Lunar Adventures: exploring a little bit of everything
Blog post [Displaying post and comments]
It went down — Apple switches to Intel
Apple has switched processor chip supplier from IBM PowerPC to Intel. I think Apple has decided that after almost two decades of playing second fiddle, they’re ready to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft, again. Who knows exactly how this will end up playing out — but it will be interesting, and it will change the landscape of personal computing. I just hope my 5 month old iMac G5 isn’t prematurely outdated!
Links to some coverage of the switch:
Engadget:
Live from WWDC: Steve Jobs keynote
Apple goes Intel: It’s true!
TUAW:
WWDC Stevenote MEGAPOST CHATCAST
Editorial: Apple on Intel
Mac Observer:
San Francisco - Live Coverage of Steve Jobs Keynote
CNet:
Apple shakes hands with Intel (various stories)
Mon June 6th, 2005 1:56 pm
13 comments
Leave a comment
Is this going to drive the cost of Apple hardware up even higher? I have no idea what the PowerPC chips cost in comparison to Intel chips, but I do know that Intel chips for PCs are priced at a premium based largely on the Intel name.
I seriously doubt it. I’m not sure what IBM charges for their PowerPC or what Intel charges for their Pentiums (it varies depending on how many you buy), but I doubt Apple would have made this move if it would have been more expensive. Seems quite counter-productive. I’d wager Intel sung a pretty sweet song to get Apple into their stable.
Intel probably wants a larger share of all of their chip-buying; maybe they offered a discount on Pentiums for promising to use Intel semiconductors in stuff like their iPods, wireless mice, etc etc etc? Intel is trying to be a player not just in processors, but in a whole line of semiconductors. Apple is a major player in consumer devices (namely with the iPod line). I could see it happening.
All I know is that I am still getting murdered on their stock, so this better help pull them out of the recent slump they’ve been in. Forecasters aren’t taking too well to the news yet believing that their market is in the ipod business, but I dont buy that considering in a few years mp3 players will be something of the past when cell phones take over. I think there is supposed to be something in Forbes tomorrow predicting the impact this partnership will have on the market.
Eric — Did you buy at the peak of the internet craze? My parents have some stocks like that. Like, bought TI stock at $100 a share, while it’s sitting at $25 a share now. I was doing well today on NFLX, it was up $.55 when I went to lunch, and down .15 when I got back from lunch. Grumble.
As far as Apple’s forecast, I’m looking forward to seeing what Forbes thinks. I don’t think the iPod business is going to take Apple much further — digital music players are becoming a commodity. Competitors all over the place are making mp3 players as good as the iPod, if not better — including things like voice records, FM tuner, etc. (and like you mentioned, the all-in-one device including cell phone).
Which brings up the dark horse of this deal — the built-in DRM in Intel’s chips. Could Apple be banking not on software, not on hardware, but on services like iTunes and iMovies (or whatever else you want to call the theoretical and predicted service to buy movies in an iTunes-like environment)? Maybe Apple needed the Intel DRM to convince movie execs to let them make this service. Could be why Apple ignored AMD in this whole thing — who a lot of people think have better chips, overall, than Intel.
Personally, I think Apple’s stock is underperforming; I’d call it a buy right now. I think it could get up to around $50. If I had the funds right now, I’d buy and see if I could sell in the $45-$50 range, which I think it’ll hit. But I’m no expert. Taking stock tips from me is so not a good idea.
Yeah, it is definitely a buy right now, but I am antsy. The 52 wk low on Apple is 14.37 which means you could have easily doubled your money and the 1 yr target is around 50 so tripling your funds wouldn’t be out of question.
Imovies, if you will, certainly will be one of the next biggest crazes and you might be on to something with your prediction. However, the movie folks on the hill supposedly aren’t going to roll over as easily as the record labels did, and they didn’t really roll over very easily for that matter. For some reason, I think people get the sense that movies have a more intrinsic value then music. Maybe it is because they are longer than 4 minutes, maybe they identify with the actors more, who knows, but I don’t think the movie industry will go the same way music did.
I wish I’d have bought at 14.37… talk about a bargain! If only we’d always know what the low was going to be…
True, movie studios put hundreds of millions into their blockbusters, as opposed to a record company putting a few million into a release. That might have something to do with the “value.” I think Apple agrees with you, and is hoping that hardware-based DRMs will convince movie-makers it’s safe, it’ll make everyone money, and we can all have cherries on our sundaes.
Software based DRM doesn’t do much — it took hackers about 5 minutes to figure out how to strip the DRM information out of an mp3/aac file. I think moviemakers are probably thinking, “OK, prove to us hardware-based DRMing is truly safe. Show us one anti-piracy measure that has actually worked.”
