Print 61 comment(s) - last by Calin.. on Sep 25 at 4:30 AM

Hector Ruiz says Apple wouldn't want to be "held hostage" by being Intel-only

According to reports, AMD's chief executive officer Hector Ruiz noted this week that Apple may be on its way to introducing computers with AMD processors. DailyTech yesterday dropped a small in its coverage of Parallel's announcement of its next version Workstation virtualization application for the Intel-Mac platform. In Parallel's press release, it stated that Parallels Workstation and Desktop for OS X will support AMD's Secure Virtual Machine.

This week, Ruiz delivered a key note at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, indicating that Apple would be using -- not switching -- AMD processors in the near future. "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been? Everybody wants choice," said Ruiz.

Both Intel and AMD have been at each other's neck fairly tightly this year, with both companies releasing excellent and compelling products. AMD received a fair amount of new partnerships this year, notably Dell, and Intel too in Apple. Many analysts believe that Apple will pose significant threat to major tier one PC manufacturers. For example, the Mac platform is currently the only platform out there on the market that can properly run both Microsoft Windows XP and Apple's own OS X natively, with fully working drivers.

Apple was not immediately available for commenting. During the last major Apple event, Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs noted that the company had been selling more Macs this year after the switch to Intel than it ever sold in any previous years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And now Apple is different
By samuraiBX on 9/22/2006 12:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
From any other PC because....?

RE: And now Apple is different
By das mod on 9/22/2006 12:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
macs come with white shinny cases :)

RE: And now Apple is different
By Spivonious on 9/22/2006 12:45:03 PM , Rating: 3
*shiny - shinny would mean having lots of shins.

And I've been asking the question since Mac switched to Intel. Why pay 33% more for a system that can do everything a PC can?

RE: And now Apple is different
By Shadowself on 9/22/2006 1:00:15 PM , Rating: 3
How many computers are out there for $1500 with a 24" screen supporting 1920x1200 and with an Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.16 GHz? This assumes your statement of a 33% premium for the 24" Apple iMac. I doubt you'll match the 24" iMac specs for $1500 from a top tier PC vendor.

How many computers are out there for $2475 with two dual core Intel Xeon Core 2 Duo processors running at 3.0 GHz? This assumes your statement of a 33% premium for the top of the line Mac Pro. I doubt you'll match the specs on the top of the line Mac Pro for $2475 from any top tier vendor. (In fact Apple and many news sources have been showing multiple configurations of the Mac Pro which are as much as $1,000 less than the comparable Dell machines.)

While Apple's prices will probably never make their machines least expensive out there, claiming Apple charges a 33% premium is just not reality anymore. More expensive, maybe. Grossly more expensive, NO.

RE: And now Apple is different
By stubeck on 9/22/2006 1:29:37 PM , Rating: 1
Apple can't even match that. The 24in iMac is 2k.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Calin on 9/25/2006 4:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
The 24in iMac is 2k - so to be 33% less expensive (as parent quoted), the competition should cost less than $1,500

RE: And now Apple is different
By nerdboy on 9/22/2006 1:31:35 PM , Rating: 3
$2475 model dosn't come with 3.0 GHz Xeons it comes with two 2.66Ghz Xeons the 3 Ghz are 800 dollars more and for some more ram is 300 dollars more. Which brings that bad boy up to about $3600 with out adding anything else. Hard drives, software, the extra protections because if you pay that much for a MAC you better buy that. Which is about $250, and a monitor is not included. If you add a Monitor its about 900 dollars more.

And you can get a dell XPS 700 with a 20" monitor, and also come with 2 gigs of ram, 2 320 Gig Sata Drives, with a 2.6 Ghz Conroe, Not Xeons. Two 7900GS 256Meg Video card with free shipping for 3259.00

RE: And now Apple is different
By Calin on 9/25/2006 4:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
The Xeons from Apple's workstation are Core 2 Duo at core (just like the previous Xeons were Pentium 4 at core).
The Xeon name appeared from the P4-based server processors - before they were named Pentium 2 Xeon and Pentium !!! Xeon.
So, shortly, now the Xeons are Conroes.

