If you’ve been following Apple since the early 2000s, you probably remember their transition
from PowerPC to Intel processors that ended in 2006. Steve Jobs actually invited Intel CEO
Paul Otellini onto the stage and they had a two minute long conversation about how much they loved
working with each other, how great their engineers were, and how amazing their technology was.
But here we are fifteen years later, and Intel is hiring former Mac guy
Justin Long to act in commercials denouncing Apple. It’s quite a bizarre turn of events,
and in this video, I’m going to explain exactly how Apple and Intel went from friends to foes.
This is Greg with Apple Explained, and I want to thank Squarespace for sponsoring this video.
If you’d like to help decide which topics I cover, make sure you’re subscribed,
and voting polls like this one will begin appearing in your mobile activity feed.
Alright now Apple and Intel have had a turbulent past, so let’s start from the very beginning,
which would actually be in 1998. That’s when Apple was using PowerPC processors in their Macs,
and they set out to convince customers that Intel’s chips were inferior. As you can see from
this ad featuring an Intel Pentium II chip on the back of a snail, before cutting to a Power Mac G3
seemingly operating at lighting speed. So you could say Apple cast the first stone
in back the 90s. But as the years past, Apple began to realize that while PowerPC chips did
deliver more raw power than Intel’s, they also consumed more energy in the process.
And excessive power consumption became a big problem when it came to battery life on notebooks.
So in 2005, just seven years after releasing that snail ad,
Steve Jobs went on stage and announced Apple’s transition from PowerPC to Intel. With the primary
reason being an increase in performance per watt. Or how much performance the processor can deliver
per one watt of electricity. In his mid 2006 projection, Jobs anticipated PowerPC to deliver
fifteen units of performance per watt, while Intel would deliver seventy. And that huge
leap in efficiency was crucial for Apple to create computers with more compact designs.
So all was forgiven between Apple and Intel, with all their previous drama appearing to be over.
But in the world of technology, nothing stays the same forever. As problems with Intel’s processors
began to creep up over the next decade. You see, in order to create products that was designed to
work with Intel’s latest processors, Apple needed to know what they could expect to be released
several years ahead of time. That way, Apple could prepare something like a MacBook with
the exact specifications needed to achieve its performance and battery life targets.
At first, Intel was able to provide this information reliably, allowing
for incredible products like the MacBook Air in 2008 and even the super compact MacBook in 2015
that was one of the first to utilize Intel's low-power Broadwell Core M processor.
But things took a turn for the worst in 2016. When Intel announced their two year
process technology upgrade cycle, would be extended to three years. Therefore slowing
down the technological advancement of products that used Intel processors.
Products like the 16 inch MacBook Pro and macBook Air, both of which suffered from
overheating and thermal throttling when using the most powerful Intel processor available. This not
only effected performance, but also caused persistent fan noise and poor battery life.
I remember trying to edit video on my 16 inch MacBook Pro and only getting about three and
a half hours of battery life compared to the advertised eleven hours. These were problems that
the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch weren’t having since they ran on Apple’s own custom processors
that were optimized for each product. While Intel was trying to create a one-size fits all solution
that simply didn’t work well in Apple’s super thin notebooks that lacked high thermal capacity. So it
became obvious what needed to be done. Apple had to create a custom chipset for the Mac,
just as it had with every other product, to ensure peak performance and optimization.
Kind’ve like how you want people to have a perfectly optimized experience when visiting
your website. Which is why I designed and built mine with Squarespace. They have a drag and drop
interface that’s so simple even I can use it. Plus, Squarespace automatically optimizes your
website for mobile devices, so you don’t have to waste time creating a desktop and mobile version
of your site. They have built in analytics tools that report page views, traffic sources,
time on site, most read content, and more. You can create an exclusive paid membership area just like
on YouTube, and you can even create an entire e-commerce store to sell physical or digital
products. I actually did that a couple years ago to sell merch and it was way easier than I
imagined. Also, if you Google Apple Explained my website is one of the first results. Thats
because Squarespace has the best search engine optimization tools that’ll make your website more
visible to more people. So go to squarespace.com for a free trial and when you’re ready to launch,
go to squarespace.com/appleexplained to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
Alright now in fall 2020, during an online event, Tim Cook introduced the M1, and he made
some incredibly bold claims about its performance. Not unlike the claims Steve Jobs made about Intel
fifteen years prior. With the M1 delivering the world’s best CPU performance per watt,
at about four times the efficiency of what Apple called, quote, “the latest PC laptop
chip.” Which pointed in the direction of Intel without mentioning them by name.
Now it was because of Tim Cook’s introduction of the M1 chip that prompted Intel to stage a
counter attack. By the way if you’re wondering how Cook became Apple’s CEO in the first place,
I’ll be posting a video soon explaining why so make sure you’re subscribed for that.
But it was important for Intel to minimize the success of the M1 chip as much as possible.
Since over 50% of their entire business depended on selling their chips to computer manufacturers.
So they needed to promote the idea that using ARM technology was a bad idea, since
their own x86 architecture was superior. But the strategy Intel used to try and make this point,
was disingenuous to say the least. They used cherry-picked benchmarks, most of which weren’t
industry standard, to prove that certain tasks like HandBrake transcoding and Adobe Premiere Pro
exporting performed faster on Intel’s processor. They also compared frames per second on certain
video games, where the M1’s average FPS was set to zero, since those games didn’t run on M1. Finally,
they swapped out the MacBook Pro they’d been using to measure these benchmarks when it came to
the battery test. Opting instead for the MacBook Air, since its battery is smaller and would only
beat the Intel i7 by 6 minutes, instead of the MacBook Pro likely beating it by several hours.
But Intel didn’t only use misleading data, they also used misleading ads. For example, this one
that claims, “If you can power a rocket launch and launch Rocket League, you’re not on a Mac.
Go PC.” On Twitter, people responded to the ad by sharing photos of NASA rocket scientists using
Macs. And while there are definitely limitations when it comes to compatibility and things like
support for multiple external displays, ads like this one make some very strange assertions.
Like M1 Macs requiring extra device and gear, while the PC offers form factor choice. Or
PCs having full screen touch while the M1 Mac only has a Touch Bar. These claims don’t even begin to
make sense. Not every Intel PC has a touchscreen, and not every M1 Mac as a Touch Bar. The extra
gear they’re referring to is an iPad, which has a full touch screen and runs on Apple’s own chipset,
just like the M1 Mac. That also means there aren’t form factor limitations since Apple is able to
make all of their products with custom chipsets, in all forms. But perhaps even more ironic is that
both of these claims they make about the M1 Mac, can also be made about today’s Intel-based Macs.
Which goes to show what Intel is really doing here. They’re taking the tangible limitations of
M1, and conflating it with criticisms about the Mac in general. Playing to a
sort’ve “PC master race” group of customers that’ll respond to this type of messaging.
The problem is, this is only the beginning of Intel’s problems.
AMD architecture has only been picking up steam in recent years, and it may have
become even more widespread if not for supply constraints. For the first time in over a decade,
Intel is having their monopolistic position in the processor market challenged, and as
they become more desperate, attacks like these against Apple will only become more frequent.
Alright guys thanks for watching till the end,
and don’t forget to subscribe for an upcoming video explaining how Tim Cook became CEO of Apple.