3 ms·

Sure, Intel had to offer something to Apple to make them switch from PowerPC to x86. But you could also argue that Intel's ultra efficient CPUs and chipsets are

Sure, Intel had to offer something to Apple to make them switch from PowerPC to x86. But you could also argue that Intel's ultra efficient CPUs and chipsets are actually a result of the competition from companies like Transmeta. It's not at all obvious that without Apple there would be no utra efficent CPUs. (But without Apple we might well live in a world full of ugly netbooks.)

guptaneil 14y ago
> It's not at all obvious that without Apple there would be no utra efficent CPUs. That's a very slippery argument. It's pretty obvious that without Darwin, there still would have eventually been a theory of evolution (as seen be Alfred Wallace's work), but Darwin gets credit for being first. Similarly, it's not at all obvious that without Dennis Ritchie, there would be no C. I'm sure eventually somebody would have created a similar language, but Ritchie made it happen first, so he deserves credit. Sure, Intel may have eventually come up with ultra-efficient CPUs without Apple, but the point is that Apple helped make it happen. To be clear, I'm not comparing a CPU design to the works of Darwin or Ritchie. I'm simply saying that arguing that an invention would have occurred even without the inventor could be said for anything.
- solarexplorer 14y ago
  I think you got that one wrong. Transmeta happend way before ultrabooks at a time when Apple was still shipping notebooks with a very power hungry G4. Because of Transmeta (and because of a funny thing called the power wall) Intel had to reconsider their entire processor lineup and to start to focus on low power. IBM never produced a low power CPU for Apple, so Apple eventually switched to x86. To claim that Apple coerced Intel to focus on low power is not correct. Just look at the timeline.

3 ms·

Sure, Intel had to offer something to Apple to make them switch from PowerPC to x86. But you could also argue that Intel's ultra efficient CPUs and chipsets are

by solarexplorer 14y ago

guptaneil 14y ago
> It's not at all obvious that without Apple there would be no utra efficent CPUs. That's a very slippery argument. It's pretty obvious that without Darwin, there still would have eventually been a theory of evolution (as seen be Alfred Wallace's work), but Darwin gets credit for being first. Similarly, it's not at all obvious that without Dennis Ritchie, there would be no C. I'm sure eventually somebody would have created a similar language, but Ritchie made it happen first, so he deserves credit. Sure, Intel may have eventually come up with ultra-efficient CPUs without Apple, but the point is that Apple helped make it happen. To be clear, I'm not comparing a CPU design to the works of Darwin or Ritchie. I'm simply saying that arguing that an invention would have occurred even without the inventor could be said for anything.
- solarexplorer 14y ago
  I think you got that one wrong. Transmeta happend way before ultrabooks at a time when Apple was still shipping notebooks with a very power hungry G4. Because of Transmeta (and because of a funny thing called the power wall) Intel had to reconsider their entire processor lineup and to start to focus on low power. IBM never produced a low power CPU for Apple, so Apple eventually switched to x86. To claim that Apple coerced Intel to focus on low power is not correct. Just look at the timeline.