RE: And now Apple is different
By CU on 9/22/2006 1:34:59 PM , Rating: 3
I spec'ed out a Dell with the same specs as the 24" imac and it came to $899. So add a 24" monitor for $699 cheapest one at newegg. That brings the total to $1598. Not $1500 but close. As for the Xeon's, yeah Apple has a good price. But for most stuff they are just way to high.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Spivonious on 9/22/2006 1:35:43 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, I made up the 33% figure. But quick comparison of identical systems from Dell and Apple:

Dell Precision Workstation 490 vs. Apple MacPro

$3805 vs. $4149 Dell -$344

Dell Dimension 9200 vs. Apple iMac

$1976 vs. $1999 Dell -$20

Dell Dimension E520 vs. Apple iMac

$1108 vs. $999 Apple -$109

So it seems that you can get a total clunker of a system for less money from Apple than from Dell. You also cannot get a Dell Precision (the only ones with two processor slots and Xeons) with a Quadro or FireGL card, so I had to upgrade the graphics on the MacPro to a Quadro to match. Still, this very quick and informal comparison shows that PCs are generally cheaper than Macs. Also, I can upgrade the monitor on the Dell Dimensions. I'm stuck with the Apple display on the iMacs. Also I can upgrade graphics options on all of the Dells. Who knows what the upgrade options are for the Macs. I'm guessing that the iMacs allow zero upgrading. Like I said, it's hard to justify buying a more expensive computer to do less.

Apple should bite the bullet and start selling OS x for PCs. If anything it would build support for Apple and take some market share away from Microsoft.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Spivonious on 9/22/2006 1:45:13 PM , Rating: 3
Oh I forgot to add something...

System I just built that blows away the two Dimensions/iMacs mentioned: $1300

RE: And now Apple is different
By heffeque on 9/22/2006 4:31:23 PM , Rating: 5
Some people prefer a computer that fits in their table, looks nice, doesn't sound like a jet plane and can run Mac OS X natively (and Windows XP and Linux).

RE: And now Apple is different
By bob661 on 9/22/2006 6:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
Some people prefer a computer that fits in their table, looks nice, doesn't sound like a jet plane and can run Mac OS X natively (and Windows XP and Linux).
Don't need an Apple to achieve this, you just need to unlazy yourself and do a little research.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Hare on 9/23/2006 2:24:57 AM , Rating: 5
Even if it was 50% of the price of a mac most mac-users would still buy macs. Why? Because of Mac OS X. It doesn't matter how cheap you PC is if it doesn't run mac os X. The OS is the biggest reason why people buy a Mac.

In most cases you can't even tell a 15% speed difference but you can sure feel a GUI with everything you do. If Mac OS X makes you more efficient with your computer I'd say it's a pretty strong point. Raw hardware speed is a poor indicator of the overall experience (unless you are talking about gaming etc.)

RE: And now Apple is different
By bigboxes on 9/23/2006 6:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
The OS is the biggest reason why people buy a Mac.

It is NOW that the processors are the same. What would your excuse for being overpriced be if OSX was available across platforms? A "shiny case"?

RE: And now Apple is different
By Hare on 9/23/2006 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Look. I don't give a ____ about what's inside the case when I'm working. I want performance and usability that make me productive. I want to enjoy working with my computer. Same thing with my car. If the engine has enough power and good torque I don't care how the engineers put it together. I just drive the friggin thing and enjoy it.

IF Mac OS X was sold separately for PCs I'd go out and buy a license for my PC (yeah I use a PC). If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. That was about as relevant as your comment.

Btw. Take a hard look at the case:

Do you still think it's just shiny or maybe just maybe it's actually pretty high quality and well designed. Compare that to your average atx/btx crappy dell.

RE: And now Apple is different
By ergle on 9/22/2006 5:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
I tried this very test with the '490 vs the Mac Pro, just out of curiousity.

The only way I could get near your price for the Dell was to exclude the second processor.

