What happened to Intel and Apple? Intel CEO Paul Otellini used to pop up at Apple presentations with his clean room suit and pal around with Steve Jobs like they were best buds. Apple was always the first one to get new Intel chips, often before they were even announced officially. Heck, Intel even built a special low-power processor for the first MacBook Air that no PC vendor could ever get their hands on. That was then, this is now.
Today, HP unveiled a glorified netbook with a Core i7 Processor. It has a 12-inch screen and weighs 3 pounds. Somehow they got a Core i7 in there but Apple is unable to release a Core i7 MacBook Pro. Intel’s Core iX lineup is on mainstream PC laptops but not on even the highest end $2500 Apple MacBook Pros.
And for workstations? You can make a faster Mac Pro by buying an off-the-shelf Intel processor that Apple doesn’t offer even in the $10,000 configuration
Steve Jobs is paranoid…. He is going back to that 70′s mentality of completely closing his castle . This is how computer companies operated in the 70′s until they figured out they can get different things from others… but we will see how it plays out…. I would however like Microsoft to make High End PC’s with a new OS that is completely different from Windows….
Microsoft does not manufacture PCs. Sorry.
There’s no logic to a lot of this article. Apple is selling a lot of Intel based products RIGHT NOW! Why would Intel look to speed up the end of that regardless of Apple’s long term plans. That’s ridiculous. If Apple drops Intel for Arm processor’s across all product lines that also means they can no longer tell switchers they can run Windows on Mac’s. Is Apple ready to do that? No way. The mobile products will be ARM not the Mac line’s.
The only problem highlighted in this article that makes sense is the nVidia angle. I guarantee that’s the sum total problem Apple is having with Intel is figuring out how to go forward with that situation.
I guess you were wrong, huh?
Corporations aren’t children they understand why and how it benefits consumers to switch to a better chipset. Even if they lose money I’m sure they see why it’s necessary. I doubt Intel is the exception. I see this as an incentive for Intel to try harder to win back competition not the other way around. Intel needs competition. If they didn’t have it what incentives would they have to make better products?
shut up and go get laid !
“Corporations aren’t children they understand why and how it benefits consumers to switch to a better chipset. Even if they lose money I’m sure they see why it’s necessary…I see this as an incentive for Intel to try harder to win back competition not the other way around. Intel needs competition. If they didn’t have it what incentives would they have to make better products?”
Is your head buried underground somewhere or are you simply that stupid? Corporations exist for one purpose only, to make money. It is not philanthropy that keeps these people going it is their ambition/drive to make more.
Intel has been and will continue to be one of the most fierce companies out there, but if you look at how it has been, once they got rid of AMD for the most part their efforts have been set to consume graphics cards companies and in other markets as well. Its competition that breeds the incentive to develop, but if your competition is caught with its pants down you don’t have to push as hard. Look at microsoft in the 90s… once you buy/force everyone out what do you do? Sit on your laurels. Intel doesn’t have to try hard, it has the market cornered more and more each day.
Your claim that corporations understand how it benefits consumers to switch to a better chipset has nothing to do with the consumer in mind. Apple switched so it could stop being self dependent, it wanted to be able to buy components off the shelf, cut its product costs and see profit ride in as people were comfortable with the Apple tax. Until this point Apple was struggling, so they went a different route and made money, by a costly transition, but they didn’t cut the price of their products instead they saved the money in the hopes that they could buy out competitors in the future. Don;t attack an opt-ed piece – its framed as such due to the question mark. News stories generally don’t start as a question. Stop and think
I guess I saw that from a consumer perspective. But that’s the point this is going to give Intel an incentive to create better chipsets! If one of their big buyers i.e. Apple switches to a competitor they should get off their ass and create something better. That’s what competition exists for. Maybe Apple did switch to cut costs but yet again isn’t that another incentive to lower prices? Intel shouldn’t be a little child and whine. That’s going to make them lose profits! Especially because Apple is growing in market share. It’s either going to hurt Intel or Apple. That’s why I don’t see why Intel would do that.
