Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
With this new technology, movies could easily arrive in the home...
Broadband eyes a quantum leap
Internet access 50 times faster than current speeds could arrive via TV cables as early as '06.
July 20, 2005: 7:48 AM EDT
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Broadband Internet access via TV cables will be able to hit 100 megabits per second as early as next year, 50 times faster than the average broadband speeds now offered to cable TV homes, a Finnish firm said Wednesday.
Similar data transmission speeds are possible over fiber networks, but these cost much more for the operators to build.
"This is a cost-efficient technology as we use the cable TV networks which are already in place," Jukka Rinnevaara, chief executive of small-cap Finnish broadband equipment manufacturer Teleste, told Reuters.
Teleste, whose rivals include big U.S. firms Scientific Atlanta (up $1.11 to $38.31, Research) and Cisco Systems Inc. (up $0.52 to $20.17, Research), said it would early next year bring to the market its ethernet-to-home product, which will give consumers access to 100Mb/s speed.
The sector is closely followed by big technology firms. Last month Sweden's Ericsson (up $0.04 to $34.07, Research) offered $51 million to buy Norwegian firm AXXESSIT, which makes broadband ethernet access equipment for telecom operators. To accelerate the transmission speed Teleste fits ethernet -- a cheap and standard transport method for Internet data over broadband networks -- into cable television networks.
It said it expects first rival technology to be on the market at the earliest in the second quarter of 2007.
Teleste is running a field-trial with cable TV service provider Essent in Netherlands, but not yet at the top speeds it expects most homes will need within a few years.
"Based on our research, 30 megabits per second is the absolute minimum in future homes. Just one TV program would take 10-20 megabits per second of this alone. So, very fast we would reach a need for 30 megabits, and also for 50 megabits per second," Pekka Rissanen, a Teleste executive told a news conference.
Rissanen said the cost of connecting a home with the new ethernet-to-the-home technology can vary between 50 ($60.28) and 200 ($241).
CEO Rinnevaara declined to say how much the new technology could boost Teleste's sales or profits in the next 12 months.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/20/technology/broadband.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
rachelelise, I don't think most here would claim that I think this article is what is taking place. Contrary, I think the author is wrong. However, I ceased supplying commentary regarding such things.
Apple is not a welcomed discussion here.
If you want to chat further regarding what I think is happening you can engage me at the Apple board or off-line.
Cheers!
Of course you are correct.
The issue is trusted computing and the TPM. The OS is now locked to the motherboard.
Apple's Intel Switch: It's About the Network
By Larry Loeb
June 16, 2005
Opinion: Larry Loeb has his own theory about why Apple is switching to Intel processors—and it has little to do with IBM and its PowerPC.
The news of Apple switching to Intel processors in the next year or so was the big story coming out of Apple's recent Worldwide Developer Conference. While punditry has abounded concerning the reasons for Apple's switch, my take on the change is somewhat different.
I don't think it had much to do with PowerPC architecture or pricing or feeling unloved by IBM. In fact, I don't think it had much to do with the actual processor hardware at all.
I think it's all about the networking of the immediate future. Let me explain.
The TCG just issued the first version of the Trusted Network Connect protocol. TNC is meant to help stop the spread of viruses, worms, DOS attacks and other common points of vulnerability in computing networks, even wireless ones. Even more recently, implementations of the TNC specification have been announced for RADIUS servers and 802.1x clients.
Apple's forthcoming Intel-processor desktops could be able to run Windows and Linux as well as Mac OS X. Click here to read more.
While the TNC specification is still very young (Version 1.0), it is also the first-ever protocol to attempt to enforce network access on a per-client or per-network basis, which makes it a spec worth exploring if you're doing enterprise wireless development. Or trying to get your machines accepted by those who will use these kinds of networks.
TNC uses a number of ways to authenticate the supplicant trying to join the network, one of which is the hardware Trusted Computing Module bolted on to TCG-compliant computers. Now, here's where the trail starts to heat up. The TCM won't be available on non-Intel machines any time soon, since it uses Intel silicon to implement the functions needed. If you want to play in a TNC-defined network, you need to be on Intel hardware (at least for the near term).
So, Apple looks at this up-and-coming networking protocol that will be supported by Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS. It sees the advantages it will give to users if implemented correctly. Apple realizes it will be shut out of these networks for years using its current hardware. Apple collectively freaks.
Apple's Intel desktop move threatens the Linux desktop and Longhorn. Click here to read more.
So, combine this possible lockout with the other factors like IBM not ramping up clock speed on the single-core PowerPC line (but doing so for MS' multicore Xbox chip), and you have Apple looking around for different hardware.
So, here's Intel watching Microsoft give a chunk of chip business to IBM. They are feeling lonely, no doubt. And along comes Apple looking for hot hardware that will be in sync with where the market will be forced to go in the future. (When your company says the entire network will be TNC-compliant, you've got to go with that, right?) They make a deal.
It may not be pretty, but it sure makes business sense.
Check out eWEEK.com's Macintosh Center for the latest news, reviews and analysis on Apple in the enterprise.
Copyright (c) 2005 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1828859,00.asp
Apple's Intel Switch: It's About the Network
By Larry Loeb
June 16, 2005
Opinion: Larry Loeb has his own theory about why Apple is switching to Intel processors—and it has little to do with IBM and its PowerPC.
The news of Apple switching to Intel processors in the next year or so was the big story coming out of Apple's recent Worldwide Developer Conference. While punditry has abounded concerning the reasons for Apple's switch, my take on the change is somewhat different.
I don't think it had much to do with PowerPC architecture or pricing or feeling unloved by IBM. In fact, I don't think it had much to do with the actual processor hardware at all.
I think it's all about the networking of the immediate future. Let me explain.
The TCG just issued the first version of the Trusted Network Connect protocol. TNC is meant to help stop the spread of viruses, worms, DOS attacks and other common points of vulnerability in computing networks, even wireless ones. Even more recently, implementations of the TNC specification have been announced for RADIUS servers and 802.1x clients.
Apple's forthcoming Intel-processor desktops could be able to run Windows and Linux as well as Mac OS X. Click here to read more.
While the TNC specification is still very young (Version 1.0), it is also the first-ever protocol to attempt to enforce network access on a per-client or per-network basis, which makes it a spec worth exploring if you're doing enterprise wireless development. Or trying to get your machines accepted by those who will use these kinds of networks.
TNC uses a number of ways to authenticate the supplicant trying to join the network, one of which is the hardware Trusted Computing Module bolted on to TCG-compliant computers. Now, here's where the trail starts to heat up. The TCM won't be available on non-Intel machines any time soon, since it uses Intel silicon to implement the functions needed. If you want to play in a TNC-defined network, you need to be on Intel hardware (at least for the near term).
