It seems that Steve Jobs got screwed over by IBM, because IBM didn't care
that much about making the CPUs that Jobs wanted for Macs, because IBM
decided that game consoles were more important. 'IBM Inside' every
next-generation game console: Sony Playstation3 (IBM 'Cell' CPU) Microsoft
Xbox 360 (IBM 'Waternoose' CPU)
Nintendo Revolution (IBM 'Broadway' CPU) which will ensure tens of millions
of IBM CPUs sold every year, compared to maybe 5 million Mac CPUs every
year. even if it was more than 5 million Mac CPUs, it would still almost
certainly be less than 10 million. so it seems that is one of the
major reasons why Apple has hooked up with Intel for CPUs



related article
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars

In article <F7OdnSkDpruk2zTfRVn-gA[at]comcast.com>, <xenon360> wrote:

> It seems that Steve Jobs got screwed over by IBM, because IBM didn't care
> that much about making the CPUs that Jobs wanted for Macs, because IBM
> decided that game consoles were more important. 'IBM Inside' every
> next-generation game console: Sony Playstation3 (IBM 'Cell' CPU) Microsoft
> Xbox 360 (IBM 'Waternoose' CPU)
> Nintendo Revolution (IBM 'Broadway' CPU) which will ensure tens of millions
> of IBM CPUs sold every year, compared to maybe 5 million Mac CPUs every
> year. even if it was more than 5 million Mac CPUs, it would still almost
> certainly be less than 10 million. so it seems that is one of the
> major reasons why Apple has hooked up with Intel for CPUs
>
>
>
> related article
> http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars

This is in tune with what most people have been saying. Your point is?

In article <bjorn-1B4E91.09140810062005[at]news1.east.earthlink.net>,
"Bjorn Olsson d.ä" <bjorn[at]justingenstans.com> wrote:


> > http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
>
> This is in tune with what most people have been saying. Your point is?

That's maybe it's time to terminate comp.sys.mac.powerpc and create comp.sys.mac.intel?

Not that traffic here since the death of PowerOpen was anything to write home about...

--
Sig here...

"Bjorn Olsson d.ä" <bjorn[at]justingenstans.com> wrote in message
news:bjorn-1B4E91.09140810062005[at]news1.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <F7OdnSkDpruk2zTfRVn-gA[at]comcast.com>, <xenon360> wrote:
>
> > It seems that Steve Jobs got screwed over by IBM, because IBM didn't
care
> > that much about making the CPUs that Jobs wanted for Macs, because IBM
> > decided that game consoles were more important. 'IBM Inside' every
> > next-generation game console: Sony Playstation3 (IBM 'Cell' CPU)
Microsoft
> > Xbox 360 (IBM 'Waternoose' CPU)
> > Nintendo Revolution (IBM 'Broadway' CPU) which will ensure tens of
millions
> > of IBM CPUs sold every year, compared to maybe 5 million Mac CPUs every
> > year. even if it was more than 5 million Mac CPUs, it would still
almost
> > certainly be less than 10 million. so it seems that is one of the
> > major reasons why Apple has hooked up with Intel for CPUs
> >
> >
> >
> > related article
> > http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
>
> This is in tune with what most people have been saying. Your point is?

I doubt IBM gets as much per CPU in game consoles as they do for regular
PCs. You can sell them per thousand for up to 1000 USD in PCs. It's
probably $100 tops for game consoles and likely much less than that. Yeah,
it's a great deal for them, but the likely revenue stream isn't as great as
the previous poster made it seem. If Intel sold 10 million Mac CPU units,
it may very well offset any loss of the X-Box when they practically gave
away the P-III.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:16:32 -0600, Judd wrote:

>
> "Bjorn Olsson d.ä" <bjorn[at]justingenstans.com> wrote in message
> news:bjorn-1B4E91.09140810062005[at]news1.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <F7OdnSkDpruk2zTfRVn-gA[at]comcast.com>, <xenon360> wrote:
>>
>> > It seems that Steve Jobs got screwed over by IBM, because IBM didn't
> care
>> > that much about making the CPUs that Jobs wanted for Macs, because IBM
>> > decided that game consoles were more important. 'IBM Inside' every
>> > next-generation game console: Sony Playstation3 (IBM 'Cell' CPU)
> Microsoft
>> > Xbox 360 (IBM 'Waternoose' CPU)
>> > Nintendo Revolution (IBM 'Broadway' CPU) which will ensure tens of
> millions
>> > of IBM CPUs sold every year, compared to maybe 5 million Mac CPUs every
>> > year. even if it was more than 5 million Mac CPUs, it would still
> almost
>> > certainly be less than 10 million. so it seems that is one of the
>> > major reasons why Apple has hooked up with Intel for CPUs
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > related article
>> > http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
>>
>> This is in tune with what most people have been saying. Your point is?
>
> I doubt IBM gets as much per CPU in game consoles as they do for regular
> PCs. You can sell them per thousand for up to 1000 USD in PCs. It's
> probably $100 tops for game consoles and likely much less than that. Yeah,
> it's a great deal for them, but the likely revenue stream isn't as great as
> the previous poster made it seem. If Intel sold 10 million Mac CPU units,
> it may very well offset any loss of the X-Box when they practically gave
> away the P-III.

Oh, my! :-0

--
Keith