June 07, 2005
Times, they are a-changin'
God Lord, is this the only theme I'm allowed to write about anymore? Life's transitions, tech's transitions, this blog's transitions. The question is, how do I really feel about these changes? The liberal side of me wants to rejoice. The shadow conservative corners cringe and mutter.
Okay, so the rumors are true, Apple's switching to Intel. I have to admit that I was very apprehensive about this move when I first read about it. As a life-long Apple user, hating Intel has become something like a knee jerk reaction. The switch feels like a sell-out. Worse still, it feels like a short-term solution. Apple needs to get out the 3 gig Powermac. It's not happening with IBM, so they decide to make a complete switch to Intel. Problem solved, only now there's a new problem: dealing with such a major switch.
Okay, that was my mentality going to bed last night. This morning—after a short night's rest—I read Ken's thoughts at kwc.org/blog (Apple/Intel). Here's where the themes of transition and change come in. Apple is evolving here (or devolving, depending on how you look at it). With similar architecture, the question no longer becomes Apple versus PC but OSX versus Windows. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Marklar (the Intel version of OSX) can be run on a PC, right?
If this is the case, then like Sega before them, Apple would be shifting more toward software development, as opposed to computer hardware (those white earbuds will be around for a while). I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it all, but the next year or two will certainly be interesting.
Oh, and I don't think I'll be buying that desktop I was planning on. I'll wait for the dust to settle first.
David Ely at June 7, 2005 11:57 AM
I think that laptops are a big part of the move. IBM just can't get a G5 into a laptop, and it seems like Intel can.
I can't see Apple letting people run Mac OS on non-apple-made machines. They still make tons of money from selling computers, and much of the reason that Macs are so much more reliable than PCs is that they don't have to support myriad combinations of drivers. It is conceivable that we'll be able to run Windows on Macs, though.
end
kwc at June 7, 2005 12:23 PM
Ditto dave.
Hate MS if you must, but it is impressive how many different motherboards/devices they support. Apple chooses the motherboard, the CPU, the memory, etc... and they also only do backwards compatibility when it's convenient. This is probably why Apple can quickly develop new OSes, and I don't see Apple getting bogged down by the variety of PC hardware (even though Marklar was running on a PC). I imagine they will come up with a way to make things "different" so that they don't have to worry about supporting every random-ass PC out there, and to discourage clones.
I wouldn't abandon your desktop purchase. The PowerMacs are Apple's healthiest hardware line right now and are competitive with the equivalent PC -- and you don't have to worry about the cost of emulation. The laptops and mini seem the most likely candidates for 2006, with the PowerMacs updating later (maybe 2007), though that is a W.A.G. In fact, given that the mini is the computer with which to tempt PC users, I would place my money on it first.
end
pqbon at June 7, 2005 03:21 PM
This is just a change of CPU architecture not of bussiness model. Apple has publicly stated that they don't plan on supporting generic PCs.
Actually I wouldn't be suprized to see Apple kill the highend either first or quickly, for a few reasons:
1) The flagship product (the powermac currently) sets the tone. People will be less likely to buy into the technology if it comes from the bottom, this is why most companies refresh from the top or worst case the middle down not from the bottom up. Refreshing from the top isn't the best from a technology standpoint because it means that your middle end will likely be as good as or close to you high because the technology will be better before you get to it... I expect apple will ship either a pentium extreem or Xeon based system first. Or maybe a PowerBook based off the highest end centrino platform(I wonder if they will change the name? I know it was a powerbook before it was PowerPC but the branding of Power may not be what they want...).
2) They are having a lot of problems with the G5. They run hot, are hard to get, and just aren't getting faster fast enough. For a while they had the 64bit benifit even though the software didn't support it but even that is gone.
3) The gross margin apple will be able to get with Intel processors will likely be higher. If they don't adjust their price range, they will make more per system selling Intel highend then they did selling G5s.
My manditory disclaimer:
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel’s position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
end
kwc at June 10, 2005 01:12 AM
ArsTechnica is speculating on a possible timeline for Apple product releases (bottom-up transition):
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars
end