So, Apple looks at this up-and-coming networking protocol that will be supported by Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS. It sees the advantages it will give to users if implemented correctly. Apple realizes it will be shut out of these networks for years using its current hardware. Apple collectively freaks.
Apple's Intel desktop move threatens the Linux desktop and Longhorn. Click here to read more.
So, combine this possible lockout with the other factors like IBM not ramping up clock speed on the single-core PowerPC line (but doing so for MS' multicore Xbox chip), and you have Apple looking around for different hardware.
So, here's Intel watching Microsoft give a chunk of chip business to IBM. They are feeling lonely, no doubt. And along comes Apple looking for hot hardware that will be in sync with where the market will be forced to go in the future. (When your company says the entire network will be TNC-compliant, you've got to go with that, right?) They make a deal.
It may not be pretty, but it sure makes business sense.
Check out eWEEK.com's Macintosh Center for the latest news, reviews and analysis on Apple in the enterprise.
Copyright (c) 2005 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1828859,00.asp
SafeNet and Phoenix Technologies Partner to Offer Advanced Security for Protection of Digital Data
Wednesday July 6, 7:30 am ET
Integrated Capability Prevents Computer from Starting Unless Proper Hardware Key is Present
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050706/65009.html?.v=1
Insider buying...
FELCYN GLORIA
(Last) (First) (Middle)
POST OFFICE BOX 989
(Street)
SARATOGA CA 95071
(City) (State) (Zip)
2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP [ PTSC ] 5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer
(Check all applicable)
X Director 10% Owner
Officer (give title below) Other (specify below)
3. Date of Earliest Transaction (Month/Day/Year)
04/06/05
4. If Amendment, Date of Original Filed (Month/Day/Year)
6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line)
X Form filed by One Reporting Person
Form filed by More than One Reporting Person
Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
1. Title of Security (Instr. 3) 2. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year) 2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year) 3. Transaction Code (Instr. 8) 4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed Of (D) (Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4) 6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V Amount (A) or (D) Price
Common $.00001 par value 04/06/05 M 100,000 A $0.5 0 ( 1 ) D
Common $.00001 par value 04/06/05 M 50,000 A $0.0575 158,000 D
Common $.00001 par value 1,500,000 I Trustee for Helmut Falk Family Trust
Table II - Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
(e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)
1. Title of Derivative Security (Instr. 3) 2. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 3. Transaction Date (Month/Day/Year) 3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (Month/Day/Year) 4. Transaction Code (Instr. 8) 5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D) (Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date (Month/Day/Year) 7. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security (Instr. 3 and 4) 8. Price of Derivative Security (Instr. 5) 9. Number of derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 4) 10. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V (A) (D) Date Exercisable Expiration Date Title Amount or Number of Shares
Employee Stock Option (right to buy) $0.5 04/06/05 M 100,000 10/23/03 10/23/08 Common $.00001 par value 100,000 $0.5 0 D
Employee Stock Option (right to buy) $0.0575 04/06/05 M 50,000 10/10/02 10/10/07 Common $.00001 par value 50,000 $0.0575 0 D
Explanation of Responses:
1. Not applicable.
/s/ Gloria Felcyn 06/28/05
Apple leads list of fastest growing brands...
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0620/115tab.html
OT, fastest growing brands...
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0620/115tab.html
My, how the world turns. eom
A little thought on why no Intel PR... yet...
Any exercising of warrants going on?
OS X to use TPM...?
Security chip to limit OS X to Macs
Apple looking to keep operating system from running on third-party hardware
Tom Sanders in California, vnunet.com 13 Jun 2005
Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.
The TPM is an open industry standard governed by the Trusted Computing Group, a non-profit organisation which develops security standards.
The chip is used to securely store and encrypt information. Because each chip has a unique identifier code, it could also be used to distinguish a Mac computer from a model made by Dell or any other Windows vendor.
Apple revealed last week that it is to switch from IBM's Power PC architecture to Intel's x86 models. The first Intel computers are expected to be available before June 2006 and Apple's entire product line will have switched architectures by 2007, the company said at its annual World Wide Developers Conference.
With Macs and Windows machines sharing the same hardware platform, users could theoretically install any software on the PCs, running Windows on a Mac or OS X on a Dell.
But Apple has stated that it would prevent users from installing OS X on non-Mac hardware.
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, saying that the company it is not yet ready to reveal product specifications.
A spokeswoman for the TPG confirmed to vnunet.com that there is nothing preventing Apple from implementing the module.
Vendors of enterprise desktop and laptop computers, including Dell, HP and IBM/Lenovo, are already using the TPM. IBM, for instance, uses the chip securely to store user passwords and encrypt the contents of the hard drive.
The upcoming Longhorn version of Windows relies on the TPM for a technology dubbed Secure Startup, which blocks access to the computer if the content of the hard drive is compromised. This prevents a laptop thief swapping out the hard drive, or booting the system from a floppy disk to circumvent security features.
Using the TPM is not without controversy, however. The module has raised privacy concerns, and has been criticised because it could be used to enforce digital rights management technologies.
Gartner also advised enterprises to continue with purchasing plans for Apple hardware, but warned that managers should "consider delaying software purchases until vendors offer a clear roadmap for upgrades to Intel-compatible versions".
Sales of Apple computers typically drop prior to the launch of a new product as users delay purchases to get their hands on the new model.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2137787/security-chip-block-non-macs
OT, OS X to use TPM...
Security chip to limit OS X to Macs
Apple looking to keep operating system from running on third-party hardware
Tom Sanders in California, vnunet.com 13 Jun 2005
Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.
The TPM is an open industry standard governed by the Trusted Computing Group, a non-profit organisation which develops security standards.
The chip is used to securely store and encrypt information. Because each chip has a unique identifier code, it could also be used to distinguish a Mac computer from a model made by Dell or any other Windows vendor.
Apple revealed last week that it is to switch from IBM's Power PC architecture to Intel's x86 models. The first Intel computers are expected to be available before June 2006 and Apple's entire product line will have switched architectures by 2007, the company said at its annual World Wide Developers Conference.
With Macs and Windows machines sharing the same hardware platform, users could theoretically install any software on the PCs, running Windows on a Mac or OS X on a Dell.
But Apple has stated that it would prevent users from installing OS X on non-Mac hardware.
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, saying that the company it is not yet ready to reveal product specifications.
A spokeswoman for the TPG confirmed to vnunet.com that there is nothing preventing Apple from implementing the module.
Vendors of enterprise desktop and laptop computers, including Dell, HP and IBM/Lenovo, are already using the TPM. IBM, for instance, uses the chip securely to store user passwords and encrypt the contents of the hard drive.
The upcoming Longhorn version of Windows relies on the TPM for a technology dubbed Secure Startup, which blocks access to the computer if the content of the hard drive is compromised. This prevents a laptop thief swapping out the hard drive, or booting the system from a floppy disk to circumvent security features.
Using the TPM is not without controversy, however. The module has raised privacy concerns, and has been criticised because it could be used to enforce digital rights management technologies.
Gartner also advised enterprises to continue with purchasing plans for Apple hardware, but warned that managers should "consider delaying software purchases until vendors offer a clear roadmap for upgrades to Intel-compatible versions".
Sales of Apple computers typically drop prior to the launch of a new product as users delay purchases to get their hands on the new model.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2137787/security-chip-block-non-macs
8K
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
One June 7, 2005, Patriot Scientific Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), entered into a Master Agreement (the "Master Agreement") by and
among the Company, Technology Properties Limited Inc., a California corporation
("TPL") and Charles H. Moore, an individual ("Moore" and together with the
Company and TPL, the "Parties"). The Parties are parties to certain lawsuits
filed by the Company alleging infringement (the "Infringement Litigation") of
certain microprocessor science and design patents ("Patents") and a lawsuit
filed by the Company alleging claims for declaratory judgment for determination
and correction of inventorship of the Patents (the "Inventorship Litigation").
The transactions described in the Master Agreement and related agreements (the
"Transactions") form a part of the settlement or dismissal of the Inventorship
Litigation.
Pursuant to the Master Agreement the Parties have agreed as follows:
o The Company entered into a patent license agreement (the "Intel
License") with Intel Corporation ("Intel") pursuant to which the
Company licensed certain rights in the Patents to Intel.
o The Company and TPL will cause certain of their respective interests
in the Patents to be licensed to a limited liability company that
will be owned 50% by the Company and 50% by TPL (the "JV LLC").
o The JV LLC will engage TPL to commercialize the Patents pursuant to
a Commercialization Agreement among the JV LLC, TPL and the Company
(the "Commercialization Agreement").
o The Company will pay a total of at least $1 million and TPL will pay
a total of $1 million to certain holders of rights in the Patents
("Rights Holders") in exchange for the consent of such Rights
Holders to the Transactions.
o The Parties will settle all or cause to be dismissed all litigation
among them pursuant to a stipulated final judgment, including the
Inventorship Litigation.
o The Company will issue warrants to TPL to acquire shares of the
Company's common stock. 1,400,000 warrants will be exercisable upon
issue; 700,000 warrants will be exercisable if the Company's common
stock trades at $.50 per share; an additional 700,000 warrants will
be exercisable if the Company's common stock trades at $.75 per
share; and an additional 700,000 warrants will be exercisable if the
Company's common stock trades at $1.00 per share.
The Parties have agreed to indemnify each other for, among other things, any
inaccuracy or misrepresentation of any representation or warranty contained in
the Master Agreement, any breach of the Master Agreement, certain liabilities
relating to the Parties' respective interests in the Patents and the
Transactions, and certain tax liabilities.
The conditions to the closing of the Transactions under the Master Agreement
include the selection of one independent manager and business plan for the JV
LLC, the disbursal by Intel of all unpaid milestone payments under a license
agreement between TPL and Intel into an escrow account, and the settlement or
dismissal of the Inventorship Litigation.
On June 7, 2005, in connection with the Master Agreement, the Company entered
into the Commercialization Agreement ("Commercialization Agreement") by and
among the JV LLC, TPL and the Company. Pursuant to the Commercialization
Agreement, the JV LLC has granted to TPL the exclusive right to grant licenses
and sub-licenses of the Patents and to pursue claims against violators of the
8-K 3rd Page of 5 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 3rd
Patents, in each case, on behalf of JV LLC, the Company, TPL and Moore, and TPL
has agreed to use reasonable best efforts to commercialize the Patents in
accordance with mutually agreed business plans. Pursuant to the
Commercialization Agreement, the JV LLC shall reimburse TPL's expenses incurred
in connection with the commercialization of the Patents. All proceeds generated
by TPL in connection with the commercialization of the Patents shall be paid
directly to the JV LLC. The Commercialization Agreement continues through the
useful life of the Patents, which is defined as the greater of the period of
time when any of the Patents are no longer subject to legal protection or such
Patents are reasonably perceived to have commercial value.
On June 7, 2005, in connection with the Master Agreement, the Company and TPL
entered into the Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of the JV LLC
("LLC Agreement"). The Company and TPL will each own 50% of the membership
interests of JV LLC, and will each have the right to appoint one member of the
three (3) member management committee. The two (2) appointees will select a
mutually acceptable third member of the management committee. Pursuant to the
LLC Agreement, the Company and TPL will each contribute to the working capital
of the JV LLC (in addition to the Patent licenses described above), and are
obligated to make future contributions in equal amounts in order to maintain a
working capital fund. The LLC Agreement provides that the JV LLC shall indemnify
its members, managers, officers and employees to the fullest extent permitted by
applicable law, for any liabilities incurred as a result of their involvement
with the Company, if the person seeking indemnification acted in good faith and
in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the JV LLC.
In connection with the execution of the Master Agreement, the Company entered
into Waiver and Consent Agreements with six individuals holding warrants to
acquire shares of the Company's Common Stock and Waiver, Consent and Release
agreements with two entities holding warrants to acquire shares of the Company's
Common Stock. Pursuant to these Agreements,
(i) The Company agreed to pay the warrant holders $2,327,651 through the escrow
established under the Master Agreement;
(ii) All of the warrant holders consented to the transaction described in the
Master Agreement, and the entities holding warrants agreed to amend their rights
with regard to those warrants to eliminate their lien rights, warrant redemption
rights, and right of first refusal rights;
(iii) One of the entity warrant holders agreed to reconvey warrants to acquire
12,000,000 shares to the Company; and
(iv) Warrants held by one of the entity warrant holders will be repriced at a
lower price.
The parties have executed and filed a stipulated final judgment in the
Inventorship Litigation which provides for dismissal of the Company's third
amended complaint and final judgment in favor of TPL and Mr. Moore on their
counterclaims.
Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(c) Exhibits.
* 10.40 Master Agreement, dated as of June 7, 2005, by and among the
Company, Technology Properties Limited Inc., a California
corporation and Charles H. Moore, an individual.
* 10.41 Commercialization Agreement dated as of June 7, 2005 by and among
the JV LLC, Technology Properties Limited Inc., a California
corporation, and the Company.
* 10.42 Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of JV LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, dated as of June 7, 2005.
8-K 4th Page of 5 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 4th
10.43 Form of Waiver, Consent, and Release Agreement with Lincoln Ventures
10.44 Form of Waiver, Consent, and Release Agreement with Swartz Private
Equity
10.45 Form of Waiver, Consent and Release - Victor Gabourel.
10.46 Form of Waiver, Consent and Release - James Zolin.
10.47 Form of Waiver, Consent and Release - Dan Nunes.
10.48 Form of Waiver, Consent and Release - Stan Caplan.
10.49 Form of Waiver, Consent and Release - Wayne Opperman.
10.50 Form of Waiver, Consent and Release - Richard Daniel.
99.1 Press release, dated June 7, 2005 (furnished pursuant to Item 7.01).
* Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of these
Exhibits.
8-K Last Page of 5 TOC 1st Previous Next Bottom Just 5th
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf of the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
(Registrant)
Date: June 14, 2005 By: /s/ David H. Pohl
-----------------------------------
David H. Pohl, President
http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.zyHk.htm
Bring on 'helpfulbacteria'. eom
OT or not(?) AP---Apple Chip Switch Opens New World for Macs
[bolds are mine]
Saturday June 11, 2:04 am ET
By Greg Sandoval and Matthew Fordahl, AP Technology Writers
Apple's Chip Switch to Intel Could Open New Window for Macs After Likely Rocky Transition
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In the late 1990s, Apple Computer Inc. ran TV ads mocking the Intel Corp. chips in rival Windows-based PCs: The Pentium II glued to a snail and the toasted bunny suit were supposed to suggest that Apple's Macintosh computers were simply faster.
How times have changed. Apple CEO Steve Jobs warmly embraced Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini this week as they announced that Macs will switch to chips built by the same company that has made a fortune selling the hardware that powers PCs running Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system.
Though the transition is likely to be rocky at first for Apple, programmers and customers, the move could lead to Macs that are both more competitive and more compatible with Windows. It could even open the Mac to software titles now available only to Windows users.
At the same time, Apple would retain as much control as it wants over its software and brand.
Beyond the future performance and energy efficiency improvements Intel has promised, Apple could deploy an Intel security scheme that could allow Apple to keep its operating system locked to Macs. Apple also could tap a separate Intel technology that lets multiple operating systems run efficiently on a single chip.
Such advances could be critical for Apple, which has gained a reputation for building innovative and stylish machines that run Apple's own, acclaimed Mac OS X operating system. By not allowing clones, as are common in the Windows world, Apple can still charge a premium and differentiate itself.
After all, the microprocessor may be the brain of a computer, but the soul is provided by the software, which Apple has said will continue to be locked to its systems.
Apple's business model of selling its own computers and operating system stems from 1970s, when Jobs and friend Steve Wozniak were pioneering the personal computer industry from a Silicon Valley garage. At the time, a fledgling company then-called Micro-Soft was just getting started.
That changed in the early 1980s, when International Business Machines Corp. rushed to put out a personal computer that could compete against Apple. Big Blue integrated hardware and software from other companies -- namely, Intel and Microsoft -- into its systems.
IBM famously failed to stop competitors from copying its PC. A healthy IBM clone industry grew, fueled by the support of software developers, who saw the huge business opportunity in the volume of clone PCs being purchased.
Apple continued to sell systems based on non-Intel processors and its own software. Even in 1984, when it launched the first Mac, it stuck with Motorola chips and its own software.
In the 1990s, Motorola and Apple joined forces with IBM, which by then long realized it had lost control of the PC, to build the more powerful PowerPC microprocessor to do battle with WinTel.
But Apple's market share continued to slide. Corporations and consumers embraced Windows-based systems because they could run more programs. Software developers loved WinTel because it guaranteed a huge market.
Apple became the niche player it is today, with just 2.3 percent of the worldwide market, according to the latest figures from the research firm IDC.
Still, Jobs managed to continue marketing the Mac as the Porsche of the PC industry.
But IBM and Motorola, which last year spun off its chip business into Freescale Semiconductor Inc., haven't been able to give Apple what it needs. Freescale's G4 has seen only incremental improvements in performance while IBM's G5 runs too hot for notebook computers.
And so Jobs went chip hunting.
Intel promises Apple fast, energy-efficient chips, manufacturing reliability and possibly even lower prices.
Apple could lose control of its operating system when it starts using next year the same hardware that powers the Windows world.
That's where the new technologies come into play and why Apple is so willing to make a move.
Intel has been touting a hardware-based security plan called LaGrande Technology as a way to keep systems secure by locking data with a key that's embedded in a hardware chip.
But LaGrande also could be used to ensure that certain software only runs on permitted machines, such as Mac OS X only running on systems built by Apple.
"You can tie the serial number of the software with the hardware ID, and say these things go together and shall never be separate," said Roger Kay, an analyst at IDC.
But there's a much bigger opportunity for Apple beyond faster, more efficient chips. Though it will prevent Mac OS X from leaking non-Apple PCs, it could allow Apple systems to run Windows -- and its universe of programs -- at full speed. Currently, running Windows programs on Macs requires emulators that slow down performance.
"It seems to me that Jobs is putting himself in the sights of Bill Gates," said Don Yachtman, a Salt Lake City-based software developer. "Microsoft may act like they don't care about Apple's move to Intel but you never know until they launch an attack."
But Microsoft isn't likely to complain. After all, Apple or its customers would still have to buy a copy of Windows.
Nonetheless, Apple faces technical and psychological hurdles in the near term.
"I'm sure some of Apple's loyal customer base see this as a sellout," said Tim Deal, senior analyst with Technology Business Research. "These users supported this niche, boutique player for years and this agreement with Intel removes a very important difference between a Mac and a PC."
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050611/apple_chips.html?.v=2
Switch to Mozilla, Camino, or Safari. IE is the problem.
awk, why is the notion of "an end-around-run on Microsoft" science fiction?
Do you think MSFT has been living up to its obligations in protecting its users?
rwk...I find it...
... groovy, baby.
awk, I certainly defer to your insights, knowledge, and wisdom.
However, I wonder how often "science fiction" has become reality?
After all, haven't you ever wondered why if trusted computing is so huge with all the revenue potential that MSFT has not rushed to embrace it instead of delay after delay? And, haven't you ever wondered why Intel decided to go it alone without MSFT?
Trusted computing is about the platform (Grawock) and adding new value to that realestate. Let me explain.
If you have the opportunity to build a house on a lot that is 1 acre X 1 acre, and you only occassionally get to sell it, wouldn't it be wiser to own a multi-story apartment building with recurring revenues from turning over each apartment with the lock on each door that when turned brings in revenues?
One door on a single house on the piece of land, or multiple locks on multiple doors on that same piece of land?
Intel is a real-estate company with their motherboards. I think their 'go-it-alone' with trusted computing is about capturing the value of the realestate, while bringing a very needed number of services to the customer - namely security and services.
Just my thoughts as I drill back down into my world.
unixguy, I'll let them speak for themselves and you can argue with them. Please note the x86 reference as well...
Darwin
Apple's open source projects allow developers to customize and enhance key Apple software. Through the open source model, Apple engineers and the open source community collaborate to create better, faster and more reliable products for our users.
Beneath the appealing, easy-to-use interface of Mac OS X is a rock-solid foundation that is engineered for stability, reliability, and performance. This foundation is a core operating system commonly known as Darwin. Darwin integrates a number of technologies, most importantly Mach 3.0, operating-system services based on 4.4BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution), high-performance networking facilities, and support for multiple integrated file systems.
Darwin 8.1 Source Code Posted
The sources for Darwin 8.1, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.4.1, are available for download. [May 16 2005]
Darwin 8.0.1 Installer CD
The Darwin 8.0.1 Installer CD is available. Darwin 8.0.1 corresponds to the open source core of Mac OS X 10.4 and is available at the following URLs:
For PowerPC:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/images/darwinppc-801.cdr.gz
http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/8.0.1/darwinppc-801.cdr.gz
MD5 (darwinppc-801.cdr.gz) = fe85def148896f76b00a753687d99144
For x86:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/images/darwinx86-801.iso.gz
http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/8.0.1/darwinx86-801.iso.gz
MD5 (darwinx86-801.iso.gz) = dbd260dda994093a11c31afbe624aa34
The source code for Darwin 8.0.1 is available via the web. For more information, please see the Release Notes.
Darwin 8.0 Source Code Posted
The sources for Darwin 8.0, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.4, are available for download. [Apr 29 2005]
Darwin 7.9 Source Code Posted
The sources for Darwin 7.9, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.3.9, are available for download. [Apr 15 2005]
Creating Cross-Platform Applications with Core Foundation and Open Source
Core Foundation "Lite" provides data types and services across a range of platforms. Read this article to learn how to import and export data types with CF-Lite. [Apr 11 2005]
Introduction to MPI Distributed Programming With Mac OS X
Mac OS X is a great platform for multi-processor solutions. Read this article to learn how to use MPI on Mac OS X to create tightly coupled, distributed algorithms to run on multiple computers. [Feb 14 2005]
Darwin 7.8 Source Code Posted
The sources for Darwin 7.8, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.3.8, are available for download. [Feb 9 2005]
Configuring and Running X11 Applications on Mac OS X
X11 (the X Window System) is a widely-used graphical user interface on UNIX. Read this article to learn how to set up and use X11 applications on your Mac OS X system. [Jan 17 2005]
Darwin 7.7 Source Code Posted
The sources for Darwin 7.7, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.3.7, are available for download. [Dec 15 2004]
Optimizing Your Application with Shark 4
The newest version of Shark includes powerful new features such as data mining and Java support. Learn how using Shark 4 can help you dramatically improve performance in your application. [Nov 08 2004]
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger: Developer Overview
The next version of Mac OS X is loaded with powerful new features, APIs, and frameworks that bring new and interesting opportunities for developers. [Oct 19 2004]
Writing Open Directory Plug-ins
With Open Directory your application can locate and manage information about users and other resources in your existing network infrastructure. Read this article to learn how to write Open Directory plug-ins that take advantage of this capability. [Sept 13 2004]
Developing Cross-Platform UNIX Applications with Mac OS X
Mac OS X makes it easy to develop applications then deploy them to other flavors of UNIX. This article discusses tools and techniques for developing code on Mac OS X for deploying on other UNIX platforms. [Aug 30 2004]
Installing the W3C Validator on Mac OS X
Create your own validator to test web pages within your firewall. Read this article to download the open-source files, and use Fink, OpenSP and Perl modules to make a validator that works for you. [Jul 19 2004]
The GNU Compiler Collection on Mac OS X
Knowing the open-source tools GCC and GDB is useful in developing on Mac OS X. Read this article to learn about these tools, and the enhancements and options specific to Mac OS X. [July 12 2004]
June 2004 ADC Reference Library Update
A collection of ADC Reference Library Documentation is now available as a PDF Download Package. All ADC members can download this package from "Download Software - Reference Library". See the ADC Reference Library Revision List for a list of all new and updated Documentation, Release Notes, Sample Code, Technical Notes, and Technical Q&As. [Jun 28 2004]
A/G BLAST 2.2.9 now available
We are pleased to announce that Apple/Genentech BLAST has been updated to correspond to NCBI BLAST 2.2.9. The new A/G BLAST is optimized for use with the Power PC G4 and PowerPC G5 processors, including vectorization and other algorithmic enhancements. Visit Apple's Advanced Computation Group page for details, or the A/G BLAST project page to download the source code and binary versions. [Jun 04 2004]
Technical Resources
Darwin Source Code
The sources for Darwin are available for download.
ADC Reference Library
The ADC Reference Library is a key developer support tool. It integrates the core ADC technical resources — Documentation, Technical Notes, Sample Code, Release Notes, and Technical Q&As — and adds a highly functional interface that supports filtering, sorting, and browsing. The Getting Started with Darwin document provides a guided introduction and learning path for developers new to Darwin.
Darwin 8 Preview Source Code Posted
Selected sources for the WWDC 2004 Developer Preview are available for download.
HeaderDoc 8 Public Beta with MPGL
HeaderDoc 8 is the next generation of HeaderDoc, a tool for generating documentation from comments embedded in headers and source code.
HeaderDoc 8 adds many new features, including a new (optional) tagless syntax, code coloring, template-based index pages, improved error checking, man page output, and support for many new languages, including Java, JavaScript, Perl, PHP shell scripts, and Pascal.
HeaderDoc 8 also adds support for the Man Page Generation Language (MPGL), an XML dialect you can use to easily author well-formatted man pages. In addition to generating man pages from HeaderDoc content, HeaderDoc 8 also includes tools for converting MPGL files into man pages using the BSD mdoc macros.
Darwin 7.0.1 Installer CD
The Darwin 7.0.1 Installer CD will boot and install Darwin on Macintosh computers supported by Mac OS X 10.3, as well as certain x86-based personal computers. The version of Darwin installed by this CD corresponds to the open source core of Mac OS X 10.3 and is available at the following URLs:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/images/darwin-701.iso.gz
http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/7.0.1/darwin-701.iso.gz
MD5 (darwin-701.iso.gz) = 57e9cb37e9595436596b2fa5975d5569
The source code for Darwin 7.0.1 is available via the web. For more information, please see the Release Notes.
Darwin 7.0 Source Code
The sources for Darwin 7.0, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.3, are available for download. The CVS repository has been updated for gcc, gdb, cups, efax, gimp-print, tcl, Bonjour, StreamingServer, and HeaderDoc.
Mac OS X for UNIX Users Technology Brief (PDF)
This PDF download is an overview of Panther technologies, with a specific focus on Darwin, the Open Source, BSD-based core of Mac OS X. This document is intended for developers, researchers, system administrators, and others interested in the UNIX underpinnings of Mac OS X.
Apple Public Source License Version 2.0
The 2.0 version of the Apple Public Source License improves upon the OSI-approved APSL 1.2 by conforming to the definition of Free Software Licenses, as certified by the Free Software Foundation. APSL 2.0 is also being submitted to the Open Source Initiative to certify its continued compliance with the Open Source Definition.
Apple ID APSL Registration
The Darwin team is now using Apple IDs to indicate acceptance of the terms of the Apple Public Source License 2.0. Now the same Apple ID you use for Apple Developer Connection, the Knowledge Base, the Apple Store, the iTunes Music Store, or your .Mac account may be used to view and download APSL-licensed Darwin source code. Additionally, you may update your contact information via myinfo.apple.com or request a reminder for your password from iforgot.apple.com. If you don't already have an Apple ID, please obtain one at signin.apple.com by clicking the "New Account" button.
Also, access to the CVS repository has been updated.
Working with Open Source Projects
Before you start working with open source projects, please read and familiarize yourself with the licensing terms that apply to that project.
For access to Apple-developed open source projects, you will need to register as a member of the Apple open source community by accepting the Apple Public Source License and choosing a user name and password. Non-Apple third party open source projects can be accessed without such registration.
Kernel Programming
A guide to programming in the Mac OS X (Darwin) kernel (under development).
Kernel Extensions Tutorials
Information on creating and debugging kernels.
Choose your language:
* Simplified Chinese
* French
* German
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
Apple and Intel to merge?
Apple's Decision to Use Intel Processors Is Nothing Less Than an Attempt to Dethrone Microsoft. Really.
By Robert X. Cringely
The crowd this week in San Francisco at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference seemed mildly excited by the prospect of its favorite computer company turning to Intel processors. The CEO of Adobe asked why it had taken Apple so long to make the switch? Analysts on Wall Street were generally positive, with a couple exceptions. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE!? Are these people drunk on Flav-r-Ade? Yes. It is the legendary Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field at work. And this time, what's behind the announcement is so baffling and staggering that it isn't surprising that nobody has yet figured it out until now.
Apple and Intel are merging.
Let's take a revisionist look at the Apple news, asking a few key questions. The company has on its web site a video of the speech, itself, which is well worth watching. It's among this week's links.
Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
This is the Altivec Factor -- PowerPC's dedicated vector processor in the G4 and G5 chips that make them so fast at running applications like Adobe Photoshop and doing that vaunted H.264 video compression. Apple loved to pull Phil Schiller onstage to do side-by-side speed tests showing how much faster in real life the G4s and G5s were than their Pentium equivalents. Was that so much BS? Did Apple not really mean it? And why was the question totally ignored in this week's presentation?
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed?
Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).
So is 64-bit really nothing to Apple? And why did they make such a big deal about it in their earlier marketing?
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board? Apple and AMD makes far more sense than Apple and Intel any day.
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
This is the biggest question of all, suggesting Steve Jobs has completely forgotten about Adam Osborne. For those who don't remember him, Osborne was the charismatic founder of Osborne Computer, makers of the world's first luggable computer, the Osborne 1. The company failed in spectacular fashion when Adam pre-announced his next model, the Osborne Executive, several months before it would actually ship. People who would have bought Osborne 1s decided to wait for the Executive, which cost only $200 more and was twice the computer. Osborne sales crashed and the company folded. So why would Steve Jobs -- who knew Adam Osborne and even shared a hot tub with him (Steve's longtime girlfriend back in the day worked as an engineer for Osborne) -- pre-announce this chip change that undercuts not only his present product line but most of the machines he'll be introducing in the next 12 to 18 months?
Is the guy really going to stand up at some future MacWorld and tout a new Mac as being the world's most advanced obsolete computer?
This announcement has to cost Apple billions in lost sales as customers inevitably decide to wait for Intel boxes.
Apple's stated reason for pre-announcing the shift by a year is to allow third-party developers that amount of time to port their apps to Intel. But this makes no sense. For one thing, Apple went out of its way to show how easy the port could be with its Mathematica demonstration, so why give it a year? And companies typically make such announcements to their partners in private under NDA and get away with it. There was no need to make this a public announcement despite News.com's scoop, which only happened because of the approaching Jobs speech. Apple could have kept it quiet if they had chosen to, with the result that not so many sales would have been lost.
This means that there must have been some overriding reason why Apple HAD to make this public announcement, why it was worth the loss of billions in sales.
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
People "in the know" love this idea, that Hollywood moguls are forcing Apple to switch to Intel because Intel processors have built-in DRM features that will keep us from pirating music and movies. Yes, Intel processors have such features, based primarily on the idea of a CPU ID that we all hated when it was announced years ago so Intel just stopped talking about it. The CPU ID is still in there, of course, and could be used to tie certain content to the specific chip in your computer.
But there are two problems with this argument. First, Apple is already in the music and video distribution businesses without this feature, which wouldn't be available across the whole product line for another two years and wouldn't be available across 90 percent of the installed base for probably another six years. Second, though nobody has ever mentioned it, I'm fairly sure that the PowerPC, too, has an individual CPU ID. Every high end microprocessor does, just as every network device has its unique MAC address.
So while DRM is nice, it probably isn't a driving force in this decision.
Then what is the driving force?
Microsoft.
Here is my analysis based on not much more than pondering the five questions, above, and speaking with a few old friends in the business. I won't say there is no insider information involved, but darned little.
The obvious questions about performance and 64-bit computing come down to marketing. At first, I thought that Steve Jobs was somehow taking up the challenge of making users believe war was peace and hate was love simply to show that he could do it. Steve is such a powerful communicator and so able to deceive people that for just a moment, I thought maybe he was doing this as a pure tour du force -- just because he could.
Nah. Not even Steve Jobs would try that.
The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision. This is simply about business -- BIG business.
Another clue comes from HP, where a rumor is going around that HP selling iPods could turn into HP becoming an Apple hardware partner for personal computers, too.
Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.
Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.
Intel is fed up with Microsoft. Microsoft has no innovation that drives what Intel must have, which is a use for more processing power. And when they did have one with the Xbox, they went elsewhere.
So Intel buys Apple and works with their OEMs to get products out in the market. The OEMs would love to be able to offer a higher margin product with better reliability than Microsoft. Intel/Apple enters the market just as Microsoft announces yet another delay in their next generation OS. By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one).
This scenario works well for everyone except Microsoft. If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft. And if they tuned the OS to take advantage of unique features that only Intel had, they would put AMD back in the box, too. Apple could return Intel to its traditional role of being where all the value was in the PC world. And Apple/Intel could easily extend this to the consumer electronics world. How much would it cost Intel to buy Apple? Not much. And if they paid in stock it would cost nothing at all since investors would drive shares through the roof on a huge swell of user enthusiasm.
That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company.
Remember, you read it here first.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
OT Apple and Intel to merge?
[bolds are mine]
Apple's Decision to Use Intel Processors Is Nothing Less Than an Attempt to Dethrone Microsoft. Really.
By Robert X. Cringely
The crowd this week in San Francisco at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference seemed mildly excited by the prospect of its favorite computer company turning to Intel processors. The CEO of Adobe asked why it had taken Apple so long to make the switch? Analysts on Wall Street were generally positive, with a couple exceptions. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE!? Are these people drunk on Flav-r-Ade? Yes. It is the legendary Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field at work. And this time, what's behind the announcement is so baffling and staggering that it isn't surprising that nobody has yet figured it out until now.
Apple and Intel are merging.
Let's take a revisionist look at the Apple news, asking a few key questions. The company has on its web site a video of the speech, itself, which is well worth watching. It's among this week's links.
Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
This is the Altivec Factor -- PowerPC's dedicated vector processor in the G4 and G5 chips that make them so fast at running applications like Adobe Photoshop and doing that vaunted H.264 video compression. Apple loved to pull Phil Schiller onstage to do side-by-side speed tests showing how much faster in real life the G4s and G5s were than their Pentium equivalents. Was that so much BS? Did Apple not really mean it? And why was the question totally ignored in this week's presentation?
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed?
Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).
So is 64-bit really nothing to Apple? And why did they make such a big deal about it in their earlier marketing?
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board? Apple and AMD makes far more sense than Apple and Intel any day.
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
This is the biggest question of all, suggesting Steve Jobs has completely forgotten about Adam Osborne. For those who don't remember him, Osborne was the charismatic founder of Osborne Computer, makers of the world's first luggable computer, the Osborne 1. The company failed in spectacular fashion when Adam pre-announced his next model, the Osborne Executive, several months before it would actually ship. People who would have bought Osborne 1s decided to wait for the Executive, which cost only $200 more and was twice the computer. Osborne sales crashed and the company folded. So why would Steve Jobs -- who knew Adam Osborne and even shared a hot tub with him (Steve's longtime girlfriend back in the day worked as an engineer for Osborne) -- pre-announce this chip change that undercuts not only his present product line but most of the machines he'll be introducing in the next 12 to 18 months?
Is the guy really going to stand up at some future MacWorld and tout a new Mac as being the world's most advanced obsolete computer?
This announcement has to cost Apple billions in lost sales as customers inevitably decide to wait for Intel boxes.
Apple's stated reason for pre-announcing the shift by a year is to allow third-party developers that amount of time to port their apps to Intel. But this makes no sense. For one thing, Apple went out of its way to show how easy the port could be with its Mathematica demonstration, so why give it a year? And companies typically make such announcements to their partners in private under NDA and get away with it. There was no need to make this a public announcement despite News.com's scoop, which only happened because of the approaching Jobs speech. Apple could have kept it quiet if they had chosen to, with the result that not so many sales would have been lost.
This means that there must have been some overriding reason why Apple HAD to make this public announcement, why it was worth the loss of billions in sales.
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
People "in the know" love this idea, that Hollywood moguls are forcing Apple to switch to Intel because Intel processors have built-in DRM features that will keep us from pirating music and movies. Yes, Intel processors have such features, based primarily on the idea of a CPU ID that we all hated when it was announced years ago so Intel just stopped talking about it. The CPU ID is still in there, of course, and could be used to tie certain content to the specific chip in your computer.
But there are two problems with this argument. First, Apple is already in the music and video distribution businesses without this feature, which wouldn't be available across the whole product line for another two years and wouldn't be available across 90 percent of the installed base for probably another six years. Second, though nobody has ever mentioned it, I'm fairly sure that the PowerPC, too, has an individual CPU ID. Every high end microprocessor does, just as every network device has its unique MAC address.
So while DRM is nice, it probably isn't a driving force in this decision.
Then what is the driving force?
Microsoft.
Here is my analysis based on not much more than pondering the five questions, above, and speaking with a few old friends in the business. I won't say there is no insider information involved, but darned little.
The obvious questions about performance and 64-bit computing come down to marketing. At first, I thought that Steve Jobs was somehow taking up the challenge of making users believe war was peace and hate was love simply to show that he could do it. Steve is such a powerful communicator and so able to deceive people that for just a moment, I thought maybe he was doing this as a pure tour du force -- just because he could.
Nah. Not even Steve Jobs would try that.
The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision. This is simply about business -- BIG business.
Another clue comes from HP, where a rumor is going around that HP selling iPods could turn into HP becoming an Apple hardware partner for personal computers, too.
Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.
Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.
Intel is fed up with Microsoft. Microsoft has no innovation that drives what Intel must have, which is a use for more processing power. And when they did have one with the Xbox, they went elsewhere.
So Intel buys Apple and works with their OEMs to get products out in the market. The OEMs would love to be able to offer a higher margin product with better reliability than Microsoft. Intel/Apple enters the market just as Microsoft announces yet another delay in their next generation OS. By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one).
This scenario works well for everyone except Microsoft. If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft. And if they tuned the OS to take advantage of unique features that only Intel had, they would put AMD back in the box, too. Apple could return Intel to its traditional role of being where all the value was in the PC world. And Apple/Intel could easily extend this to the consumer electronics world. How much would it cost Intel to buy Apple? Not much. And if they paid in stock it would cost nothing at all since investors would drive shares through the roof on a huge swell of user enthusiasm.
That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company.
Remember, you read it here first.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
I am building my position now that the anti-telomerase results are getting coverage in mainstream periodicals.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050528/note12ref.asp
Comments/Info on the Mac X86/Pentium 4 Development system - (revised per request)
" I'm going to keep this brief, so please write me with the questions you have and any tests you want run on one of the dev kits. I will have one of my own next week as well.
First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really.
(I asked about real-world apps - if any were already available in native code-Mike)
All the iLife apps other than iTunes, plus all the other apps that come with the OS are already universal binaries....
They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*. The 660 is a single core processor. However, the engineers said that this chip would not be used in a shipping product and that we need to look at Intel's roadmap for that time to see what Apple will ship.
It uses DDR-2 RAM at 533 MHz. SATA-2. It is using Intel GMA 900 integrated graphics and it supports Quartz Extreme. The Intel 900 doesn't compare favorably to any shipping card from ATi or nVidia. The Apple engineers says the dev kit will work with regular PC graphics cards, but that you need a driver. Apple does not write ANY graphics drivers. They just submit bug reports to ATi/nVidia. So, when we asked where to get drivers for better cards the engineers said "The ATI guys are here." He's right, they've been in the compatibility lab several times.
It has FireWire 400, but not 800. USB 2 as well. USB 2 booting is supported, FireWire booting is not. NetBoot works.
The machines do not have Open Firmware. They use a Phoenix BIOS. That's right, a Mac with a BIOS.
(I asked if the Bios had any tweaks like Memory Timing which is common for many PC motherboards, although Intel OEM motherboards don't usually have any end user tweaks like that.-Mike)
They won't tell us how to get in the BIOS. I'm sure we can figure it out when out dev kits arrive.
They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box.
Rosetta is amazing. (see earlier post on limitations of the Rosetta emulator - it's a G3 emulator basically - will not run Altivec code, etc. and performance isn't going to be as good as native code, but most Mac apps will run on a G3.-Mike) The tests I've run, both app tests and benchmarks, peg it at between a dual 800 MHz G4 and and a dual 2 G5 depending on what you are doing.
(I mentioned to him the limitations of Rosetta (posted below)-Mike)
It's true Rosetta does not support Altivec, but most apps run on a G3, right? Rosetta tells PPC apps that it is a G3. Apps should fall back to their G3 code tree. Everyone I tested did.
The UI tests in Xbench exceed a dual 2.7 by a large margin. (other specific tests are much lower than a G5 per Xbench site results.-Mike)
I've been talking to and watching a lot of devs. There are a lot of apps from big names running in the Compatibility lab already. Some people face more pain, sure, but Jobs wasn't kidding when he said that this transition would be less painful than OS 9 to OS X or 68K to PPC.
Game devs seem optimistic. They see porting Windows/x86 to Mac/x86 as much easier. They look forward to the day they don't have to support PPC.
I was talking to a (game Developer) that said about 1/3 of the process is handling endian issues, the rest is Win32/DirectX. For the next 3-5 years, their job will be harder since they have to port to two processor architectures and most bugs *are* endian related and that they will have a hard time making the PPC versions run as well as the x86 versions.
This transition is not about current P4 vs G5. It is about the future directions of the processor families. Intel is committed to desktop/notebook and server in a big way. Freescale/IBM are chasing the embedded market and console market. Apple would have been in a lurch in 2 years.
Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.
The tested Cell as well. That processor is NOT intended for PC applications. (it was designed for game systems, not as a general use CPU) The lack of out of order execution and ILP control logic creates very poor performance with existing software. Having developers rewrite for cell would have been MUCH more work than reworking for Intel. And that's what this is, you rework your codebase in ALL cases, not rewrite it. "
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
[gasp] I'm really shocked to even imagine that writers are thinking ahead of wavoids on this. I just can't believe it! Does the computer-centrism run that deep? It seems so.
It IS out there. Look at Linux for the roadmap...
[gasp!] say it ain't so!?!??
Yeah - only 1.8% of the market on the PPC. Wait til the OS X comes to the Intel MB. No longer is it 1.8% of the market. It could be a double-digit gainer in months.
iTunes - not 1.8% of the music market. I think its closer to 70% of the music market.
Pixar (MPAA) movies - ?
But what do I know?
Gosh! I totally missed this quote...bolds are mine.
"...will receive certain payments in addition to sharing in future revenues generated by a licensing program exclusively implemented by TPL."
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050607/nytu118.html?.v=12
TPMs, DRM, and security...
http://www.tonymcfadden.net/tpmvendors.html
http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/cs-020722.htm
http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/cs-020722.htm
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/new_tech_and_intel_alliances/new_tech_init/6638...
Finally, why is a TPM of interest to us?
I can name another couple of OEMs now starting to use TPMs...
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/security/partners.html
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/learnmore/learnmore.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~id=...
I wonder if we will see Apple join this now that TPMs are coming into the market on Intel motherboards?
http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org
Now that hardware security is running on INTC motherboards, what computer company is using it that is trying hard to emulate the iPod and the music model?
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/learnmore/learnmore.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&~id=s...
and this link:
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/31251.html
KCMW, a year or two ago I suggested a hardware component for securing the transaction of music and movies. I was not well received. The idea of coupling the DRM with hardware was not politically correct.
You might look at this new Intel motherboards:
http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/rh/
http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/ux/
It would be nice to see a filing on this...
... and anything said here independent of that is purely speculation.
One might expect that with an exclusive that the royalty payments would be a bit higher than non-exclusive.
A question I asked myself...
What would lead PTSC to settle with TPL out of court so 'quickly' since the last ruling?
I think there is something around the corner...
and I find it rather interesting that Nick Tredennick referred to Moore and not Fish. I suspect this release was driven by TPL.
PTSC was in slog mode for years. Now with the litigation gone - its wide open!
From the release:
This ten-patent portfolio contains core building blocks for today's microprocessor implementation and architecture. Editor of the Gilder Technology Report, Dr. Nick Tredennick, named a Fellow of the IEEE for his contributions to microprocessor design, said, "Chuck Moore's architectural insight is impressive. Over fifteen years ago he conceived designs that appear to be fundamental to modern microprocessor design," adding, "it is likely that a broad range of today's microprocessor-based products rely on concepts described in these patents."
Roger Cook, a senior patent litigator with the highly regarded law firm of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, has been instrumental in licensing the portfolio to one of the world's pre-eminent microprocessor manufacturers. Cook said, "This portfolio appears to be a patent litigator's dream."
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050607/nytu118.html?.v=12
The critical thing here is two-fold...
1. Litigation is out of the way;
2. Alliancense is aggressive.
Since TPL already has INTC at the table for a settlement, how long before that is realized? This announcement probably was designed to preceed the INTC licensing agreement.