For me, I made it Dell 490 $4,689 vs Mac Pro $4,149.00 -- quite a significant advantage to Apple for that one, even with the cost of having to buy XP for it to make it as completely "Apples-to-Apples" as possible.

I didn't bother to check the others.

RE: And now Apple is different
By ergle on 9/22/2006 5:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, yeah, "one more thing" ;)

There's no way Apple's going to start selling OS X for regular PCs. There's no margins in it.

MS sells XP, soon Vista, to OEMs -- which is where the vast majority of sales are -- for a knock-down price. Apple can't compete with that because they just don't have the market share or the apps base.

Apple's margins are, like Dells, on hardware, and there's no realistic way they can change that. Had they started in 1985 or 1990, they could have dominated a large market segment, but at this point, no way.

On top of that, they'd have to deal with the multitude-of-different-hardware aspects of support -- just more to take away from their bottom line.

At a time when Apple's sales are - for Apple - through the roof, there's just no logical reason they would (or could afford) to start selling the OS separately.

RE: And now Apple is different
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2006 6:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and you get absolutely nothing else. Then to upgrade the system with a real amount of RAM and everything, you're paying double what it actually costs.

And the Xeons in the Mac Pro for $2500 are 2.66GHz not 3.0GHz. And besides the processors, all else you get is 1GB of RAM, a shitty 7300GT graphics card, a DVD burner, and a 250GB hard drive. The only people who buy a system like that are graphics editors is 1GB of RAM, a 7300GT, and a 250GB hard drive enough? No. Just to get 2GB of RAM you have to pay $300. 4GB is $1100. Upgrading from a 250GB hard drive to a 500GB is another $200 (the base cost of a 500GB hard drive). Additional 500GB drives are $400 (what you'd normally pay for a new 750GB drive). Upgrading to an X1900XT is another $250 ($250 + $125 for the 7300GT is $375. still high but probably the most reasonable upgrade there).

Oh yeah. Macs are deals.

And for $1500 I can build a PC with a 20" display with a C2D E6400 (what that priced Mac has), 2GB of RAM (vs. Macs 1GB), two DVD burners (vs. Macs 1), 500GB of space (vs. Macs 250GB), and a 512MB X1900XT (vs. Macs 128MB x1600).

RE: And now Apple is different
By Hare on 9/24/2006 3:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
Funny how Anandtech came to the conclusion that the Mac Pro is very good value compared to Dell etc:

Btw. I found it funny that you need an X1900XT for graphics work. Gaming is the only thing where you might want more power than the 7300 gives.

And with 1500$ you sure can build a PC that has a lot of horsepower but you still can't install Mac OS X on it. There are no onsite repairs (or any). It wont' be as small and elegant. You need a separate webcam (which is built-in in the 20" 1499$ iMac). Same thing with Bluetooth2 and wlan. The iMac is also inaudible not to mention just the better design. It won't have virii or malware. etc etc...

Macs are really not that expensive and they have certain qualities you can't get in a PC. I'm mainly talking about the OS (funny how you left windows license out of the computer packages). Let people buy what makes them enjoy their computer use. I bought a PC because I want to oc it and tweak it just the way I like it. I want a lot of performance/$. Our company however uses purely Macs. Why? Because they require less maintanance, keep their value a lot better and ultimately workers get things done better!

RE: And now Apple is different
By JeffDM on 9/22/2006 12:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's the operating system and enclosure design, I suppose. I think the operating system is the biggest thing, but Apple seems to need their hardware profits to support the operating system. I think they would have to quadruple their OS market share to make up for the lost hardware sales if they opened it up, I'm not sure they can do that just yet.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Spivonious on 9/22/2006 1:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple sold OS X for PCs, I would definitely try it out. But buying a completely new system just to find out I hate the OS is pointless. It runs on Intel chips, why not simply release it for PCs? AFAIK little or no redevelopment would be needed.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Hare on 9/22/2006 1:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
Get a torrent and try it out. It really is not that difficult. If you like it, buy it.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Spivonious on 9/22/2006 1:38:34 PM , Rating: 4
Last I heard it was next to impossible to get OS X running on a PC. Care to share a link saying otherwise?

And I want to buy my software, not steal it.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Hare on 9/22/2006 5:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's not close to impossible to just install the thing. Updating the thing is close to impossible.

Here's one link.

Oh, I'm not saying anyone should pirate the thing. I for example have a lisence for my iBook (that I don't use currently). The torrents are just preconfigured. No need to hack the thing from darwin etc packages.

RE: And now Apple is different
By bob661 on 9/22/2006 6:33:13 PM , Rating: 3
And I want to buy my software, not steal it.
What if you don't like it?

RE: And now Apple is different
By Rock Hydra on 9/22/2006 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was asking he same nearly the same question even after just reading the title of the article. I think the more appropriate question is "What makes a Mac different from a PC" It seems the only thing is the O.S. and the fact that you can't build one of your own. I'm wondering how this will fare for Apple.

RE: And now Apple is different
By clementlim on 9/22/2006 1:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm...I'm not sure. All the macs have their configs fixed. I don't know for sure, but can you change/add RAM or additional harddisk or graphics card or motherboard that you can purchase on the street into the Mac?

One point I dislike Mac is that it cannot be far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RE: And now Apple is different
By Hare on 9/23/2006 2:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
The iMac and Macmini are more difficult due to their formfactor, but sure you can add more ram and it's really easy thanks to the good design. Ram, cpu, mxm-graphics, hds, etc are changeble.

Take a look at the desktop machines:

Not bad? Eats all the same components that your desktop PC (except requires FB-DIMM 4-channel memory, but so do all the high-end PCs).

RE: And now Apple is different
By Goo on 9/22/2006 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 3
I can see that a Mac Pro w/ Q cores opty with a photoshop specific co-pro in the future, way to go AMD.

RE: And now Apple is different
By kelmon on 9/23/2006 5:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
...because they don't run Windows and I don't have the urge to throw my computer out of the window because of the stupid things that it does. The hardware is great but it's the software that seals the deal. I'd been a long-term Windows user prior to the switch to Apple and I'll tell you this:

The Mac user experience thrashes that of Windows and you'll have to prize mine from my dead hands

The internal components may well be the same as other computers but the user experience is not and that's why I'll be buying another. Paying more is acceptable to me if I have less hassle over a 3-5 year period.

The Future
By mjp1618 on 9/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: The Future
By Master Kenobi on 9/22/2006 12:39:46 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds more like Hector Ruiz shooting his mouth off. Apple will be Intel-Only for quite some time, Apple is getting a very good deal and cooperation from Intel, not like Apple to change that.

RE: The Future
By Narutoyasha76 on 9/22/2006 1:44:28 PM , Rating: 3
Hector Ruiz is bored...AMD chips up until now have great performance, but unfortunately for AMD (for the moment) Intel Core 2 Duo chips are faster. So maybe later on Apple may include AMD chips but heck who knows maybe later on Apple will introduce an ultra-budget Mac Nano with a Transmetta chip on it (unlikely but the world is full of surprises).

RE: The Future
By Chadder007 on 9/22/2006 3:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
That would be neat...or maybe they will introduce a handheld version of an Apple again or mini PC with an AMD processor?

RE: The Future
By dpope on 9/22/2006 1:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
Reminds me of the situation at Dell. I remember for a few years Dell was saying they would never use AMD processors. Now look what's happened.

I see Apple using AMD in the future. Once Mac "pc" (sorry fanboys, but true) sales begin to slow down, they will offer AMD.

Anyway, did anyone read the article where it stated Mac OS market share was down to 3.7% and that XP market share was up? Could it be because people are buying a Mac and installing Windows XP?

RE: The Future
By Rock Hydra on 9/22/2006 1:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why that would make sense. Generally <--(Keyword here) similarly configured macs, are more expensive than their PC counterparts.

RE: The Future
By igloo15 on 9/22/2006 1:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think what he is trying to say is that the mac supporters are buying the mac as usually then buying the Windows OS and installing it on it for dual boot. This means that where before the Mac supporters would just deal with only mac now they are also supporting the Windows market share by buying the OS and installing it on their macs.

By JeffDM on 9/22/2006 12:53:57 PM , Rating: 4
I really don't think Apple is being held hostage by Intel. I think they got quite a bit of help that AMD can't provide. Rumor has it that Intel designed the main board for the Mac Pro, if not some of their other computers as well.

RE: Hostage?
By Alexvrb on 9/22/2006 1:03:02 PM , Rating: 1
Yes of course, because obviously AMD and ATI together don't have the resources to design a mainboard.

RE: Hostage?
By Master Kenobi on 9/22/2006 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
ATI and AMD have no officially merged yet, and have an as of yet unproven track record in regards to designing a complete system. Intel on the other hand has nearly two decades of experience in this arena.

RE: Hostage?
By retrospooty on 9/22/2006 3:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
none of that has anything to do with anything. Apple signed a contract with Intel to buy chips and Intel would design the mobo or mobos (not sure how many). The contract is not excusive to Intel, just an agreement to do some business. That is all...

There is no reason to think Apple will or won't sign a similar contract with AMD in the future, if the deal works out for both. You never know it migtht happen.

Apple needs to open their OS to any pc
By Randalllind on 9/22/2006 11:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to get MS to get off their butts and release Windows with all features they promise is for Apple to open up their os.

I bet if Apple open their OS and more people brought it the MS would charge real fast how they release Windows. The hype,hype. delay, delay removed half the hype then delay some more road path to new versions of Windows would stop.

By stmok on 9/23/2006 12:48:17 AM , Rating: 1
Apple is too "stuck up" to do that.

What's hampering their widespread adoption is of their own making. They ain't gonna open up OSX. (Hell, they've closed it up from an open-source perspective!). And they'll only sell it with THEIR hardware.

This in itself is not gonna cause a sudden surge in the adoption of OSX. In fact, I don't doubt they will remain above that few percent of marketshare they already have now, even when Windows no longer becomes the dominant desktop OS.

The general view of Apple solutions being expensive and inflexible are still in the hearts and minds of most people. (you can see it in this thread). People like affordable shit.

Its the same with Linux. Most people still think of that dark command line screen, when they hear of Linux. Its not until you've shown them 3D accelerated desktops via Xgl or AIGLX with Compiz, and how simple some things have become, do they suddenly realise that alot has changed, and Linux starting to cater for the desktop user. (It covers the basic computing uses, but needs more hardware and Windows application support...I notice alot of gamers mentioning they would jump if their games ran in Linux).

I personally prefer the flexibility of a PC over Macs. If anything goes wrong, I can rock up to the local PC store and get a replacement in a short time. I don't have to deal with tech support, all the other BS red tape, and the waiting for the darn thing to get fixed!

When I build, I build it to MY needs. Because I enjoy the freedom to choose what I want and how I want it.

By Hare on 9/23/2006 2:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
Apple doesn't want the problems windows faces (thousands of incompatible drivers causing havoc because of the huge componentbase etc). That's one of the reason why Mac OS X works so well. It has a limited hardware set and the OS has been specifically designed to work perfectly with that. Apple used to lisence their OS but it wasn't generally such a good idea. Mostly because of the decrease in Apple hardware sold.

Macs aren't expensive nowadays so if you want Mac OS X, just get a Mac and if you still need a PC just run virtualization or boot windows (unless you are a serious gamer).

By kelmon on 9/23/2006 5:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I'm going to spell this out as simply as I can and hope that you grasp this concept:

Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company

Apple is a HARDWARE company

Apple has absolutely no interest in selling OS X or any of its software for non-Apple hardware because they will make NO MONEY from it. Apple makes almost all its money from the sale of HARWARE. The only reason why there is a Windows version of iTunes is so that you'll buy an iPod. Apple really has no interest much in competing with Windows and Microsoft directly but rather with competing with the likes of Dell and HP. OS X and the rest of the Apple software line up only exists to encourage you to buy an iMac or other Apple hardware product.