I am sure apple and intel are ok.Just apple ganna have first notebooks with chip that support usb 3 and we all waiting for this
Fujitsu already has laptops with the iX cores and USB 3.0
Methinks Chris V. likes to hear himself talk.
Me thinks there is no point in your comment.
Cmon chris give seth a break. I think he does a wonderful job at analyzing current market trends and corporate dilemmas. It is always great to read his opinions and it is your fault for merely seeking rumors. There are plenty other sites that do just that.
As far as intel Vs. Apple i would have to agree with seth. He does make a good point for the long term scenario. Another solid point is that apple needs very special requirements as far as chipsets are concerned. There was an article the other day that Apple is using a highly customized Cortex A8 single core for the iPad instead of the widely presumed A9 multi core structure. This is an excellent case in point for what apples future is going to be. They will slowly start relying on there own inbuilt technology as they can get a lot more by removing the redundancies from the chipsets. So it makes sense for Apple not to pay intel a lot of money for some chips they could themselves have customized and perfected for a lot less. And going by the controlling nature of Mr. Jobs I think that is the future he wants for his company; to rely on in-house technology.
And I think the current delay with the MBP might be due to the fact that apple is trying to implement the latest nvidia optimus technology and is busy working out the kinks!
Seth is way off base it makes no sense for Intel to punish Apple with Apple having the highest market share growth in the consumer PC market. What good would it do for Intel to deny Apple Intel products if they’re going to switch to ARM in the future anyway? Only Intel suffer’s in the near AND long term in that scenario. And Apple’s not going ARM anytime soon in Mac products. You can’t run Windows on ARM so how would that help Apple with switchers? It wouldn’t.
The only problem Apple and Intel have is nVidia and it’s just a problem for Apple going forward that’s the cause of the delay.
I’m starting to think Intel is going to get a case against them for monopolistic practices pretty soon? If they’re whining that much about this when AMD is gone they won’t have much competition left. How much is Intel worth anyways? Maybe Apple can buy them.
…and things will get worse. Because ARM chips will continue to outperform x86 more and more at given consumption levels and I don’t see how that could change. x86 is a dying dinosaur, kept alive by the Windows monopoly. At some point, ARM chipsets will be perfectly able to drive full-fledged notebooks — at a fraction of power consumption of x86 chips. What then? Will Microsoft continue to ignore the platform by releasing Windows for x86 only? Will Apple continue to put that x86 garbage into MacBooks (Pros) just to let people install Windows on it? As much as I don’t like MS, I’d love to see these two cooperate in this.
I’d love to know how much does Intel pay to Microsoft not to release Windows for ARM. Why would MS do that otherwise? Who would even think about Atom if Cortex A9 machines could run Windows?
Intel`s current CPUs are not x86 anymore since the first Core… chips.
The instruction set is compatible but the architecture is new.
Also I don’t think that Intel – Apple relationship has ever been TOTALY ideal… remember, Apple did not switch away from PowerPC because x86 is better. They were forced to switch because all PPC vendors turned their back on desktop & mobile PPC market and Apple as a lone customer in it. They’ve had much more money from embedded and server PPC usage and were not interested in pouring money into R&D for a single customer. Another IBM PC & x86 & MS monopoly story…
Intel – Apple was, is and will always be mariage de convenance. Apple does not partner with inferior HW manufacturers if it’s not forced by the market.
I’m getting my ARM assembly book now…
BoldTagFail
Stupid Intel! Fcuk them!
Maybe Apple will buy AMD – then all will be perfect.
Doesn’t anyone notice they just want maximize profits and prove that there’re not hurt by the current crisis.
I went to a reseller in Belgium and they said that the public is not into 2500 $ laptops.
He worked 10 years with Apple and said that high-end hardware is not on their priority list because the software and the design are the selling points.
And because mainstream public doesn’t understand want a i5/i7 processor is.
“x86 garbage into Macbooks.”
Damn irrational fanboyism is rampant. I depend on both Mac and Windows for my line of work and Intel is an amazing company that produces astonishing products. I use Macs for their simplicity and speed but there pop up so many occasions when I need a Windows program as well. On a normal day I would by typing up my report on Word 07 on Windows 7 using Parallels (don’t even say it. Word for Mac is complete garbage. Pages is even worse-feels like I’m working on WordPad.) while listening to music on iTunes and researching on Safari. Or I’ll be using a program on Windows 7 to convert an HD mkv file to mts format so I can wirelessly transfer it to my PS3 using MediaLink on Mac. Or webcam chatting with an old friend from Peru using MSN messanger. He’ll then send me some songs from his band so I can put them in my iPhone. So yeah I love my MacBook and Imac but It would be hell if I wasn’t able to access Windows at the same time. I want the best of both worlds. It’s like that fight with the Xbox 360 and PS3. Why fight? Get both.
Yet, people seem to get by with only a Mac. I’ve never had to run Windows anything in my 20+ years of using computers. The fact is unless you have to share Word documents with VB macros with PC users, you can most certainly use Word for Mac. People are doing it every day. What do you do that’s so special?
If you are forced to work in WORD for technical publications work (don’t ask — it sucks I know), there are incompatibilities between the PC and MAC version that dissuade the use of the MAC version under these circumstances. For example — font differences can destroy a 200 page document where pagination, image placement, and lists are involved.
I prefer using the Mac version, though. I see no technical disadvantage in the code itself.
Then if you start using Framemaker or Visio, you HAVE to use a PC. No choice.
The first i7 laptops I saw had battery life in the 1 hour range. That is not where Apple wants to be. They have stressed battery life over performance the past couple of years. Fact is that Apple users drag their laptops everywhere and PC’s tend to leave them on the desktop more. Some company made a great commercial years ago that pictured a laptop and a brick with the tagline “Once the battery’s dead, What’s the difference?”
I will wait until I see an i7 with Apple longevity. I replaced my perfectly good 2.6 Penryn 17 with a new unibody 17 to get the glossy display (yes I do CAD type work and the contrast helps a lot) and long life and I will replace that when I can get i7 performance.
It’s because apple is tooling the next generation system to run on the power 7 chip with 32 cores.
Don’t believe for a moment that they have stopped developing on the power 6-7 chipset as they were doing on the intel side since OSX beta.
Performance isn’t an issue anymore when choosing a computer. Rosetta for ppc will work fine for intel apps.
We should also see 3rd party power 6 upgrades shortly for G5 power macs soon since the release of power 7. The prices have come way down for the power 6-6 core w/velocity.
it isn’t so much a matter of what they want to do. It’s the fact that you can no longer use Core i3,5,7 based chips with nvidia chipsets. Since Apple wants to continue using the 9400m as an integrated graphics chip, and REALLY REALLY does not want to use stock intel integrated graphics, until the problem is solved they cant go Core i series yet.
I’d imagine they are working up a custom chipset to integrate both parts, but the extra engineering time is why we havent yet seen Core I series macbooks.
The video cards in the iMacs do work in laptops! The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4850 inside of my iMac 27” was designed for use in a laptop!
Soon Steve will say, you know why we make a few developments in snow leopard. It is because snow leopard has been living a second secret life, as a matter a fact this mac im using for this keynote is happily running on our own arm chip….
Sorry for my bad English.
I’m sure the A4 is causing tension. I’m sure Intel tried to convince them to use the Atom.
Here goes Intel the monopoly, punishing Apple for having the audacity not to take what Intel sees fit to give them. How dare they not use Intel’s POS graphic chips!
Even worse, they now see Apple as a competitor (A4 vs Atom), and they are a supplier Apple cannot live without. I wonder if they truly will begin developing a line of CPUs for all future computers. Honestly, I hope they do. Intel withholding technology is not tolerable for a company that prides itself on technology.
Intel is a technically sharp company, but they are a monopoly. All monopolies forget about customers, because they think we are hooked and there are no new ones to be won. They use economic muscle to push out competition, not innovation. I count MS, Intel and Intuit in this bunch.
I wonder if this will be viewed as anti-competitive behavior? No latest CPUs for you until you start buying the Atom and our lousy graphics chips! If not in the US, I wouldn’t be shocked if it ends up in court in the EU.
I don’t believe in Apple changing to ARM-cpus for MacBook and MBP as the intel cpu has been THE reason for many people and developers to come/develop to the Mac OS X platform. I believe we will see Apple’s ARM cpus only in iPods, iPads, Apple TV and every future device which is not a Mac OS X-device.
you’re absolutely right omni, there’s no way apple is going to transition their laptop/desktop line to another cpu architecture again. Not only would they alienate developers, Apple also wouldn’t be able to use boot camp as a sales point anymore. That apple would transition to ARM cpus is probably one of the dumbest things weintraub has ever written, and that’s saying a lot.
Actually, if they kept the Cocoa implementation the same, only a few issues might arise.
People complain about MacBook prices? HP’s mighty proud of those notebooks too.
Mac switching to ARM would be interesting, but… Say goodbye to
bootcamp/parallels/VMWare… Even if they rebuild, MS surely wont
compile Windoze for the new architecture. And even if they did, I doubt
all the freebie/hobby win apps every double-booter longs for would
be available…
You do realize what virtualization is right?
so what does this actually mean for the upcoming new macbook pro’s?
Sorry but Apple is not in the chip making business and not a competitor to Intel. Intel sells their chips to other companies, Apple does not and more than likely will keep the chips to themselves. Intel lost nothing from this other than a potential customer. And even then, chances were slim that Apple would use anything other than ARM in the iPad.
The delay is more likely caused by a technical issue, that Apple needs to work out. Which I’m sure is directly related to not being able to use NVidia chipsets anymore.
There is a great deal of specious logic here. Over half of the article was speculation and absurd assumptions combined with false accusations. The author has no clue of what Apple will do. Nor do any of us.
Apple’s Mac hardware lineup is a consequence of Intel’s doings, not Apple’s. Intel decided to force integrated GPU’s on the i3/i5/i7 processor chip. Worse yet, Intel makes crappy integrated GPU’s. This is a case of Intel not giving the customer what they want.
Apple needs to force Intel into satisfying its needs even if means threatening Intel with a hardware move to AMD. But, AMD isn’t ready to satisfy Apple’s needs either.
The Atom chip cannot compete with ARM in performance per watt for handheld devices. Nor is it Apple’s fault that it chooses what can work in the marketplace, rather than giving us a PC oriented checklist which delivers lousy performance? Apple does not necessarily have to copy its Wintel competitors; it is better off waiting until the hardware is ready. You ignorant bozo’s need to shut up.
Apple never promised you an ARM Cortex A9 chip in the iPad; that was the Pie-in-the-Sky speculation of the pundits. The iPad is quite peppy with the Cortex A8. Apple is better off using the same processor as in the iPhone because this lowers the cost for all its handheld product line. We will be getting the Cortex A9 chip soon enough in the iPad, but it will be after Apple recoups it R&D costs.
A custom chip is reasonable for Apple’s iPod/ IPod Touch/ IPad/ IPhone line up, but is absurd for the Mac. Why? That custom chip handles the special problems of handheld devices. It may lower costs, weight and power while removing unnecessary I/O capability. The A4 chip may also have hardware inserted which makes it more difficult to Jailbreak.
The point is that we don’t know and won’t until the iPad is delivered. Meanwhile, we have all this odious and unnecessary speculation to contend with.
First intelligent comment I’ve seen.
The reason we don’t have Intel’s latest chips on the Macbooks is that Intel wanted to force Apple to use the ridiculously slow GPU they built into their chips. They blocked nVidia from making chipsets to force this issue.
nVidia has developed a work-around to Intel’s attempts to wall itself from 3rd party GPUs.
This will allow Apple to soon build Macbooks with Intel’s chips and nVidia’s GPUs.
End of story.
NVIDIA is just shipping Optimus based technology now, most likely Apple was waiting for that to be ready before they updated their MacBook Pro line.
Can you please link to the exact 12″ model that has a Core i7? Looks like only the 8440p which is a 14″ screen offers Core iX processors.
Crazy Apple fanboys hate it but you can get a heck of a lot better wintel system for much less money. And that’s the exact reason they outsell Apple’s computers by a wide margin. Apple charges way too much for their proprietary systems and always has. Their products are nice but not nearly worth the price.
Most people don’t do anything with their computers that would even make their chipsets snuffle. Todays machines are so ridiculously powerful that my first generation (1,1) Intel MacPro is still an absolute beast, especially if you pack it with enough RAM, which is equally important for “speed,” depending on how you want to measure that. Now it’s all about low power consumption so people can be connected at all times. Makes me sad.
Gosh, I really wish I were a Windows fanboy instead. I’d be so much happier. Why can’t I just see what a loser I am? Makes me sad.
Companies often cooperate and compete simultaneously in different parts of their businesses. I seriously doubt that bad blood between Apple and Intel has lead to a delay of Arandale based laptops from Apple.
The development of the A4 by Apple is a new thing for them but not totally new. They have designed their interface chips for many years and were a part of the AIM alliance for the PowerPC.
Intel faces a challenge from the ARM processor design, but that is something they have to manage with almost everyone, not just Apple.
Apple releases new product when it suits them. They are not as specification driven as other companies are. Recent reports indicate that the MBP has been selling very well. There is no heavy pressure on Apple to update it except from a small, but vocal, slice of users.
Regarding the i7 and battery life, you have to be careful with Intel product names. It can get very complex. There is an i7 which uses a lot of power and is aimed at desktops. They have been put into laptops but those would better be considered portable computers; something you carry from place to place and plug it in when using it. There is a low power laptop version of the i7 code named Arandale which was just released in January. It seems to have been shipping in various PCs for about a month. If you look around these include Nvidia GPUs so other companies have solved that problem.
Just my personal guess, I suspect we won’t see new MBPs from Apple till after the iPad starts shipping. That may happen in a few weeks. This is a hugely important release for Apple and I think they don’t want to have any distractions so look for new i7 laptops from Apple in April.
1. Heat, the initial ix’s run hotter than the chips they would replace – the intel integrated graphics would actually help with this, as they are included in the TDP. Nehalems run hot!
2. Nvidia – waiting for the optimal Optimus ?325. This could work with intel graphics.
3. i7 problem with iTunes – > related to i7 issues with certain types of databases, look up issues with Citrix. Now apparently fixed.
4. Could they be waiting to get decent chip sets to allow for a USB-3 port – FW 3200, if ever released, would use same port. USB-3 drives are being released, though they are only a few times faster than USB-2 so far, but will improve with better implementation. From my standpoint only advantages over FW3200 is ability to have drives sleep properly, speed will never be as consistently fast asa a similar level of FW or SATA. Apple was first with USB-1 but lagged badly on USB-2.
5 New round of chips to be released 03-16, a TUESDAY ! Expect at least Mac Pro’s at that time, but I would also expect new notebooks.
6. Apple had a press release after last i5 and i7 release saying that they would not use them.
7. iPad appears to be single core A8 chip without several subsidiary chip sets. A9 is dual core, and is of good Netbook capabilities – would likely be for new upper level iPad for release just before school next summer or early fall, but late release would limit sales – release date will be based upon iPad sales momentum and competitors.
Er, no. The reason for the delay is the iPad. You might have heard of it. It’s taking up a lot of everybody’s time.
There isn’t a slightest doubt that Macbooks are still the rulers in the field of notebooks, so the questions arises what about the latest i series chips from Intel? The answer is pretty clear that Apple has started manufacturing some chips on its own and has proved quite fruitful in case of iPad. The talks about the compatibility issues of the i series chips from Intel and Nvidia graphic cards has taken a bad turn, but as of now Apple would be more interested to watch for the launch of iPad.
This article does not consider all the facts. The Apple OS is still much more optimized then windows. This in combination with the specialized HW gives you the Apple experience. Just a faster processor does not buy me anything. So to be frank for the last year and a half I have a 2.93 Ghz core duo that is lightning fast, has amazing graphics and 16GB (Yes, the inofficial upgrade kit). The standard laptops and even high end ones still cannot compete speed wise. Not a year ago and not really now.
So the arguments are nice of USB 3, iX core and stuff. If Apple wants they can always switch to AMD and probably even get them to design a super fast multicore with NVIDIA on their platform. At the end the processor is just a means, the key is can I do my work faster, more reliable with more comfort. For Apple the answer is still yes, even so Windows 7 is really not bad.
8gb sdhc card{stuff}
Sorry, but that’s tosh, i like the aesthetics of a Mac, but the incompatibility with just about anything not produced by Apple makes me cry.
Additionally, Apple rulers of the notebooks? are you serious? go to a coffee shop, lan part, conference (press of scientific) or some other likewise gathering of humans. Less than 10% of people have Apple products, due to price and incompatibility.
Yes I own a Mac, no it’s not better than another build running Linux or Windows, as all of them have their inherent flaws… whilst i’m at it stop calling anything that is not a Mac a “PC” foolish mortal.
That is all
The video chip in the 27″ iMac is not a Mobility series. Seth Weintraub’s seems to think that the fact that Apple hasn’t announced or shipped Core i5 or i7 based MacBook Pros is all about the CPU. While others may have shipped Core i7 based laptops, don’t forget the whole package. There can be many new technologies besides the CPU that Apple could be employing that is holding up a new announcement. Sure we would like a new model and historically speaking, a refresh is due and the new chips are shipping for months now. So it’s more likely something else is the problem. Maybe something like a fancier trackpad or dynamic graphics processing or maybe blu-ray, who knows?
My dick is on the fire button.
This article is a bit off base, and frankly ignorant to much of the computing world. (I was about to say “PC world”, but then I figured people would have a fit about how they forgot that “PC” means personal computer, not a windows box opposed to a mac machine).
That being said. WHY CAN MAC NOT PUT an intel i3,5,or7 in a laptop..? Well – MAC is too worried about style to worry about functionality. Let’s all admit the fact that Apple has (objectively) the best looking cases in the market. The silver style, with back lit keyboards and good lines to give definition looks great. I; however, personally want something more durable (IBM -now> Lenovo).
Apple has sacrificed an essential element in computers to look so good though, cooling. They foolishly put two minor fans in a computer [I am addressing laptops here] that generates tons of heat (mine melted because of lack of flow). The air”flow” comes from the keyboard (which is inhibited by your hands typing). They barely could handle the Core 2 Duo processors with the GT8600m in them, do you think they could dream of dropping a QUAD in there, all the while handling temperature well? Absolutely not, they often times even underclock the processor that’s in there (aka you have a 2.4ghz C2D running at 2.0ghz for example). Install Windows on there and check what your processor is running at… it sure isn’t 2.4 (that example is from my old mac that was great until death).
Also, most may not realize this [as typically Mac users and gamer culture are not synonymous], but AMD makes excellent chips for a fraction of the price of INTEL chips. AMD also manufactures ATI graphics cards, which are much much better (that is a well known fact in the market) than and Nvidia chip (often associated with Intel). If mac dropped AMD processors in with ATI graphics cards – the system would, for lack of a better term, “sync” together. However, that would mean that the power would still need addressing since it creates so much heat.
Long story short. Apple needs to jive form AND function to allow for a more powerful chip in their laptops. Otherwise, they have a potential to see a higher level of failure in their computers in the future (since they run on average 55-65*C when the thermal limit of most processors is 65*C).
Just a few thoughts, feel free to try and tear it apart – I would appreciate if you research these facts before refuting.
Edit for myself:
Please note that AMD chips will work with nVidia gfx cards just like Intel & ATI will work, however, in general AMD + ATI -or- Intel + nVidia are more desirable cobos.
Frankly though, nVidia is just crap these days…
Who’s MAC?
????? ??????
????? ????
Yourself a cartoon
????? ?????
????? ???????
???? ?????????