Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola CounterAttack?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: competition?
What's key for the linux group and the PPC 970 is the 64bit. However, AMD has released a 64 bit cpu that's x86 32bit compatible.
Right and how many desktop software vendors are delivering products for the PPC platform? It's a parallel market, but it's not the same market. Apple is in the desktop and now the low end server market where competition for PPC CPU speed is limited. IBM is developing the PPC for low end linux servers for small businesses. We wont get the push - I don't think - as the wintel crowd is getting.
What's key for the linux group and the PPC 970 is the 64bit. However, AMD has released a 64 bit cpu that's x86 32bit compatible.
Yada yada yada....
Sounds like Moto's just throwing a lot of hot wind at Apple to obscure the issue. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
Sounds like Moto's just throwing a lot of hot wind at Apple to obscure the issue. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
Re: Re: competition?
Yes, but now you're talking software. All I'm saying is that there is plenty of competition for the processors to kick whomever the manufacturer is in the tail. Apple may be small potatoes compared to the Intel/AMD world, but that 5% of the market beats 0% of the market, and if IBM wants to make it in that world, they will have to make a processor that will allow Apple and themselves to survive in that market, not to mention grow.
Yes, but now you're talking software. All I'm saying is that there is plenty of competition for the processors to kick whomever the manufacturer is in the tail. Apple may be small potatoes compared to the Intel/AMD world, but that 5% of the market beats 0% of the market, and if IBM wants to make it in that world, they will have to make a processor that will allow Apple and themselves to survive in that market, not to mention grow.
Re: Re: Re: competition?
what is needed is more competition in the same market, dosent matter what AMD and Intel can do, MacOS runs on PPC not Intel and if Apple only has one vender to buy PPC cpu's from thats not competition. Now if AMD or Intel started making PPC CPUs for the Mac then that would be competition
what is needed is more competition in the same market, dosent matter what AMD and Intel can do, MacOS runs on PPC not Intel and if Apple only has one vender to buy PPC cpu's from thats not competition. Now if AMD or Intel started making PPC CPUs for the Mac then that would be competition
No way they use "emulation" thats what the Crusoe chips do and their damn slow at it...AMD does in fact license the X86 instruction set from Intel, remember, X86 BELONGS to Intel (a monopoly), PPC instruction set belongs to IBM, APPLE, and MOTO, if another company wanted to compete with them, they would have to license the instruction set which I hear Fujitu or NEC (I forget what company) was going to do with the PPC chip. Fujitu does license SPARC as well for example.
There is NO viable competition (i.e actually has a chance in hell of winning a majority share) in two key areas in the PC world, one is in Office Software/Operating Systems (Microsoft) and the other is in the CPU (Intel). Calling apple a monopoly for integrating their products (even though they have minority marketshare) is like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Gamecubes!! If only Nintendo would license their Gamecube chipset to third parties then they would lower their prices because of increased competition in the GC market - see how ridiculous that sounds? If anything it would be sony or X-box would cause them to lower their price/improve features...similarly intel/MS and companies like DELL will eventually force Apple's hand, and they will lower their prices and release systems that users demand...if you have competition in in a MARKETPLACE (which is what counts) your a company like apple, if you have competition in/with your own product line (because of monopoly) your Microsoft.
Re: Re: Re: Re: competition?
I totally disagree. Let's say Joe/Joan Consumer decides he wants to buy a computer. Does he say "hmmm, should I buy an Apple with a Motorola chip, or one with an IBM chip?" No, he says, "should I buy an Apple, or a Dell, or a Compaq, HP, emachines, Alienware, etc., etc., etc. (or maybe just any old Windows machine). Then he decides what his/her best value is based on his/her criteria.
It's the same as gaming consoles. Xbox vs. Gamecube vs. Playstation. Each one has its own design and chips, but they all compete against each other.
If AMD and Intel started making PPC cpu's, then, arguably, there would be LESS competition, because they would no longer have to compete with Apple's platform, forming a mini-monopoly (sound like anyone familiar?).