Apple will NEVER make OS X (or future OS or software products) available for other platforms other than its own. It's not because they can't, it's because there is no incentive for them. Given that the company's profits have skyrocketed over recent years, you can't exactly complain about this position.

By Trogdor on 9/22/2006 1:45:22 PM , Rating: 1
One of, if not the biggest reason Apple just doesn't sell OS X by itself is for reliability reasons. With a fixed configuration, Apple knows every component in their systems. They can tailor their OS to run properly with that configuration. One of the biggest reasons Windows and PC's in general have so many issues is because of all the different companies manufacturing motherboards, ram, video cards. There are so many manufacturers that theirs easily any number of places where something can go wrong. From an improper configuration, to different component conflicts. Somehow I doubt Apple has the resources to support the tons of different configurations of hardware that MS does with Windows.

Of course that's only 1 reason.

RE: Reliability
By Trogdor on 9/22/2006 1:50:48 PM , Rating: 1
Replying to myself heh...

Of course that's not to say Apple hasn't had their fair share of problems lately. Their computers have been having a lot of issues recently... Save for the ipod, they've been somewhat sketchy.

But yeah, I'm still not convinced enough to pic up a mac.

RE: Reliability
By Loser on 9/22/2006 2:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
exactly what i wanted to say

RE: Reliability
By retrospooty on 9/22/2006 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
One of the biggest reasons Windows and PC's in general have so many issues is because of all the different companies manufacturing motherboards, ram, video cards.

Yup, that and writing drivers for each. I would LOVE to see Apple try to support such a complex world, (I mean seriously, because I would love to buy OSX and put in on my home built systems as a dual boot XP/OSX machine) but they cannot.

I was expecting AMD over Intel long ago
By rklaver on 9/22/2006 4:30:27 PM , Rating: 3
Before the Intel announcement I thought for sure Apple would have gone with AMD over Intel. One Apple was always putting down the Intel Processor and Two Apple was part of the Hyper-transport consortium which was implimented in their products.

By stmok on 9/23/2006 12:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
What you're trying to say is that they're hypocrites.

They promote their way is the "superior way". Essentially, everything is crap until Steve Jobs says different.

PCs are crap until they use the very same technology themselves! Then its suddenly about these chips getting new life from their "dull PC boxes". FFS! A Mac is a PC with a different type of BIOS implementation (Intel's EFI) with OSX...Which is basically a variant of FreeBSD. (which you can download for free on your PC)...the only thing they've really got is a stylish external case!

Other Examples...
* Virtual Desktops (long used by Unix/Linux users)
* Virtualisation (mainly Parallels)

Although, I find it interesting that MS have basically taken the OSX style and put it into Vista. (along with a few apps like the mail and calender...They're frightfully identical, despite the slightly different names).

To me, both MS and Apple are just as bad as each other. One is a monopoly with a reputation of half-arsed products, and the persistant attempts at dominating the entire technology industry. The other suffers a superiority complex and is a control freak.

They both share three things in common...
(1) DRM'ed media content.

iTunes and WMV/WMA...The recent update to iTunes have changed a number of things. (which prevents iPod owners who use Linux being unable to do anything with their iPods). While the DRM implementation in the upcoming WMP 11 is gonna ass-rape your rights away into the next dimension. (Be sure to thoroughly lubricate, because this is really gonna hurt!)

(2) Poor response times to customer and security issues.

When hackers threaten companies with information about how to exploit their solutions, because they haven't bothered to patch them after 1 month of being informed...Then it clearly shows you that security isn't a priority to the company.

Its even more funny for Microsoft, because they reacted much faster in patching a DRM issue than they do about security issues of their own products! (What do you expect?! Content Providers are paying $$$$$$$$!)

While the first thing Apple does with customer concerns about hardware, is to flatly deny anything at first...But after a crapload of nagging, they'll admit to the faults. (you know they could've handled it better by admitting and tend to customers concerns more pro-actively...Then they would've earned some decent reputation out of it).

(3) ALOT of bullshit from their marketing departments.
MS's marketing and public relations are very talented FUD'ers. Once you get into their sights, they will BS so much about you and sponsor studies to undermine you publically. (Just ask the Linux people, they can tell you what its like to be on the front lines of MS's smear campaign since 2001. It began with MS's CEO, Steve Ballmer calling Linux a cancer. Then studies about how open-source can be used by Terrorists, then "Get the facts", then so on) ... They've backed off now, because they know their FUD has failed. (They've even fired the guy who started that "Get the facts" nonsense).

While Apple is doing those "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" campaign. Their need to constantly pound on the PC is getting tiresome. Some of the benefits they toot about can be nullified by installing a modern distro of Linux...On a PC. (Although, its kind of odd when you see Mac users going to Linux. Installing Ubuntu on a MacBook, etc is not what you commonly hear about! But it has and does happen!)

By cochy on 9/22/2006 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Knowing Apple? Interesting...I don't know too much about Macs but when was the last time Mac were sold with multiple competiting CPU architectures? IBM/PowerPC now Intel/Core. There is no reason why Apple would use AMD. Their product line up would get overly confusing for their target market. They like things nice and clean and simple and white. AMD is a great company but it was only a matter of time before Intel hit them good in price/performance/innovation which is Core. This comment by their CEO is baseless. AMD has a lot of work to do.

RE: Doubtful
By ajfink on 9/22/2006 3:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
AMD has already done most of the work to counter C2D. All that's left is logistics.

That is, of course, assuming AMD's "K8L" processors perform as expected (and after reading the specs...they should).

I LOVE tech wars. Great products, cheap.

As for Apple, I wouldn't be surprised either way. Apple has a good thing going with Intel, but if Intel were to make a mis-step or Apple felt like their best interests were no longer being served, they very well may switch or, more likely, diversify. It could be a few years from now, even. By then, with AMD and ATI fully merged, things could look a lot different from Apple's perspective. The whole market will probably look differently.

Nice try Apple. L2OC
By Sungpooz on 9/23/2006 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Macs aren't very good OC-ocers.

Just get a PC and do this:
5.26, just under 10 sec SuperPi_1M.

For hundreds of double cheeseburgers less than the expensive Mac Pro(stitute).

Thumbs down Apple. For the hundredth time. Now i'm going to listen to my iPod.

RE: Nice try Apple. L2OC
By Hare on 9/23/2006 1:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about overclockers? Only a small niche group overclock (I'm part of that group). Not businesses, creative professionals or average computer users (Apples target).

You have no understanding of Apples business model and logic and you give two thumbs down because they are harder to oc? That's hilarious. You don't have to OC a xeon or a >2ghz Merom/Conroe to get more than adequate performance.

By Zirconium on 9/22/2006 12:22:32 PM , Rating: 3
It doesn't look like there have even been any serious negotiations between AMD and Apple yet. Ruiz just said something to the effect of, "Apple wants to avoid vendor lock-in, so they'll come to us eventually." Maybe, maybe not. Look how long it took Dell to come around to selling systems with AMD processors. Sure, it happened eventually, but I'm glad I wasn't holding my breath.

By hstewarth on 9/22/2006 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
I would think because this is coming from AMD that it should stated that AMD desires Apple to support it. Apple has stated anything?

Nice try Apple. L2OC
By Sungpooz on 9/23/2006 12:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Macs aren't very good OC-ocers.

Just get a PC and do this:
5.26, just under 10 sec SuperPi_1M.

For hundreds of double cheeseburgers less than the expensive Mac Pro(stitute).

Thumbs down Apple. For the hundredth time. Now i'm going to listen to my iPod.

By Pythias on 9/22/2006 12:28:09 PM , Rating: 1
Hector Ruiz says Apple wouldn't want to be "held hostage" by being Intel-only

Because he'll sue everyone in sight if need be!

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes
Related Articles
Parallels Adds Support for Windows Vista
September 20, 2006, 11:48 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki