"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.
