What’s Really Behind the Apple-Intel Alliance:
People close to I.B.M. said pricing was a central issue, while Mr. Jobs insisted on stage Monday that I.B.M. had failed to meet promised performance measures. […]
In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business.
Via Daring Fireball, which sums it up:
In other words, its not that IBM couldnt keep up, its that they wanted Apple to pay for the development costs for the new generations of chips.
Finally an explanation that really makes sense.
Want to know when I post new content to my blog? It's a simple as registering for free to an RSS aggregator (Feedly, NewsBlur, Inoreader, …) and adding www.ff00aa.com to your feeds (or www.garoo.net if you want to subscribe to all my topics). We don't need newsletters, and we don't need Twitter; RSS still exists.
Michael, 7 years ago:
Non, le coût de developpement d'une nouvelle puce avec IBM serait moins important que le coût du switch vers Intel... c'est plus vicieux que ça cette décision.
Et si ça n'était pas une décision de Apple ?
garoo, 7 years ago:
Pas sur le long terme. Mieux vaut perdre un peu d'argent en 2005 plutôt que de devoir financer à vie le développement de la ligne PowerPC.
turnover, 7 years ago:
Il y a un peu de tout dans cette décision. Entre un OS qui est conçu en cachette depuis 5 ans pour tourner sur x86, une envie de se libérer du carcan du processeur unique et bien sûr avoir une croissance à long terme.
Legal information: This blog is hosted par OVH, 2 rue Kellermann, 59100 Roubaix, France, www.ovhcloud.com.
Personal data about this blog's readers are not used nor transmitted to third-parties. Comment authors can request their deletion by e-mail.
All contents © the author or quoted under fair use.
stephane, 7 years ago: