The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern

Is AMD slimming down for a date with Apple?

By | November 11, 2011, 12:01am PST

Summary: Did Intel just become a one-night-stand? Are Apple and AMD headed to the altar?

Is AMD slimming down for a date With Apple?

The recent layoffs at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) have me scratching my head. With revenue and profit growing, why is AMD laying off more people?

AMD was slowly being smothered by Intel’s revenue-capping onslaught which was exposed by the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit (PDF). Now that AMD is recovering (courtesy of the Federal Trade Commission’s consent decree) why is it trying to lose a few more pounds? (Word is that AMD is shedding a lot of non-engineering staff.)

In 2010, it was reported that Apple was testing AMD processors in the MacBook Air. Curiously, just one year later, Intel announced a $300 Million dollar fund to help unleash an army of clones to compete with the MacBook Air. (Here’s the video of Intel CEO Paul Otellini’s announcement.) ZDnet UK’s Jack Schofield concludes that Intel is going after the Air.

They represent Intel’s attempt to take ultraportables similar to the latest versions of Apple’s MacBook Air and make them mass market.

Is Intel jealously smacking its runaway bride (Apple)?

Could Apple be cozying up to AMD?

In his biography by Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs compared Intel to a steamship noting that its graphics suck. Page 493:

We tried to help Intel, but they don’t listen much. We’ve been telling them for years that their graphics suck… They wanted this big joint project to do chips for future iPhones. There were two reasons we didn’t go with them. One was that they are just really slow. They’re like a steamship…Second is that we just didn’t want to teach them everything, which they could go and sell to our competitors.

What if Steve wanted to move beyond “steamship” innovation and sucky graphics?

Steve had the foresight to see that if Apple acquired AMD it would get a treasure chest of patents which would help it defend against future lawsuits (like the recent case with S3).

Most importantly, Apple would get AMD’s engineering team, which has historically innovated quite well despite a limited R&D budget resulting from very limited market access due to Intel’s unusual practices. (Dell alone reportedly received $6 billion from Intel between 2002 and 2007 to not buy AMD chips. Sometimes those payments exceeded Dell’s profits.)

To hear Anton Shilov tell it, Apple’s chip design team will never stack up to Intel.

Apple has never attempted to develop its own central processing units and used off-the-shelf chips for many reasons, the main of which is state-of-the-art technologies required for competitive microprocessors along with experience, patent portfolio and so on.

What do you think?

Related: Did AMD take a bite out of Intel’s forbidden Apple?

[image: Maximum PC]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason O'Grady is a journalist and author specializing in mobile technology. He has published six books on Apple and mobile gadgets and his PowerPage blog has been publishing for over 15 years.

Disclosure

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady is the creator and editor of O'Grady's PowerPage, which has been publishing mobile technology news since 1995. He maintains an advertising relationship with the following legacy advertisers on the PowerPage:

  • Amazon Associates
  • Google Adsense
  • Tekserve
  • Advertising on the PowerPage is brokered by a third-party agency (BackBeat Media) and he recuses himself from these negotiations.

Biography

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady developed an affinity for Apple computers after using the original Lisa, and this affinity turned into a bona-fide obsession when he got the original 128 KB Macintosh in 1984.

He started writing one of the first Web sites about Apple (O'Grady's PowerPage) in 1995 and is considered to be one of the fathers of blogging. He has been a frequent speaker at the Macworld Expo conference and a member of the conference faculty. He also co-founded the first dedicated PowerBook User Group (PPUG) in the United States.

After winning a major legal battle with Apple in 2006, he set the precedent that independent journalists are entitled to the same protections under the First Amendment as members of the mainstream media.

O'Grady is the author of The Nexus One Pocket Guide, The Droid Pocket Guide, The Google Phone Pocket Guide, and The Garmin nuvi Pocket Guide (Peachpit Press), the author of Corporations That Changed the World: Apple Inc. (Greenwood Press), and a contributor to The Mac Bible (Peachpit Press). In addition, he has contributed to numerous Mac publications over the years, including MacWEEK, Macworld, and MacPower (Japan).

When he's not writing about Apple for ZDNet at The Apple Core, he enjoys spending time with his family in New Jersey.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
66
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I love the creativity of this discussion
CupOfJoe 5th Jan
The writing in this article is genius. I feel like some kind of mass underground is being uncovered, with the flair of some Sherlock Holmes novel:

Did AMD take a bite out of Intel???s forbidden Apple?

Brilliant!
0 Votes
+ -
Apple went intel, I stopped buying intel. If AMD partners with AMD then that will in fact give 100% credit to every statement about apple I have ever said that people don't get.
I have said that since around 2000 with apple's switch to intel that the only real difference with the exception of EFI is in the software. Every sucker in the world in the world that bought a MAC really bought a PC in Mac Dressing and running OSX. That apple gives the appearence they are better by saying We can run windows and you cant run osx. I have been a fan of AMD for years. I was about to buy a new 6 or 8 core FX (from a phenom 9500) until now. If AMD gets in bed with apple, I wont buy another AMD product again and will go back to Intel.

Then it really will be like I said, every moron in the world that bought a Mac just bought a PC for tripple the cost that the same hardware running windows really cost's and they did so with a smile and excitement like fire was just invented.
0 Votes
+ -
@Nate_K

Then it really will be like I said, every moron in the world that bought a Mac just bought a PC for tripple the cost that the same hardware running windows really cost's and they did so with a smile and excitement like fire was just invented.



Please show me where every Mac costs 3x more than every Windows machine of comparable specs. Problem is you can't. Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc. all sell computers as expensive and more expensive than a Mac. Cause every time I do the math on a $1-2k computer the Mac is at most $100-200 more expensive. Which is nowhere 3x as expensive.

And your anger at Apple for selling "expensive" computers should also be directed to those Windows vendors because they also sell expensive computers that are not that much "better" than their $3-500 junk.

IOW: STFU cause you have no clue.
@itguy10 They used to be 2x-3x the price.. not anymore. Now, they are somewhat reasonably priced and have been for about a year.

Now, they are somewhat reasonably priced and have been for about a year.



More than a year. Since 2002 when I got my first iMac and it was actually cheaper than a name brand PC with the bells and whistles.
0 Votes
+ -
Not quite $100-200
MichaelWells 11th Nov
@itguy10

As I write this on my MacBook Pro, I am struck by two things about your post. First is the Apple tinted lens of reality that you live in, and second is your boorish nature in which you launch a personal attack at someone with which you disagree (STFU, you have no clue; really mature and adult). Great to think on Veterans Day that soldiers dies for your right to disagree in such an UN-gentlemanly manner. While Nate was a tad off on his math; he was still correct in that Macs do cost quite a bit more for an equal or even better equipped PC. I do not see the world as PC vs. Mac; I work on Windows 7 at work and have 3 Macs at home, all of which I am quite happy with and have my own reasons behind my purchases. That being said, none of tech products that I buy define me or a source that I gather my self worth from. Below you can see that HP offers very nice options that are cheaper and better speced. On the Envy; Apple does not even offer a true hybrid drive and the Envy offers double the memory at 16GBs of Ram and the price was still way cheaper. When comparing the HP DM4X vs. the 13" MacBook Pro; notice that the it has a full 1GB Discrete Graphics Card (not the integrate Intel option), it also offers a 750GB HD that is much faster at 7200 RPM. One last thing that really disappoints me about Apple, is the Apple care protection plan. HP, along with most major PC vendors offer accidental damage protection as standard with their protection plans. Apple has started offering on the iPhone; hopefully it will make it's way to the Mac.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD322LL/A?select=select&product=MD322LL%2FA

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto.do

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD314LL/A?select=select&product=MD314LL%2FA

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto.do
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is AMD slimming down for a date With Apple?
trust2112@... Updated - 11th Nov
@itguy10 You have no clue. He was right, Apple does overprice 5 year old technologies. Why shouldn't people bash a company that doesn't use the web standards (Flash), don't use current technologies (USB) and claim to be invulnerable from malware? They may not have said it, but they sure as **** implied it.
PS, Apple doesn't make any new technologies. They are like TDK of the tech world, they don't make anything, they just make it easier for stupid people to use.
@itguy10 : No, you are wrong. I've been a Mac person since even before 1984 with a friend's Apple II (computer pre-Mac). Apple Macintosh units (tech and released various shaped models) were at least 3x more to purchase. Without going into a 4 or 5 page rant, I purchased a Mac SE/30 (look it up on Google) six months after it was released for the 2nd hand price of $4200 (new was $6000.). Still works if anyone is interested in a Museum piece. In fact I still use the keyboard ADB-adapted to USB and I've never had any AND I DO MEAN ANY problems of keys sticking or whatever. And no, it never went through any other owner than myself. Watch, next week it'll start acting up. Current Mac is a 2002 Quicksilver w/10.4.11. Didn't want to go intel since forever. Hell, I was ecstatic when I could divert processing power for 'multi-tasking'! People today take it all now for granted. I heard Apple may go into the home television screen market and they needed to have supply secured (plus wanted to get graphic problem solved and never having to deal with that issue ever again).
@itguy10 The cheapest Macbook Pro is $1199 and it only sports an Intel Core i5, 4GB, and the cheap HD 3000 graphics. Go to Best Buy and you'll find the same base specs on PC's starting at $449!. If that isn't 2-3X then I don't know what you are referring to. Even the comparable i7 machines from Apple start at $1499...an i7-based PC can be purchased for as little as $799! (and you're not stuck with a tiny 13" screen!)
0 Votes
+ -
Here's one for you.
spdragoo@... 14th Nov
@itguy10

Per apple.com:

Cheapest iMac (Intel i5 2.5GHz quad-core CPU; 4GB RAM; 500GB hard drive; 21.5" LED monitor; AMD Radeon 6750M video card, 512MB GDR5 memory) costs $1,199. Next-size up (2.7GHz quad-core i5, 1TB hard drive, AMD 6770M video) goes up to $1,499.

Package deal on BestBuy.com: Gateway DX4860-UB33P (Intel i5 3GHz quad-core CPU; 4GB RAM; 1TB hard drive; 23" LED monitor; built-in Intel graphics) and XFX Radeon 6770 HD video card (1GB GDR5 memory) cost $780 and $125 each, for a total price of $905.

The Gateway option gives you a faster processor, larger monitor, double the hard drive space, & double the video memory, while saving you $294 (making the iMac 32.49% more expensive). Even with the "upgraded" iMac, the Gateway option still gives you a faster processor and double the video memory, while saving you $594 (making the iMac 65.64% more expensive).

So, straight from both Apple & a vendor's websites, the Apple product with *inferior* hardware costs over 50% more than a competitor's equipment.
@itguy10 The issue is that on the Windows side you have a much lower price entry point. Cheapest Mac laptop is $1000. You can get a very decent netbook for $300. If all you need a laptop for is emailing, web browsing, Office, etc., paying $1000 for a Macbook Air is overkill.

A few months ago, a friend of mine bought an Acer 11" netbook with AMD dual core, 4gb ram, and 320gb hd at Costco for $279 plus tax and he's very happy with it. He's not a heavy duty user in terms of apps, but he does use Office to develop his lesson plans for the week. He's a teacher. And the cool thing about Costco is that you have 90 days to return the item if you don't like it.
0 Votes
+ -
@itguy10 I recently used a 13.3" 2011 MacBook Pro with i7 CPU|Intel HD Graphics 3000 (NO discrete graphics card) and 4GB RAM. This ran me $1,499.99 for which I got no productivity software and few worthwhile apps. So before my 45 day return limit was reached, I returned it and went back to Windows and got a Dell XPS 17.3" with quad-core i7, 8GB RAM, 3GB Nvidia Graphics card with 3D 1920x1080 WLED screen (the most beautiful screen I've ever used BTW), BluRay, Microsoft Office, and too much more to mention, all for the same price $1,499.99. I got nearly twice the computer for the same price. It may not equate to Apple being 2x-3x expensive, but overall, I can actually get things done and multitask without the fan sounding like it's about to burn out the way it does on the recent MacBook Pro's at clearly inequivalent price points for what is provided in the purchase. To meet the minimum specs including screen size, my only option with Apple is spending a MINIMUM of $2,499.99, which does not yield an equivalent amount of RAM. My finding in benchmarks that detect CPU and RAM usage in resource intensive software applications in side-by-side comparison on Mac OS X 10.7.x Lion vs Windows 7 is that Mac OS X uses MORE RAM than Windows 7, that includes SAFARI smh. For Apple's MacBook Pro's, not only are you paying more for at least a similarly capable but lesser configuration, but you're also getting a less-optimized operating system. As an Apple computer, my Dell XPS 17.3" 3D configuration would sell for well over $3,000. In my opinion, Apple is at least 75% more expensive, producing little justification in terms of hardware and performance for the price points it sells the MacBook Air and Pro product lines. 75% is a generous estimation, as I've gone through bearing the initial cost of buying a MacBook and having to purchase apps (iWork/MS Office/etc) for Lion because there isn't much functionality out of the box. Even with those app purchases, the experience in using Mac OS X is a butchered mess in comparison to Windows 7. Say what you will about error messages on Windows, but there are many errors with Mac OS X, too, and they're not that far off in behavior or disruption from Windows. Apple makes nice hardware, but that's before you turn it on and actually try to get actual things done. It's not very good at multitasking for the cost, and in comparison to Windows computers that can be had at the same cost, Apple doesn't offer much other than a big a$$ piece of aluminum with a loud a$$ fan. Sorry, that doesn't make the premium price "worth it," especially when you have to pay extra up front for assistance, otherwise, Apple Care won't even take your call. When they did take my call on using friend's account, they made me feel it was my fault that Lion screwed up WiFi when nothing else in my home had a problem retaining WiFi. There could be a book written both ways about why people should pay for Apple or why people should pay for Windows. Overall, it should come down to the biggest bang for the buck. Apple's only bang is the hardware, but by the time the unboxing is completed, their guns are empty and the Mac OS X experience degrades from there, especially when it burns in your mind that you spent all that money for little else than a pretty paper weight. With each of the last two OS upgrades/updates from Microsoft (Windows 7 and Windows 7 SP1), the hardware I've used for those updates behaved and performed better with no changes to the hardware configuration. For the update from Leopard to Lion, Mac OS X took a steaming pi$$ on all that screams "work smarter, not harder." I can't write a check for that, especially one that's nearly double the cost what I can get for a maximum of the same headache for a Windows 7 machine.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is AMD slimming down for a date With Apple?
Masari.Jones Updated - 11th Nov
When Apple made the jump to Intel several years ago, I really thought back then they should have partnered with AMD. I'm sure they had their reason to go with Intel. We'll see what happes as all of this is more rumors and heresy.

As for Nate_K's comment the only moron is you! What mac cost triple the cost of the same hardware running windows? I'd love to see that. The Mac system (hardware, software and design) is far superior than anything coming out of Dell, HP, Lenovo or any other Windows PC manufacturer. Clearly you haven't used a Mac and have no idea what you are talking about.
@Masari.Jones The notion of Mac hardware being "far superior" is a blatant exageration. I was quite willing to concede that Nate_K was out to lunch with his cost comments (and his anger), but the fact is, one can buy a comparable PC (in turns of specs and quality) to a Mac. The fact is, it won't save you much money.

However, if fancy industrial design doesn't do anything for you (you don't need sleek, slim, light-weight etc", then you can buy a LOT more PC for your money. It all depends on what you want. I would recommend a Mac for my mother-in-law (and I like her greatly), but not for my father-in-law (who is a project consultant).
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is AMD slimming down for a date With Apple?
michaellashinsky@... 23rd Nov
@Nate_K

So, you already refuse to buy Intel, and you now refuse to buy AMD. Hmmm, I think you can still get an abacus cheap...
I think that if Apple were to switch to AMD, a lot of manufacturers would follow(as they did with the Radeon switch). A lot of people have the misconception that Macs are somehow the best because they are the most expensive, so they look at all the hardware contained within them as "godlike". If enough manufacturers were to begin using AMD once again, the market would probably go 50-50 again rather than the pitiful balance its in now (about 20-80). AMD has always been better at what they do, but with nobody to sell to, you cant possibly make a competitive CPU. Im surprised their CPUs have done this well, with intel limiting their OEM sales to like 10% of what they used to be, according to that lawsuit.

It may not seem like that big of a deal to buy an AMD CPU, but when you think about it, not only are you giving AMD a sale, but you are taking one from Intel, and thats where it counts. Another prevented purchase from intel means another small bribe they now will not be able to pay.
0 Votes
+ -
@Tylemagne: The story noted "Dell alone reportedly received $6 billion from Intel between 2002 and 2007 to not buy AMD chips. Sometimes those payments exceeded Dell???s profits."

You know, if companies weren't receiving these payoffs NOT to buy and use AMD cpus/chipsets, we might see a different landscape where AMD's market share was much higher. These big payouts by Intel looks like anticompetitive behavior to me. Wasn't (Isn't) there a lawsuit pending against Intel for his behavior? If not, there should be. Maybe Intel should keep some of that money and use it to improve/overhaul their graphics systems.
0 Votes
+ -
Innovation would increase. Case in point AMD, with 10% of the budget they have kept up and at times surpassed Intel in capabilities.

For over ten years and over 100K computers, Intel didn't benefit from any purchase decision I was involved with. It was easy to disqualify them, based on their actions, that are well known today.

Many here, like I, will not consider Intel on principle. A similar sentiment has cost MS a lot of market share. I wish the same would happen with Intel.

Apple for the same reason is a no-no on my book, not interested in monopolistic behavior. Though, Apple-AMD does make sense and would definitely give Apple an edge. The problem with a decision like this one, has to do with ARM processors. ARM architecture is the future because of the implied efficiency and optimized design (less cycles to complete a task, less pipeline utilization, means less energy used). If AMD would have gone down this road four years ago, Intel would now be an after thought.

To Intel.. I will never buy, recommend or allow if possible the purchase of an Intel powered Android device (for that matter any other OS with Intel inside). An Apple device with AMD inside on the other hand would be welcomed.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting premise
itguy10 11th Nov
Would make sense - AMD makes some of the best CPUs and GPU's. Apple likes to control the whole widget. So it would make sense to buy or partner with them.

Also interesting to read how Intel bulled the OEM's about AMD over the years. Yet another reason I hate them. I love my Macs despite Intel Inside and really don't like that they have an Intel chip in them. But I'll never go to the other options (Windows or Linux) so I deal.
Perhaps AMD is more agreeable to Apple engineer suggestions. If they get a non-compete agreement in place, I see it as win-win for everyone but INTEL.
@Gr8Music

Like Microsoft, anything bad for Intel is great for us consumers and the tech industry in general.
@itguy10 True. The key reason Windows 8 is changed as much as it is, is because of the booming tablet market and missed potential PC sales. The only difference is, Microsoft makes a successful product without paying people not to use a competitor's products.

The only difference is, Microsoft makes a successful product without paying people not to use a competitor's products.



Read the MS Antitrust stuff. MS did the same tactics. When Compaq wanted to not install IE and go with Netscape MS threatened to pull their OEM license to sell Windows.

When Toshiba was planning on a BeOS/Windows computer where you got to choose which OS on first boot, MS threatened them.

IIRC there was also some stuff around MS and Linux machines too.

MS is just as guilty as Intel.
Switching to AMD is just a bad idea. AMD has a history of being extremely slow to update drivers and creating buggy motherboard chipsets. Their components are generally inferior in performance compared to Intel & NVIDIA. The only advantage is they cost less. That's why the cheapest laptops and desktops have always used AMD. If Apple wants to gain a reputation for selling inferior components for expensive prices, then I guess AMD is their answer. It's a sad shame, though.
@BillDem

Guess that's why the Athlon was faster than the P4, Opeteron bested (maybe still) the Xeon, the C series spanks the Atom, etc, etc. AMD has always made decent stuff. Used them exclusively when I was doing the PC thing and never had an issue.

Now I gave up the PC thing and am a Mac guy so unfortunately have to use Intel. Don't like it but that's the way it is.
@itguy10

There was a time when AMD had the best price performance, but that time is past. When the intel 4 cores outperform the AMD 8 cores you have to wonder.
A lot of Core Duo outperform AMD quads as well.
@BillDem There are many more advantages than just price. These articles try to make it sound like the switch will be exclusive. The key to true versatility is to use the best of everything without promising exclusivity to any one side. This means i7s in the high ends(PowerMac/27' iMac), and more affordable APUs in the medium and low-ends. AMD Radeons have been in Macs for a good while now, so Apple cant be having too many problems with AMD or its drivers. As for the chipsets, Apple makes all of those (or at least oversees the creation with an iron fist) as far as I know.
@BillDem Even if you believe that benchmarks tell the whole story (which you would have to in order to believe that AMD performance is less), they have long represented the best value for money in anything other than the top-of-the-line high-performance cases. My actual experience (building and maintaining hundreds of PCs over the last 15 years), is that a well made (balanced component) AMD system usually outperforms one built around Intel at the same price point. AMD's multiprocessing seems better (the OS seems able to take advantage of the cores better) than intel. Certainly at the low end, AMD spanks Intel in the combined CPU / Graphics offering, and AMD usually has the edge in power consumption as well.

I could see that if you were a gamer, then an Intel high clock rig with a top-end NVidia card would be the cat's meow, but for everyday practical computing, AMD has been the way I have spent my (and my client's) money.

Lately, AMD have produced an excellent line of integrated CPU / graphics chips that have easily bested anything near their price point from Intel. The C-350 beats the pants off of Ion, and the A6-3600 (which I have at home) is hard to beat as a low end desktop. I suspect that the higher end offerings offer similar price / performance ratios. As a value proposition they would be hard to ignore, and with their low power consumption, I could certainly see how Apple might find them attractive.
0 Votes
+ -
AMD is better at the lower end
MichaelWells 11th Nov
@BillDem

AMD is great at the lower end of the spectrum right now. They kill Intel in Netbooks, and other small mobiles. But facts are facts, and they cannot compete with Intel on high end chips.
The last word in the subtitle should be "altar" ( unless, of course you were shortening "alternate").
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@GpaKen

fixed. thanks.
Doesn't AMD have too much debt to be attractive to buy/merge? Sensible to trade 20% of the PC market for 5-10%, additionally at a lower performance level than comparable Intel processing?
0 Votes
+ -
An important part of Steve's business philosophy included the importance of owning all the significant components, hard and soft. He felt particularly aggrieved with Motorola/IBM over the PPC chip and the fact that he couldn't get them to keep up with Intel. He bought the shop that designed the A4, etc. for mobiles.

AMD today would cost APPL pocket change, less than $5B and it makes all the sense in the world. They have the patents necessary to go head to head with Intel and to produce in the same league. Wherever AMD has been slow to respond it has been largely due to being the underfunded underdog. If APPL buys, money problem solved and APPL has higher degree of control over hardware that goes into Macs of the future.

In spite of some negative comments here, AMD is respected for the quality of their work and the fact that they have always kept Intel on its toes, producing great products.

While they are at it, they should pick up ADBE for only $14B. Mac creatives would have better tools. After all, what's that cache horde for?
@mr.mjr.1@... I have thought they should pick up Adobe as well.
I have always wondered why Apple never considered the APU solution for the Macbook Air. Intel graphics plain sucks. Now that Apple have thrown NVIDIA out (sad but eventual, even in the ARM race Apple compete with NVIDIA) it only makes more sense to move towards the stability and quality offered by AMD Fusion. It would be interesting if they did take over AMD, this way they can use AMD graphics with x86 and their own ARM chips but then AMD would be closed to non-Apple customers forever. I for one do NOT wish Intel "dead" but it is time that the competition gets fairer. The IT saga gets all the more interesting by the day.
Yes Macs are more expensive but you get what you pay for and that is high build quality and good customer service if something goes wrong. From my personal experience getting ahold of these other PC vendors can be a pain in the neck. Not the case with apple the extra cost is worth it
0 Votes
+ -
@gohmc I got my Mac Mini this past August and I have to admit that after more than 26 years of using a PC, I just cannot seem to make myself boot up my HP workstation. There are a few things I do miss about Windows, however. I prefer the Win7 file management better than the Finder, but overall it has been a good experience considering this is my FIRST Mac ever.
For all those detractors and malsayers who have directed slurs at Apple, particularly about price, all I can say is that the price differential between a comparable Windows based PC and a MAC is well worth the trouble of dealing with the variability in quality and performance of a PC. The MAC is solid as a rock and built to last. The typical low cost PC will die years before a MAC and a PC that is comparable to a MAC in quality and support will cost just as much as a MAC. If one wants a quality machine that goes on servicing for years and is supported for the useful life of the product, BUY a MAC. I originally was a PC fan because I worked at AMD when they adopted the PC as the corporate standard in 1982 or 83. I switched to MAC in 2006 and will not go back. If Apple buys AMD so much for the better. It will give AMD needed software resources to update drivers much faster. Go for it!
0 Votes
+ -
Bogus argument...
adornoe@... Updated - 11th Nov
since PCs and Macs will last as long, regardless of price.

When it comes to usage and obsolescence, which is what matters, Macs won't ever be outlasting PCs, no matter what the brand. People replace their computers, no matter the maker, when that computer becomes obsolete and incompatible with the current state of computing at that time. So, with people updating their hardware every 3 or 4 or 5 years, chances are that, PCs and Macs will be getting upgraded at the same rate. So, it's obsolescence that counts more than quality.

Whatever quality people perceive in a Mac, is all moot, because, Macs won't be outperforming comparable products from the competition.

People won't be purchasing a Mac because they expect it to last 7 or 10 years. That's a ridiculous and bogus argument. Anybody that keeps a Mac for that long, either can't afford a new one, or is not doing anything of value where they need to keep up with technology.
@adornoe@... Anybody that keeps a Mac for that long, either can't afford a new one, or is not doing anything of value where they need to keep up with technology.
And he the h#ll are you to determine is somebody is doing something of value? A 10 year old Mac can be used for example to write documents be it contracts, tech manuals or the next best selling novel just as easily as it could when it was new. Not everyone has to have the latest and greatest hardware to be productive. We use 15 year old systems here at work to do some tasks due to software and/or hardware requirement and guess what, what we use them for is indeed of value.
0 Votes
+ -
Errrr....
Gisabun 11th Nov
Right away after AMD drops a bunch of jobs because of the economy that some are thinking that Apople will buy AMD [if that ever happerned I'll pull out my AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5770 and buy a Nvidia GPU].

THese are probably the same ones who envisioned Microsoft buying the PC usint of HP.

The fact that Apple test AMD CPUs over a year ago means nothing since if nothing has been released by now, the "marriage" there never was consumated. [Errrr]

And just because Intels GPUs sucked, it doesn't mean that Apple would use/buy AMD. There are other GPU makers out there. They could use Nvidia, S3, Matrox, ...

All this is specualtion. If Tim Cook was wearing Levi jeans, will Apple by Levis & Strauss?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is AMD slimming down for a date With Apple?
non-biased Updated - 18th Nov
@Gisabun Sorry, but I have to laugh at the ego of people that post comments like this...

[if that ever happerned I'll pull out my AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5770 and buy a Nvidia GPU

Do you really think that AMD or anybody else care? It's like those pompous stars that every election say they will leave the US if so in so is elected. Well, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out because nobody cares what you think.
0 Votes
+ -
Extremely Interesting...
dcristof 11th Nov
I have to say, it is an extremely interesting idea. Apple can use its IP, fabs and create proprietary processors much more easily with a purchase of AMD.

