- Question asked if Apple has considered advertising the Mac further especially surrounding the iPod "halo" effect, but no real answer was given.
- Question about Apple's thoughts on subscription vs purchased music model. Apple still feels that users was to purchase songs, not rent them and feels the 80% market share reflects this.

Apple also release updates to iPhoto and iSync.

Mod me off-topic if you want. It *is* off-topic. But the financial results are worth the read... well, to me at least! ;-)

Re:OT: Apple's best ever quarter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083869)

Hope to see you eagerly posting next quarter's financial results that show the nasty results of the hardware sales falling like a brick...

I'm almost starting to feel pity for the Mac crazies who plan on riding this hardware disaster out.

"But,but,but Steve told the me the Intel roadmap looks great!!!"

Steve Jobs wants to be the next Bill Gates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083845)

You only have to look at his history to see that he is more interested in the OS environment than he is in computer hardware. But how will he challenge windows on the desktop? If he tips his hand he will lose. He has to have an OS ready to do every thing that windows will do, by the time Dell starts to ship white box Intel machines with OS X on them.
IBM is in on this! They will be happy to sell Dell PPC chips to run OS X.

First I thought... (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083849)

How is this "Another Theory on Apple's Move To Intel"? I've heard it a dozen times before, like in every bloody Slashdot story on the switch. But then I realized that this article is one fucking month old. So it may have been new then.

YATOASTI (5, Funny)

LightningBolt! (664763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083855)

Your post postulates a
(x ) technical ( ) corporate-rivalry ( ) market-based ( ) long-term strategic

explanation for Apple's decision to switch to Intel processors. Your reasoning is incorrect. Here is why it is incorrect. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Apple has enough cash to keep it afloat for some time.
( ) Steve Jobs is not the only employee at Apple.
( ) IBM is a large corporation and does not get "upset".
( ) Intel has larger customers than Apple.
(x) Intel does not begrudge Microsoft for using an IBM processor in XBox 360.
( ) Linux is completely unrelated to this decision.
( ) Apple will not reconsider Mac clones, even if it would mean Dell-branded machines.
( ) The next generation Macs will not be Itanium-based.
( ) The next generation iPod will not be x86-based.
( ) Most of Apple's customers don't write Altivec assembly.
( ) XServe machines are not a significant percentage of Mac sales.
(x) Obscure functionality of Intel processors does not drive purchases.

mostly commodity issues (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083868)

It seems to me that the Intel switch can mostly be explained by looking at the capabilities of the commodity market over the past 20 years. In 1985 Apple harnessed a set of extremely clever processors to create e computer powerful enough to use a GUI instead of CLI. MS and Intel retrofitted the GUI into a cheaper machine, but it took 10 years for the cheaper market to really catch up. Even then, there were high end machines, like those from SGI, that provided significant advantage to those that needed or wanted power. Fastfoward another 10 years. SGI is almost bankrupt. People can network commodity machines with *nix to create powerful composite computers. The RISC/CISC divide has become a fiction. Frequencies are so high we include eye candy for the purpose of wasting them. The only meaningful difference for most is efficiencies.

That said, the Intel decision is puzzling. Certainly there a fewer compelling reasons not to use commodity hardware. I know why Intel wants Apple. Apple will use the high end stuff that no one else wants. It won't necessarily forever demand x86 compatibility. Some hardware security might be an issue, but Apple is not putting excessive security into any of it's products. Just enough to meet the minimum requirements. And for people who buy Apples just because they work will likely turn to a *nix if Apple DRM becomes more onerous than installing a *nix. I can imagine certain content being linked to certain machines, as it done now, but, it is already being done, so why the bother. It might just be that Apple wants cheaper proccesors for the iPod line, and Intel has the stuff that will let the video iPod work.

TCG has nothing to do with it. Larry's guessing. (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083880)

The two major reasons, based on the success of Apple's current models, are 1) DRM and 2) application emulation possibilities with a mature and cogent CPU road map.

TCG is unfortunately, a joke. But so is the rest of the oxymoron called system security. Today in the NYT, there was a column about people simply throwing their machines away when they became too crammed with malware. Enter now, the era of dispoable computing.

What Jobs can do re DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083901)

A. Trusted Computing/DRM/other similar things

B. Steve Job's anus

Insert A into B until it will go no further

C. Linux doesn't look so bad after all*

*Yup, I am ready to switch to Linux and leave Macs behind if they start stuffing a ton of *AA appeasing crap into their systems

In other words... iTunes 5 with new DRM features! (0, Offtopic)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083903)

Apple fanboys defended Apple's right to futz around with "FairPlay" DRM between releases of iTunes, so the door is wide open for Apple to make retroactive changes to all of those songs that suckers... err users bought.

Tired of the misguided conspiracies (5, Interesting)

MrLint (519792) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083906)

This is the 3rd major article I have seen about apple 'could' use the DRM for something or another.

If the only goal was to go and keep OSX from running on beige x86 boxes they would have kept using open firmware instead of switching to BIOS. (which I still think OF was a better choice).

And clearly Apple doesn't do the bidding of the RIAA, otherwise iTMS would have crippling DRM. Which it doesnt.

I really wish these talking heads would meet the guillotine. Their speculation doesn't fit.

The only speculation i have seen that makes sense is to get a volume discount on doodads for all the products from ipods up.

My personal suspicion is that there may be some connection between apple, who tends to be on the innovation vanguard, and a number of Intel's 'gee whiz' doohickeys. Apple is exactly the kind of company that would grab a new technology and try to use it quickly, whereas intel has to go and try and shop around the stuff to slow moving wintel vendors. For instance, Apple came out with the mac mini, Intel slapped together a x86 look-alike, but it made no waves and the wintel vendors mainly ignored it. I think there is a hot steamy semiconductor romance brewing here.

Re:Tired of the misguided conspiracies (2, Informative)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083925)

Remember: Apple haven't 'switched' to using BIOS yet. While the official line is that Mactels won't be using Open Firmware, they've yet to tell us what they will be using. Certainly, the Developer Preview Macs are BIOS-based, but I would expect some serious changes to come.

Re:Tired of the misguided conspiracies (2, Informative)

MrLint (519792) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083942)

Agreed. However that would mean that if its not BIOS based then those dev boxes are singularly useless in developing HW drivers.

One thing not mentioned here... (2, Interesting)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083935)

...is that this is supposed to be for Longhorn. Longhorn is (roughly) a year a way. Significant market penetration of Longhorn is YEARS away (look at how many people are still using Win2k today 3 years later).
You think there's going to be such a thing as a TC-only network in any immediate future? No way; I'd guess 2010 at the earliest.

It's all about $$$.

Switching to Intel to fight malware? (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083944)

Switching to a chip that makes buffer overflow attacks easier because it's got a dense instruction set that lets you avoid string-truncating NULLs? To fight malware?

I don't think so.

wrong in the axioms (3, Interesting)

mstone (8523) | more than 8 years ago | (#13083970)

People love to analyze big changes like this after they happen, but the analyses are almost always wrong. The problem is that the explanations carry an underlying assumption that only evolutionary changes make any sense.

Is there any real reason to assume that Steve Jobs, with his history of making big and frequently unpopular decisions, would refuse to call a switch like this just because he was unhappy with the price/performance numbers IBM was quoting him? Not really. Is there any reason to assume that his decision to call the switch took place in a vacuum? Not really.

One difference between leaders and followers is the willingness to make big changes on small justification. The people capable of thinking farthest outside the standard comfort zone are the ones who see the interesting possibilities first. You can build a retroactive chain of continuity after the fact, but those 'reasons' are *not* the reasons for taking the leap. They're merely reasons the person in charge (in this case Jobs) didn't reject that particular leap out of hand.

FOSS is doing the same thing to the entire software business model. People in the industry who Just Don't Get It (*cough*DarlMcBride*cough*) talk about how FOSS needs to be made 'acceptable to business' if it wants to 'succeed', because they can't think far enough out of their comfort zone to see how 'giving stuff away' works better for everyone.

One hallmark of genius is the ability to bridge the gap between "nobody ever thought of that before" and "totally obvious to anyone who sees it." I don't think this particular change rates as high as 'genius', but there's a similar gap between "unthinkable" and "justifiable after the fact".

[Mac OS] X-Files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083978)

This story-behind-the-story conspiracy theorizing is pointless. Cringley, Dvorak, et al, aren't worth what one pays to read them. Others, like Loeb, are just using the platform-switch to garner interest for their cause d'jour.

If you want to know why Apple switched to Intel, listen to Steve's keynote at WWDC. It's all the information you need to know. Mr. Jobs, like President Bush, is a strong leader because he says what he's going to do & does it; when it doesn't work out, he flip-outs, takes responsibility, moves on & tells you what he's going to do next, or rather NeXT.

Steve's intent is to deliver the best possible personal computing experience. It always has been, it always will be. His other motivations are moot. The effects of Apple's platform transition won't be clear for years, but are sure to include many of the notions that people are now describing as the "real motive" behind the shift.

Apple could continue to shove money into Armonk's pockets, but why bother? IBM isn't interested in designing or manufacturing personal computers; they're a "services" company that bilks their customers out of big "consulting" dollars by pimping second-rate "enterprise-class" software running on first-class, high-end, high-margin hardware to the slow-witted drones who populate IT departments around the globe. Their awesome microelectronics designs are beyond the oompahloompahs running the place, who have never figured-out how to manufacture and sell the company's best products @ anything beyond boutique levels.

It should be clear to everyone who's used Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X over the past three years that Mac OS X delivers the best user experience for 80% of the things end-users wish to use their computers for. Anyone who's been paying attention will tell you that Linux and Mac OS X mindshare are accelerating while Windows continues along on the momentum of a trillion-dollar, decades-long monopolist boondoggle. Innovation in the personal computer space will focus on improving the end-user experience after a decade of neglect due to the sweeping improvements in communications, efficiency, and performance. A stable, reliable partner with a history of delivering is in the innovator's interest, why bother with unreliable partners when their contribution is irrelevant to the end-user experience?

Today is JULY 16, article is JUNE 16 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13083988)

Same # of letters, same 1st two letters, 3rd letter is a consonant, fourth letter is a vowel, and the day of the month is the same.

No wonder someone thought this was news.

Here is the reason (1)

TwoTailedFox (894904) | more than 8 years ago | (#13084010)

Apple Switch to Intel for the Laptop Market. That's it. That's the whole reason. Any Wacky consipracy theories anybody wants to share, while we're on this story?

TNC is really not "Trusted Computing" (2, Interesting)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 8 years ago | (#13084043)

Although Trusted Network Connect (TNC) is being created under the auspices of the Trusted Computing Group (TCG), formerly TCPA, TNC is really not "trusted computing" as it is known and hated [cam.ac.uk] on the net.

Trusted Computing is a technology where user computers can be configured to report what programs the user is running in an unspoofable way, and to keep the user from being able to hack on various programs and data that he has downloaded. Many people object to this because of the need to give up control over their own computers in exchange for being allowed to download certain data. It has many uses for DRM.

I don't think TNC has these properties. It is a way of authenticating on a network. Yes, it can use the same TPM chip that is used in the regular TCG specification, but the protocol is not nearly as all-encompassing and doesn't have those features that are so objectionable, limiting what people can do on their computers.

So the whole conspiracy-theory angle loses one of its key selling points, namely that this is all tied into DRM and restrictions on user actions. TNC is completely different and there is no tie in to the kinds of things that conspiracy theory fans are interested in.

lol tin foil time.. book of revelations (1)

hilaryduff (894727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13084054)

Revelation 13:16-17, "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>