DRM? Easily stripped out. Microsoft required registration? Disabled. Physical USB “dongles” that have to be plugged in for software to work? Emulated.
Apple’s going to have to prove hackers can’t beat hardware DRM before the moviemakers will get on board, I think. I hear hackers trying to get around the latest PSP bios that doesn’t allow outside programs to be run (BIOS 1.0 lets you install Linux, emulated, and whatever else you want) are having trouble getting past the latest. So we’ll see.
I’d love to see iMovies. I think it’d rock. But I’m also not a real big fan of really tight DRM. I think there are a lot of legal (and if not legal, at morally OK — like not stealing. for example, my Polyphonic Spree CD got scratched. I don’t want to buy another copy. I’m going to download a copy.) reasons to copy your music and movies.
You break your tv…you buy another one or steal an identical from the store?
Grunt. Point taken. Out of curiosity, do you live by the maxim? If so, I’m impressed.
I hate it when you two fight. Can’t we all just get along? TV’s and songs are different. They don’t distribute TV’s via radiowaves. You can’t make copies of TV’s onto a CD once you own the original TV. Essentially, songs are information and TV’s are products. I’m not saying information shouldn’t have a price, but once you own it, it’s very counter-intuitive to lose ownership of it due to mechanical failure.
Ah, our friend intelluctual property vs. physical property. It is apples and oranges, and also oranges and pears, but also oranges and oranges. You make a good argument. I don’t know what side to fall on. I’m going to sit on my fence for a while and see how it plays out. This is not a comfortable perch.
Intellectual property is just as valuable as any physical property, this is why there are lawyers who spend their entire time in law school and their professional life learning intellectual property laws because of these common misconceptions. Everything that goes into making a tv also occurs with a song. You got the people who find the artist, the artist themselves, the recording engineers, the people who own the studios, the people who make the CDs, the people who ship the CDs, and ultimately the people who sell the CDs all counting on you for your support. This is why music isn’t “information,” it is just as much a product as anything else. Also, (not that you implied this) it doesn’t boil down to, “well, the artist is so rich that it doesn’t matter I’m stealing music” because an entire industry is relying on you. Over 30 percent of this business has been laid off in the last 4 years and not only does this affect families, but also it affects your music. Less money going round means less money being spent on bands. If Bruce Springsteen had been around in the year 2000 he would have never made it because now you get one album and you’re out.
Finally, yes you do have the right to copy your songs onto another CD once you own it as is governed by the Fair Use laws, but you don’t have the right to copy it from someone else. Buy a Polyphronic Spree CD and copy it to your hearts content, but once you lose all the copies you are essentially out of luck.
Here lies the problem though with regulating the P2P networks. Is it legal for you to copy the music onto your harddrive (ultimately “fair use”) and then have someone download it from your harddrive unbeknownst to you? That is the cutting edge question of cyber law, and I don’t have the answer.
I think if someone downloads it from you, it should still be your responsibility. If you don’t know how to use the P2P software to keep things from happening that you don’t know about, you shouldn’t use it.
Of course, I believe ignorance is a defense in court. Which is silly, but that’s another story.
I have to admit to getting prereleases off the P2Ps — it drives me nuts to know a CD I want is out there and I can get it right now or wait 2 weeks. After 2 weeks and the CD comes out I do buy the CD (unless the album sucked), which brings out the whole “try it out and return it if you don’t like it!” idealogy that a lot of people use as a defense for P2P. Not that I really believe in that ideology, but at the same time, condemning it would be hypocritical, as I’ve done it.
I like the subscription-based services in theory, but not wholly in practice. First off, there isn’t one that works with iPods. That’s most of your portable music market gone right off the bat. (I have an iPod.) Secondly, I hate the concept that if I decide Napster sucks and Yahoo! Music rocks and I switch, I lose every penny of the $15/mo x 12 months/yr investment. I realize that that’s one of the reasons they can afford to do the subscriptions so cheaply, but I don’t really like it. Yahoo! lets you have a copy that you can burn to CD, but it’s $1.20 per song. So I can’t even take the music in the car.
I’d like to see an iTunes/Napster hybrid. Pay a subscription, and then pay a bit of a premium to have full rights to a song for burning, playing on whatever player you want, etc. But not $1.20 per song. $0.99 is probably fair, but I’d love to see a “subscriber” discount — like, drop that to $0.80 or something if you have the monthly subscription.
student loans
student loans , that her death resemblances affected with such real sorrow, and with such a harvest-tide moose-run of lo