I am not saying Apple isn't behind, and don't need to do something, I'm just saying that there is plenty of competition in chip manufacturing.
Originally posted by huzur
what is needed is more competition in the same market, dosent matter what AMD and Intel can do, MacOS runs on PPC not Intel and if Apple only has one vender to buy PPC cpu's from thats not competition. Now if AMD or Intel started making PPC CPUs for the Mac then that would be competition
I totally disagree. Let's say Joe/Joan Consumer decides he wants to buy a computer. Does he say "hmmm, should I buy an Apple with a Motorola chip, or one with an IBM chip?" No, he says, "should I buy an Apple, or a Dell, or a Compaq, HP, emachines, Alienware, etc., etc., etc. (or maybe just any old Windows machine). Then he decides what his/her best value is based on his/her criteria.
It's the same as gaming consoles. Xbox vs. Gamecube vs. Playstation. Each one has its own design and chips, but they all compete against each other.
If AMD and Intel started making PPC cpu's, then, arguably, there would be LESS competition, because they would no longer have to compete with Apple's platform, forming a mini-monopoly (sound like anyone familiar?).
I am not saying Apple isn't behind, and don't need to do something, I'm just saying that there is plenty of competition in chip manufacturing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: competition?
Jor or Joan consumer wouldn't get a choice in the chip, that's a decision Apple makes for them. With more than one PPC manufacturer they have competition within the PPC market. They wont be selling just to Apple.
I don't quite follow what you're saying.
Jor or Joan consumer wouldn't get a choice in the chip, that's a decision Apple makes for them. With more than one PPC manufacturer they have competition within the PPC market. They wont be selling just to Apple.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: competition?
I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you prefer the Motorola vs. IBM supplying to Apple, not an actual separate PPC computer manufactured by some other company besides Apple.
I would have to agree, an alternate PPC based computer system (a viable one, I'm not sure whether the Amiga falls into that category), but only along with a different PPC manufacturer partnership, would create a competitive market within Apple's "niche".
I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you prefer the Motorola vs. IBM supplying to Apple, not an actual separate PPC computer manufactured by some other company besides Apple.
I would have to agree, an alternate PPC based computer system (a viable one, I'm not sure whether the Amiga falls into that category), but only along with a different PPC manufacturer partnership, would create a competitive market within Apple's "niche".
I may be completely off base, but didn't AMD reverse engineer the IA32 ISA? (Which is now just a front end to the RISC core that they use anyway)
Emulation is the wrong word - as far as I knew, they wrote their own, compatible ISA and went from there, much the same way the 1st PC clones used a reverse engineered BIOS that was compatible with IBM's.
Why in the world would Intel want to license the ISA to anyone anyway?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: competition?
I'm not partial about one manufacturer or another. As long as Apple's end product is competitive or better than the market they compete in.
Cool
I'm not partial about one manufacturer or another. As long as Apple's end product is competitive or better than the market they compete in.
Well the CISC instructions are the front end of AMD's cpu's They use RISC in the backend.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,39128,00.asp
But that doesn't mean they didn't license the CISC instructions. Just can't find any press releases that state that they did.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,368747-2,00.html
This article suggests through a lawsuit that AMD is pretty much free to do what they want as long as they have a separate chipset from Intel, which is the case.
Re: Re: Translation
Also, if Moto was so profoundly angered by the clone issue, they should never had signed the contract with Apple to make the G5 chips. Someone at Moto, at some point, must have thought that working with Apple would be a "good thing".
Also, if Moto was so profoundly angered by the clone issue, they should never had signed the contract with Apple to make the G5 chips. Someone at Moto, at some point, must have thought that working with Apple would be a "good thing".
And if Apple doesn't stand up for it's rights, what's to keep the next supplier from backing out from their contract. They could say, "Well, you let Moto get away with it, why not us."
I used to have a strong respect for Motorola but they went off-course somewhere in the mid to late `90's. I'm even a bit saddened that they haven't further developed the 680X0 processors. If Intel could keep the bastard child of the 4004/8088 going, imagine where the 68000 series could be today.