> > "Bjorn Olsson d...." <bjorn@justingenstans.com> wrote in message > news:bjorn-1B4E91.09140810062005@news1.east.earthlink.net... >> In article <F7OdnSkDpruk2zTfRVn-gA@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.
