TMO at WWDC - "Yes, It's True": Apple to Switch to Intel by End of '07
by , 2:10 PM EDT, June 6th, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple Computer will switch from the Power PC chip to Intel's Pentium microprocessor in all its Macintosh PCs by the end of 2007 and plans to deliver models of the Mac using Intel's chips by this time next year, company co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs announced Monday.
Before a packed crowd of software designers at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco, Mr. Jobs announced a decade-long relationship with IBM will come to an end late this year.
"Yes, it's true," Mr. Jobs told developers. "We are going to begin the transition from the Power PC to Intel processors and we are going to begin it for you (developers) now and for our customers next year."
It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years," he said.
Mr. Jobs said the company looked long and hard at the future of the Power PC processor and decided Intel's solutions had a better future.
"We have great products right now, and we've got some great Power PC products still yet to come," he said. "As we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you and we don't know how to build them with the future Power PC road map. And that's why we're going to do this."
Mr. Jobs told the crowd Apple will ship its first Mac with an Intel processor by next June. He also said the complete switch to Intel processors will be complete within two years.
Developers applauded Mr. Jobs when he said that both the Power PC and Intel processors would be supported for some time to come, and the key to having co-processor support was universal binaries.
To convince developers that porting their applications for use in Intel-ready Macs is not only possible, but easier than some might expect, Mr. Jobs asked Wolfram Research CEO Theo Gray to demonstrate its Mathematica software product, which underwent a port in just two hours.
We're talking about 200 lines of code out of millions from a dead cold start where he didn't even know why he was going," Mr. Gray said.
Mr. Jobs said Apple has been working on a Intel-ready version of Mac OS X for the last five years and said, "I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel."
Mr. Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 system. He showed version 10.4.1 of Mac OS X running Apple Mail, Safari, iPhoto, Spotlight and a variety of Dashboard widgets.
To make development and the switch easier for developers, Mr. Jobs described a "dynamic binary translator" called 'Rosetta', which will allow PowerPC compiled applications to work on an Intel-based Mac. He said the emulator is completely transparent, and does not require a separate emulation environment.
Mr. Jobs showed Quicken, Excel and Photoshop, compiled for the Power PC processor, working on an Intel-based Mac, completely transparent, but did not show Intel-compiled apps running on a Power PC-ready Mac.
He said Apple will offer developers a special 3.6GHz, Pentium-based Mac to develop their applications at a special US$999 price. The developer kit will be available sometime in the next two weeks, he said.
Apple played up the 64-bit capabilities of the G5 so much. Will Mactel's be 64-bit ready? Of course, the developer kit will not be, but that doesn't mean the 2006 machines will not. But I'm anxiously awaiting more specifics.
Also, I'm curious about what will prevent cheap Dells from running OS X.
P.S. Yeah, I was wrong about this. I'll be damned.
Now Steve has to convince people that there's a reason to buy a Mac between now and the Intel rollout. I was going to get a new Powermac, and I'm considering making do with my current gear for now instead.
I can't be the only one feeling that way now. So... what's the answer that comforts those who are looking at new macs over the next 12-24 months?
This is going to be very bad for Apple in the short term. Who's going to buy a new PPC Mac knowing that the Intel mac will come out relatively soon?
It's a pure marketing desicsion. 2.7 Ghz G5 approximates a 3.6 Ghz Pentium. To the average customer, why buy a 2.7 GHz computer when you can buy a 3.6 GHz.
Was trying to watch the typed feed via the macosrumors.com website... frustrastingly slow until it stopped working. Surfed over to Mac Observer, and watched a smooth commentary of the keynote session. Good work guys!
As you say... You'll get your Mac news here from now on.
Looks like the self-appointed Mac experts like Daring Fireballs and Bryan Chaffin were completely wrong about the switch to PC hardware. I've turned out to be the true Mac oracle, always consistent about the Mac being doomed. Closed proprietary hardware was never going to fly. This is the biggest I told you so in the history of computing.
[Edit - RC, don't play pedantic games with my name again. Consider this a warning. - Bryan]
There has been a lot of commentary about this before the Keynote, but the simple fact is that Apple will still make Macs - not PCs. An easy transition (especially when you consider how quick Mathemetica made the transition) and users will probably not even notice the difference . . . unless they own IBM stock.
So what do we have?
OS X, which is the main thing.
Macs will still be a Mac.
MS paying Apple royalties through AIM for using the PPC chip.
After years of being told PPC was a superior architecture (and from the little I've read about the Power4, G5, etc., it would seem to be so - a more progressive design), it seems a terrible shame that IBM can't deliver the performance that they promised a year ago.
I also wonder what the deal is with Sony/MS going with the PPC for their consoles- if PPC's not up to it, why would they?!
I just bought a new machine, a couple weeks ago - it's brand new, top of the line and all. And now it's going to be obsolete *next year*?! Sh*t!! I'm so mad, I don't know what's keeping me from sending it right back and asking for a refund.
Steve went into detail about why the transition will be smooth, but he didn't say too much about why make the change in the first place. Something about power per watt? I was under the impression that Intel didn't have a successful 64 bit processor, and that the Build-your-own-PC crowd, including my brother, were going AMD.
I think Apple has made the biggest mistake ever with this decision. One of "the" biggest things to set it apart from the competition (Wintel), is now dead. Big mistake. The biggest. Wow, I'm not pleased at all as a user or an investor. I'll wait until this news blows over a tad before I sell my shares. Good bye to the good times.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the PPC cell processors were announced, I thought the story was they were great for game consoles, but fairly useless for general computing.
Guest wrote: I just bought a new machine, a couple weeks ago - it's brand new, top of the line and all. And now it's going to be obsolete *next year*?! Sh*t!! I'm so mad, I don't know what's keeping me from sending it right back and asking for a refund.
It won't be obsolete, read closer next time.
"Developers applauded Mr. Jobs when he said that both the Power PC and Intel processors would be supported for some time to come..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the PPC cell processors were announced, I thought the story was they were great for game consoles, but fairly useless for general computing.
I want the podcasting iTunes software. No where have I seen a release date or much else about it...when is this due?
Also since Apple is giving a date for new intel Macs they will either have no sales in the month before because people will wait for the intel version or a ton as people scramble to get the last of a breed.
The rumors have been out for a couple of years. IBM had decided to focus on other projects which will provide it with greater revenue a long time ago. Apple not only realize that but as anybody knows, Steve Jobs always has some other projects going on. His idea not to abandon IBM makes sense and I wonder what new products he will develop with the IBM architecture. On the other hand how does anybody feel on what new laptops Apple will bring out with a MacTel structure?
I am impressed! Its obvious Apple has been working and preparing for this for years. They are ready for this. I cannot believe it but I really feel like they can pull this off. Astouding. My hat is off to Apple.
And why would you hold off on buying a Mac now? All current software runs on PPC. All new software will run on PPC. Lets see what we've got:
PPC = runs old software native. runs dual binaries native.
x86 = runs old software emulated. runs dual binaries native.
Either way you can run all your software. In fact more so with the PPC (no emulation). There really is no reason to hold out for an x86 unless you think it will be faster. But thats the same old waiting game we always play.
Apple knows what they're doing, at least WAY better than any one of us here.
Remember, Apple's the company that actually has given thought to this, and as it seems has had Mac OS X running on x86 for five years!
So though this may come as quite a surprise for many of us, they have known, and thought about, this for quite some time now.
Rosetta, as it seems, is the perfect "reassurance-factor-solution" (yes I know it's not a proper term )as it seems to be able to run existing "Mac-only" -apps without any performance hit.
So: In the end, the end-user doesn't need worry, I'm sure this move is done because it has too. I know that I at least have been waiting for the PB G5, and for the 3GHz PM G5 for quite some time now...
Better to go with the worlds largest microprocessor manufactor.
Wings wrote: Nowhere did I see Steve mention how well (or how badly) MacOS ran on Intel. Omitting that little piece of information is the same as saying it sucks.
The whole keynote speech was demoed on Intel! It ran fine, from what could be seen.
Freecell is dead. Who are they going to be selling to in a year? Intel will be able to buy them for $5. (Unless IBM buys them to keep intel from getting them.)
Engine Joe wrote: Now Steve has to convince people that there's a reason to buy a Mac between now and the Intel rollout. I was going to get a new Powermac, and I'm considering making do with my current gear for now instead.
I can't be the only one feeling that way now. So... what's the answer that comforts those who are looking at new macs over the next 12-24 months?
Let me ask you this:
Why would you have bought a Mac in 2003 knowing that a faster one would come out in 2004?
There is ALWAYS something coming that will replace what's out there now. This is nothing new and it should not stop you from buying a computer now. Buy it now and once the Intel Mac comes out...well just keep on using your 2005 Mac! They'll still support it.
When it's time to buy a new "Intel Mac," well, go ahead whenver you want! Your "old" software will work...sure, the "new" software will work better, but we always continue to buy updates.
I mean, you're not still using Photoshop 4, are you?
There's no reason to be afraid of this Mac and no reason to not buy a Mac right now if you want a Mac right now.
SJ reveals nothing between fiscal quarters. No road map as to how Intel meets Apple's needs down the road. This was a major change in direction without any mention of destination.
That was Bill Gates telling everyone that 640K of memory was all anyone would ever need.
While you are sitting there preening yourself in your hatred of Macs you need to understand that Apple is only switching chips and manufacturers - something they have done before. Much to your agony Macs, regardless of the chip inside, will still be the Macs you hate so much. Since Apple has been enjoying continued sales growth (even with the G5) there is no chance they are doomed.
The sad news is that IBM couldn't deliver on their roadmap. Not a problem for Apple in the future as they will not only have a good supply of chips from Intel, but will also be getting AIM royalties on all those game consoles sold by MS, Sony and Nintendo - royalties that will probably pay for the intel transisiton as well as bumping up the Net Profit for years to come.
Now this does not make any sense at all. They could sell so many millions of macosx copies for those of us who have other machines or want to build our own or want to have a dual boot machine.
"So what now for PPC-based Macs?" If you buy now, Apple is telling you that:
1. they will support the PPC Mac for several years (4-5 years?).
2. PPC-based software for it will be usable on future Intel-Macs through Rosetta - speed should be no slower than today since Intel-Macs will be faster than today's PPC Mac.
3. Future versions of PPC-based software will come as Universal Binary software, which will run on both PPC and Intel-based Macs.
You will have to upgrade your software someday if you want the full speed increases of the Intel-based Macs.
I suppose this will drive down the cost of making low end/consumer Macs, whose users will barely notice the change. Consumer's look to a cost/performance ratio.
In the short term Apple will have a hard time selling it's soon-to-be-obsolete Power PC lines. Who would lay down cash knowing their computer's days of use and support are numbered more than usual? I was planning to buy a new desktop from apple, but I'll wait until the next generation rolls out or they start unloading iMacs for the price of a mini.
Actually, there was a very informative Ars Technica thread regarding CoreImage and the Velocity Engine. Core Image in Tiger is basically a developer-firnedly method of using the 128-bit SIMD registers used by both the Velocity Engine and GPUs on the newer video cards.
There was speculation that CoreImage could get around the GPU by using the Velocity Engine. INstead, it looks like APple will be using Core Image and the GPU to get around the Velocity Engine.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:01 pmSubject: Wow
Apple has just shown that they have been introducing new OS technologies on both chips without significant issues.
This is proof that they can continue to do so in the future. So if you buy a PPC-based Mac, you will know that it will be supported for "a long time" - let's say that is 5 years.
MacOS X is alive and well and will continue to be. MacOS has changed with every iteration and upgrade. MacOS didn't die when the switched from 68000 to PPC. The same holds true now.
... And this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't read into every "experts" opinion about the mac. I mean I've heard (and said myself) so many times the phrase: "Mac OS X on x86, pleeeeaaaase!".
So maybe I should just shut up when speculating about Apples direction in the future, I mean the only ones who know what's gonna happen are the guys running the companies.
I for one look forward to this transition. Sounds Insanely Great to me!
Sales will certainly plummet, especially next spring, as people wait until the PentiMacs are available. It's almost a dead certainly that Apple will have to slash prices, even whittling off chunks of bone, to keep the PPC models moving.
Maybe I'll be able to afford that 15" PowerBook after all.
Just read a Guest remark on why oh why Apple didn't want to sell OS X to every hardware.
One of the reasons macs are more stable than PC's with windows (and even linux) is the control they have over the hardware. Their whole line-up of supported hardware is less than 30 models, lots with very similar hardware.
Compare with the infinite combinations possible in the PC market, and you know why they won't do that. It would for one make their support unbearable and incidentally also eat into their hardware revenue (duh).
Ahem, seeing how wrong I was on this whole intel thing I'd just like to add that of course, they might one day just do it, or even give up on all this computer stuff and dedicate their life to cloning tasmanian tigers...
No really, this is not good. Undoubted long term, core strategic error. God, he could at least have gone with the opteron. It trounces xeon in graphics heavy arenas. The nasty sound is the reality distortion field around cupertino cracking. This strips away one of the core elemnents of the macintosh's alternative ethos. Bugger it. I knew this era was too good to last. I think jobs has fundamentally misjudged the delicate psychology of apple's position in the buying public's mind. The one thing you cannot say about this decision is that it represents the much espused virtue of thinking different. Rather, it strikes you strongly of capitulation to the seeming banal realities of apples position. Whatever figleaf remained is now gone; the mac is now an enclosure, good fabrication and a well regarded unix variant os. Demmit, Jobs, what were you thinking of?
Maybe I drank too much Kool-Aid, but I just can't bring myself to see x86 as a superior chip. Steve...help me. Convince me!
But seriously - the question is...what the hell is going on at IBM?!?!
Quote
Guest wrote: ... And this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't read into every "experts" opinion about the mac. I mean I've heard (and said myself) so many times the phrase: "Mac OS X on x86, pleeeeaaaase!".
So maybe I should just shut up when speculating about Apples direction in the future, I mean the only ones who know what's gonna happen are the guys running the companies.
I for one look forward to this transition. Sounds Insanely Great to me!
Maybe I drank too much Kool-Aid, but I just can't bring myself to see x86 as a superior chip. Steve...help me. Convince me!
But seriously - the question is...what the hell is going on at IBM?!?!
Quote
Guest wrote: ... And this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't read into every "experts" opinion about the mac. I mean I've heard (and said myself) so many times the phrase: "Mac OS X on x86, pleeeeaaaase!".
So maybe I should just shut up when speculating about Apples direction in the future, I mean the only ones who know what's gonna happen are the guys running the companies.
I for one look forward to this transition. Sounds Insanely Great to me!
)as it seems to be able to run existing "Mac-only" -apps without any performance hit.