In addition, it make it much easier to thumb its nose at Samsung, which it did clearly several months ago with its IP lawsuit. Perhaps it thinks AMD's suite of patents for processor development can keep it on the innovation track it desires and not relying on Samsung for IP and ID that keeps winding up in their own products?

It also fits much better with an "own the whole widgit" mentality.

One question: what is AMD doing with ARM? I haven't looked it up...
Doesn't AMD still license the x86 architecture from Intel? If that's the case, would Intel "inherit" the license, or would the license not be transferable to a third party that wasn't the original licensee, or could Intel call the license "null and void" because Apple would be a direct competitor. Also, if the AMD license were transferable, wouldn't Apple still be using IP/patents from Intel?
@adornoe@... If there is indeed a license and it was transferable then Apple would not be as much of a let alone anymore of a direct competitor to Intel. Wonder if it would be considered anti competitive if Intel called the license "null and void". If the license did transfer then sure, they would still be using Intel IP and patents but through a license that has got to be cheaper that buying from Intel and provides them much more control.
An AMD and AAPL hook up would give Apple control over graphics hardware and GPU hooks into iOS and MAC OS.

In addition it would give Apple considerable more negotiating power with chip foundries.

I am not sure the normal Windows PC business would be helped by such a move but then that is not a concern for Apple.

As for AMD software and driver support that issue would become nonexistent in that Apple would control that for their own chips.

Marketing, PR and maybe some sales were the targets of the AMD layoffs. Sure, these are not needed if Apple were buying AMD but there are plenty, less esoteric reasons for doing the layoff.
@DaveLG526 At this point it wouldn't help them on the iOS devices would it? I didn't think that AMD had any ARM offerings. Could they under Apples license start producing ARM processors even if it were only for Apple?

Is AMD fabless or do they have their own pant?

It would give Apple a big boost as they could controll the direction of development that best fits their needs. I don't see it being a plus but also don't see it hurting the PC business as I am sure they would continue selling to the market.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is AMD slimming down for a date With Apple?
neil.postlethwaite@... Updated - 11th Nov
Or Apple could reverse a disposal descision of years ago, during the dark times, and re-invest into ARM Holdings, where they were an initial equity partner with Acorn Computers and VLSI.

ARM still have to make the effective leap to 64bit, which would be an interesting development.

It might also nuke Microsoft's daft Windows 8 Tab strategy.

Or a combined Apple/AMD/ARM axis against evil.
SHADES OF THE 1990's!!!

If MicroSoft had control over the entire PC product design (i.e. hardware and software), then maybe they could produce a PC which functions as well as a Mac. Credit where it's due, Apple industrial design has always (well, almost always) been superior to the PC, and the close coupling of hardware/software allows them to consistently rank #1 in perceived quality (customer opinion) and real quality (reliability in terms of issues per 1000 units shipped). Granted, some companies are getting wise and catching up (think: Lenovo), but Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony et al cannot match the real or perceived quality of a similar / comperable piece of Apple hardware.

Now to be sure, I use PC hardware both personally and professionally and there are certain Apple business practices which I do NOT approve of, but overall the Mac branded hardware is just that little bit better than similar PC's; enough to gather that 9th star (out of 10) in quality, where the best PC's don't rank better than 7 - 8...
0 Votes
+ -
As for whoever said Apple makes superior products by using superior MB, processors... I almost pee'd on myself by that comment. If they use superior parts, then explain to me "Antennagate" and whatever the hell they are calling it when iOS 5 bricks up, Mute problems, Network Problems... Yea, sounds like superiority to me. Maybe you should buy a Acer or Dell, I hear they have superior caps, must be why they got sued, huh?
@trust2112@... Not sure who made the claim about superior MB and processors but bringing up overblown talking point issues that affected a very small percentage doesn't back up any claims you are trying to make.
0 Votes
+ -
The writing in this article is genius. I feel like some kind of mass underground is being uncovered, with the flair of some Sherlock Holmes novel:

Did AMD take a bite out of Intel???s forbidden Apple?

Brilliant!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix