Forums | MacLife

Why would the Intel Inside logo be on iPods? The iPod doesn't use a Intel CPU in it...

Edit - Oops, didn't read the article until after I posted. Oh well, it's still only a logo.

Last edited by Booksley (2005-07-13 8:53 pm)

The article just seemed to question the notion that Apple was responsible for difficult dealings with the chip makers rather than the other way around. As well, that Apple may be concentrating more on specialised consumer products than on desktop PCs. I think it's pretty obvious that Apple's strengths have moved into non computer devices, software and consumer content delivery.

lol. David is a tool in general.

Who you gonna believe ? Ars Technica or osviews ?

Hmmm. Proven technology site vs. piss ant fanboy hobby.

Last edited by HackerJax (2005-07-13 11:12 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

Questions like that sound a lot better if you arrange the second set of choices to match up with the first set of choices.

rotfl ah smurf man. Good eye... that does look *bad*

ok I'm not usually one for edits...but here goes...

Ars is a good site, but "Hannibal" basically took IBM's side in a relationship that was dysfunctional both ways. Does anything think Steve would have promised 3.0GHz if IBM hadn't said that was in the pipeline?

Apple's business model is introduce products with a lot of hype and have big sales at the beginning that taper off over time. It probably wasn't cost effective for IBM to ramp up production at the beginning only to lower in a few months. This meant big delays for any new product, causing tons of lost sales, especially to would-be new Mac users, and an awful reputation for the company.

RoboCop001 wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

Thanks, its nice to have opposing arguments. But I do hope he is wrong about some things:

Imagine if Intel throws a few billion dollars at Apple for advertising compensation just to have the "Intel Inside" logo on iPods (as well as Macs)?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I really don't think that would happen.

I'm pretty sure it will happen.

Apple hasn't had the PowerPC logo on for a long time.

And they've never shipped an Intel Mac

This is a tempest in a teapot.  You have a lot of people all saying basically the same thing, but putting a little different inflection or emphasis on it, then getting all huffy and fighting over whose infection is "right".

Were Apple unreasonable in demanding that IBM crank out small batches of customized processors and then sell them at mass-volume prices?  From IBM's viewpoint, that may have seemed unreasonable.

From Apple's viewpoint, the processors were merely "customized" to be suitable for use in desktop and laptop computers -- which is what the AIM alliance, and PowerPC, was originally all about, but it's not something IBM currently want to focus on.  And Apple are out there competing with Dell, so if they are going to stay in business they need competitive prices on their components.

Incidentally, I think AIM's fate was sealed when Apple killed off the Mac clones.  Ever since then it hasn't made a lot of sense.

Bottom line is, Apple's needs weren't a good fit with IBM's product line.  There's no point in arguing about whether Apple or IBM were to blame, they were just mismatched from a business standpoint.  All this talk about personality clashes and conflicts is merely soap-opera gossip, it means nothing.

As for Intel. . .   Processors designed for desktop and laptop computers are the major part of their business.  That's a good match for what Apple needs.  And if Apple can put Intel chips into their iPods and other devices, and get those great high-volume price breaks, so much the better.

For the first time ever, Intel will hit a serious performance wall.  As soon as they start making our chips.

It's a curse!  150MHz!  500MHz!  2.0GHz!  What next???

MB38 wrote:

For the first time ever, Intel will hit a serious performance wall.  As soon as they start making our chips.

It's a curse!  150MHz!  500MHz!  2.0GHz!  What next???

Apple at least caught Intel on the upstroke of a new design paradigm for them (moving away from the high clocked P4s to the more efficient P-M).