The Devil's Advocate - Steve Meets Osborne, Again!
by
- June 6th, 2005
Let me preface all of this with the following caveat: A lot remains to be seen with regard to Apple's move to Intel. Perhaps there is some secret, long and well thought out strategy that is beyond my ability to foretell--an easily likely scenario as Steve Jobs has far more information on which to base a decision than do I.
Let's Hope for the Best
All that being said, Apple's decision to move to Intel seems like fundamentally one of the stupidest moves ever made by Steve Jobs--and that's saying quite a lot.
Let me explain all that. My reasons are not the same as many other's. First, OS X will run fine on Intel. Back in the NeXT Computer days, Steve had NeXTSTEP (the precursor to OS X) running on Intel (as well as SUN, HP and Motorola platforms). OS X and its MACH kernel are rather processor agnostic and the system ran well on Intel processors; actually it ran faster on Intel than it did on the Motorola processors of the day. And second, Cocoa makes porting most software a matter of hitting the "Build" button in Xcode with an extra check-box, a build for "Intel" button, and presto, you're done.
The Carbon apps will be more difficult, and we can hope Apple's announced Rosetta translation software will perform well. We should also hope that Rosetta is capable of helping OS X for Intel to run classic OS 9 applications. Let's assume it all does. Let's ignore the specter of Apple's boxes being compared to other Intel based boxes and how they would fare. Let's also overlook the fact that IBM has a far more promising processor road map because multi-core is where it's at. OS X will perform far better with multiple cores than a few extra MHz in speed would provide. OS X and MACH are really good at exploiting multiple cores, and the Cell and multicore PowerPC products coming from IBM seem a heck of a lot more promising than what Intel has been talking about. Although who knows, in a year to year-and-a-half all that could change. Which brings me to the stupidity part.
MacOsborne
Something smells really really bad about how this was announced, and that waft may well be from the "Osborne effect." Apple will not start offering Intel based products until next year! For those not familiar with the history of Osborne computer or the "Osborne effect," please read up on it at the Wikepedia and The Register UK. What's worse is Steve Jobs made this very same mistake before as Don Yacktman commented on long ago.
Back when NeXT stopped making hardware, it announced a NeXTSTEP for Intel product only to not release it for months! So NeXT had a substantially reduced (and some would argue, non-existant) revenue stream until the unproven Intel product was released! No machines to sell, and no Intel software to sell! Steve pulled a total "Osborne" and it certainly didn't bode well for NeXT or it's bottom line. So here we are years later, and regardless of the processor technology merits and implementations, Steve Jobs manages to repeat the very same mistake.
And for those that say "nah, Steve's not the type to repeat his mistakes" let me remind you of some history. Back in the day at Apple, Steve Jobs and Co. brought out a computer called the Lisa. A nice machine, ahead of it's time, which failed miserably in large part due to it's cost of $10,000.
Fast forward a few years later when Steve supposedly got much smarter and more savvy. Then at NeXT Computer, Steve Jobs releases a black cube computer, ahead of it's time, which failed miserably in large part due to its cost of $10,000. For bonus points, he marketed this machine to academia--yes that little known bastion of high-rollers.
Fast forward a few more years when Steve supposedly got much smarter and more savvy. Then at Apple, Steve Jobs releases a cube computer, ahead of its time, which failed miserably in large part due to its cost. Yes, Steve is quite capable of repeating his mistakes.
Future Mac Purchases Might Be Hurt
I cannot overstate just how bad a gaffe this "pre-announcement/roadmap" appears to be, at least on the surface. There were already significant numbers of users that were holding off on purchasing Macs in anticipation of major upgrades to the line. Now, not only does there seem to be a treacherous dearth of upgrade announcements from Apple (the Keynote was relatively short--no "one more thing"), it has introduced incredible uncertainty regarding future purchases.
What Intel chips will be used? Will they be much faster than what is in current Macs? Will they be able to compete with the highly multi-core offerings from IBM? Will software vendors charge upgrade fees for Intel versions of software or for maintaining PPC versions? Heck, I'll just hold off on all purchases until they release the new platform and see what pans out. I bet a lot of other actual and potential Mac users hold off too.
This is astounding. To be sure, there may be a great many positives that could come from such a move. Fast Windows emulation layers like WINE or VirtualPC may be integrated into OS X. Dual boot possibilities. A chance to sell OS X to a wider audience and to take on Microsoft. A lot of exciting possibilities abound, but it's the execution that is questionable. That Apple does not have an Intel based Mac available immediately for the general public, that may end up being an incredibly damaging decision with regard to the platform's vitality for the next year.
And one wonders, what brought all this on? Was it that IBM was going to suspend support for the G5 in favor of server and video game console style PPC chips?
My personal bet is on pure hubris. IBM's designs really do seem to have a better future roadmap with regard to multiprocessing, while Intel in particular seems to be stalling in their ability to ramp up performance--AMD is generally spanking Intel in the x86 arena. This really smells of Steve Jobs throwing a hissy fit that IBM has not kissed his ring nearly enough while they were off creating multicore designs for Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. The strange thing is that one suspects that all these multicore advances for game consoles could have benefited Apple and OS X's MACH far more than Intel's designs.
Only time will tell if Steve Jobs has just pulled another Osborne blunder and how damaging that effect may be to Apple. One thing for sure; the next year will be an interesting one.
is an attorney. Please don't hold that against him. This work does not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of The Mac Observer, any third parties, or even John for that matter. No assertions of fact are being made, but rather the reader is simply asked to consider the possibilities.
Mr. Kheit makes some interesting points, but then I consider this: Who is just a lawyer and a columnist, and who is the CEO of one of the few computer companies still showing a profit???
This would be an "Osbourne effect" situation if there was a compelling reason to hold off on purchasing, like the new computers would immediately be wildly better than the current machines. I see no indication of that.
What we have seen is a steady erosion of the high-end Mac sales because the processor speeds have lagged behind. If there is any hubris floating around here, it's on the IBM side. They probably felt they had Jobs by the scruff of the neck, and so they could stiff him on his chips while landing mondo contracts with Microsoft, Nintendon, and Sony. It would appear that they have broken a series of promises for Apple, and as a result we are a year behind schedule for high-end machines.
A hissy fit is a spontaneous outburst. Designing every build of OS X to run on Intel for the last five years is anything but spontaneous. Jobs gave IBM several years to get their act together, and they dropped the ball.
On the other hand, since the universal binaries will work on both platforms, if IBM does figure out how to actually make the chips that Macs need to be competitive, nothing prevents Apple from keeping those in the lineup.
Besides, at this stage in the game, who cares anymore? We can already play Quake at frame-rates faster than the eye can perceive, render Photoshop and After Effects faster than we ever dreamed, edit HD in iMovie, and generally do anything we want except create Pixar films at home. What I care about is the OS, and increasing the programs that run on it.
I just bought my first new Mac in eight years, a beautiful 20" iMac. It will be a great computer for years, regardless of what chip powers new ones next year. I don't regret buying it for a moment, and would still have bought it knowing the new chips are coming. It's been a long, long time since Jobs' NeXT mistake, and his track record since returning to Apple has been incredibly positive. I don't see any reason to think this will turn out poorly, especially with Intel's support. Yeah, I would have preferred AMD, but then again, in a couple of years, who knows? Apple has the chipmakers on notice that if you don't deliver, you're toast.
Hold on...I thought Intel already is doing the dual-core processing.
As for timing, you're correct that it most likely will slow sales significantly. However, if you're convinced that you need to change your chipset, what other choice do you have? Surprise the developers the day it's released? Or do you keep the choice of going with potentially another Motorola experience of seeing Intel and AMD create much faster chips.
IBM, with all it's R&D, cannot create a G5 chip to put in a PowerBook or iBook. Think that hasn't hurt sales? Look at the numbers! How many people are waiting for the G5 PowerBook before making a purchase?
IBM has promise for sure. Time will tell if this is a blunder or a stroke of genius. But Intel has Dual Core, and they have 64-bit technology.
"Cell and multicore PowerPC products coming from IBM seem a heck of a lot more promising..."
What is that statement based on? Cell has been touted as the next great processor.....by its makers. Remember SONY bragging about how much better and faster the PS2 was going to be, that your mind will melt from all the polygons. Meh....it fell WAY WAY short of expectations...
CloseViewName:Jonkun227Posts: 238Joined: 02 Mar 2004 Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:46 pmSubject:
Go ahead. Don't buy a Mac in the next 12 or 18 months. Wait for the new ones. Make the prices drop. In the meantime I'll be outfitting my studio with a whole new round of PPC based Macs. I'd only buy one in that time normally, but with the kind of market you're describing I'll just have to outfit everyone I know with one of those $49 Macs.
And you know what? They'll function at least as well as the one I'm using today.
Jobs may be known for getting upset and making rash decisions (ie. banning books from Apple stores), but I am not sure who is to blame for Apple's switch.
IBM sold its computing division to a Chinese company.
IBM has had many problems delivering G5 chips.
There has been no real advancements in the p970. The 2.0 -> 2.7 Ghz was squeezed out by Apple by cooling tricks and not by IBM.
IBM may have told Apple, "you are not a priority." Or perhaps IBM is selling the rest of their Chip manufacturing and going 100% into consulting.
Face it, IBM is not stable. IBM bought PWC, and PWC took over internally and making IBM into a consulting firm.
You may have a grudge against Jobs, but Apple and Jobs may not have had a choice in the matter.
There seems to be a lot of promise in the further evolution of the IBM and Freescale PPC chips. It may have been worth holding out a bit longer.
Who will be making the next generation PPC computers in 2007 and for which OS? Will the PPC base shrink to a specialist niche with custom machines running Yellow Dog? Will Apple allow Mac OS X to be ported to these non-Mac Power PCs – that is if Freescale and IBM decide not abandon their respective roadmaps as a result of Jobs' pronouncement?
Please add your own editor/writer to the Death Knell.
I didn't see any prediction of the death of Apple. All that was said is that it was not a smart move and can hurt Apple sales until the new platform is released.
The future will revolve heavily around mobile devices - both computers like Macs and specialized computers like iPods and even tablets. Preferably but not necessarily having the whole family using a common OS. The trend to mobile devices has started already. And where are the IBM processors to drive this? Nowhere. Has anyone talked about using PPC in portable game consoles, as opposed to "living-room"?
Regarding multi-core, it's been rumored that Apple has had such a chip from IBM since last year. If so, then obviously, there is some problem that has prevented Apple from delivering a product. (Do note that MS and Sony have announced but have yet to deliver a product around IBM multi-core.) And might it be that such a product has no future at higher-speeds given the heat issues?
Maybe Jobs should've said that Apple is adding product lines using Intel chips and its future will include products using both CPU families for the foreseeable future. And leave it at that. Then a year from now say that they will discontinue any new development on the PPC side.
But giving Apple its due not to badmouth or reveal more about IBM than necessary, there is definitely something there that has made it clear to them that continuing on the PPC side is a very low probability. Yes, sales will be hurt in this next year, but that might be the price to pay for integrity.
If you realize you need to switch CPUs in a general purpose computer, what do you do?
1. Show that today's software will run acceptably on the new-CPU-product.
2. Have an OS version that runs decently on the new-CPU-product.
3. Give developers the tools to create software for new-CPU-product.
4. Have a new-CPU-product for developers to use to test software.
5. Ask developers to start releasing software for both CPU products.
6. Indicate that the old-CPU-product will be supported by the OS for years to come and ask developers to do the same for their software.
7. Start selling a new-CPU-product today?
Apple did all of the above except 7. Kheit faults Apple for not releasing an Intel Mac today with iLife and iWork. But wouldn't developers have felt abused?
So how long should they wait to release an Intel Mac? I think 11-12 months is too long. Maybe 6 months is good. Maybe Apple has contingency plans to release earlier if current sales drop too much, but the preference is to release a better-engineered version later, conditions permitting.
Maybe Apple has some other products (iPod division) that they believe could tide them through the next year?
You can doubt Steve Jobs all you want but there is tangible evidence of the failure of the Apple IBM alliance. Steve Jobs was told there would be 3 GHz G5s in a years time which means IBM told him they would be available in less than a year. Back even a year ago Steve Jobs was optimistic about the PPC roadmap and made a comment to that effect. But since then, no low power G5 for laptops and still not even close to 3 GHz. Add to that the fact that IBM announces two 3+ GHz processors for companies that are not Apple and you can see how this happened.
Fundamentally Apple had no choice. This is probably the best of several bad choices. The worst thing that Apple could do is keep waiting with no roadmap in the hopes that IBM gets around to them. That is a business disaster. So, this is bad for Apple's bottom line but they had little choice in my opinion.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:36 pmSubject:
I've been reading a lot of the forums as well as the articles covering the switch. The only thing that makes any sense of this to me is that IBM just wasn't willing to play ball with Apple and are once again protecting their own server (computer) turf. It is a large center of profit for them and the way that OSX was developing together with Apples X-Serves, supercomputers and grid computing had to scare the **** out of them.
It's going to be a tough year for Apple stockholders. Each quarter will be worse than the last with one lame excuse after another. I think Steve's RDF machine may be running out of gas.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:55 pmSubject:
Well I've just down-graded from a relatively high-spec PC to a Mac Mini, and I'm not too worried - it's the design and software I went for over raw power that I wasn't using. So long as the software and data works, I'm happy, and I've every confidence it will. I don't think most domestic consumers will be too bothered, as most think of Mac and PC more like formats than having a technical understanding of what an O/S or CPU instruction set is - and providing it's like going from Playstation1 to Playstation 2, they'll be happy.
I think I'd feel fine with the iMac as well - it's not the sort of purchase where you're going to go 'well, I'll hold out until 2007 for the Intel version', because even then it's going to be a behind the curve machine.
On the other hand, if I was a small video-editing practice, who'd been thinking of going for a top-end PowerMac, and had just held off to see what was announced today - I'd definitely be thinking, can we make do? Plus, while I bet 90% of the apps I use will be simple XCode recompilations, the Pro apps are the ones that have been most optimised towards PowerPC chips - although likes of Adobe and other dual-chip vendors will be well ahead as should have optimised x86 libraries already . . . given that the timescale is Mini first, PowerMac last, I guess that's being taken into account (it's the only logical explanation - it's the high-end users who are crying out for faster CPU's, not those of us happy with a G4 and a nice display) - I mean imagine if the benchmarks showed an x86 PowerMac was slower at running Photoshop than a Wintel machine of same clockspeed.
It just seems weird that as soon as the rest of the world has seen the merits of the Power architecture, from Bill to Linus, Apple are abandoning it, when maybe the logical thing to do would be to hedge your bets for a while and do a Sun - brand and O/S over CPU. But as the move is not just for x86 but Intel specifically, I suspect that isn't an option. Shame, I was really looking forward to being able to stick a few more Cell chips in just like adding memory.
Now, I wonder how Jonathan Ives is going to feel about having that Intel Inside sticker on the front of his lovely white boxes. And let's hope we don't suffer the constant whir of fans.
I doubt Apple will release a x86 version of OS X to the public.
Don't get me wrong. Jobs said OS X will run on "Intel" chips.
That does not mean that they will be x86 based chips. Apple will have a say on what the cpu will be. What features and number of cores. If Apple wanted to release a x86 version, they would have done so today.
I predict the Intel chip Jobs mentioned will be a new chip which gets rid of legacy x86 crap so it can run faster and more efficient. Microsoft has mandated that the CPU's be 100% x86 compliant. Apple does not have that restriction.
Also, Jobs is not stupid to allow OS X to run on x86 or worse allow Longhorn to run on Mactel chips.
If you remember, he TOLD everyone to switch to Xcode. And when you compile a drop down box allows you to compile to FAT binaries. There is nothing to prevent Jobs to switch the compiler to compile to the new Mactel chip rather than a x86 chip.
Think about why he went out of his way twice to state he wants all the developer computers back. Most likely he will quietly give the developers the NEW computers to do a final compile, but they won't be x86 chips.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:59 pmSubject:
I think the point here is that Apple is trying to get people used to the idea of the operating system being pretty independent of the hardware. I don't think people quite recognise yet what a great opportunity this could be for Apple.
Someone brings out a fantastic new architecture for a chip (Cell I'm looking at you) and all Apple as to do is add another compile option to xcode and that's it! Apple can go with whatever is fastest at the time. Now beat that Windows! And if the apps won't compile properly, then this Rosetta thing should be no trouble to the end user either. Apple doesn't have to ditch PPC, they can quite happily run 2 separate chips in their product lines now.
Oh, and don't forget what this is going to do for 2 open source projects: Mac on Linux and Wine. Wine should be fairly easy on the whole to get going under OS X on Intel, and I bet it won't be too long after the release till the Mac on Linux guys manage to get OS X running on a fairly generic x86 architecture.
RealityCheck wrote: It's going to be a tough year for Apple stockholders. Each quarter will be worse than the last with one lame excuse after another. I think Steve's RDF machine may be running out of gas.
If Apple stock doesn't sink are you going to admit that you were wrong?
John, Drudge linked to a report today that said that laptop sales have finally surpassed dekstops. Right now, Intel is delivering laptop chips that are almost twice as fast as Freescale's. The real issues there are power and heat, which Intel seems to think it can fix as it moves to 65nm. Even now, power and heat in Intel's Centrino parts are workable in a laptop. Not so with the G5.
On the software side... If developers maintain confidence in the Mac platform, there will be plenty of new PPC apps for the next year and then some. Those apps will continue to run on MacTel boxes. Developers may start shipping fat binaries, depending on what development environment and technologies they are using now. Cross-platform developers are probably the biggest mixed bag. My hunch is that CodeWarrior is dead in the water and that REALbasic will make the jump relatively quickly and painlessly. I still don't like being locked into the OS vendor's development tools (XCode), but in this case, if you arleady are, the transition will be painless.
There is, of course, an interesting and unexplored possibility that the reality of transition may bring. Apple may, if IBM takes this as a wake-up call, decide to straddle the x86/PPC divide for the long haul. Clearly, consumer and laptop machines will go to Intel. But workstations may stay PPC. And we may see that Rosarito thingy run x86 binaries on PPC. Apple would be in an ideal position with IBM and Intel competing for the high end. The big, quick loser in this deal is Freescale. No hope for them. They've got a year because Apple's laptops are just so freakin gorgeous we can overlook speed, but not another day .
Once you have universal binaries up and running, who's to say that you HAVE to discontinue PPC development. If IBM gets it's "stuff" together, or has some incredible PPC breakthrough, Apple is ideally situated to move back or keep both.
That probably won't happen though for the following reason (but it's always nice to have a fall-back position). If you're a new computer buyer in 2007, here's two scenarios for you. SCENARIO #1: you buy an Apple/Intel. You get a well designed box, it's got the most modern 64 bit OS out there (Leopard), it's immune to viruses, and given that Apple designs some custom chips (they currently have have a much higher front side bus than any PC machine for instance) it may even be the fastest Intel machine you can buy. And then for another $200 dollars you can add Windows to that machine and dual-boot. SCENARIO #2: for about the same money you buy a Dell. Fairly shoddy, might have Longhorn but even if it does, backwards XP compatibility will probably mean it still has virus problems, may not be as fast as the Apple/Intel with custom hardware, and can't dual-boot. Which are you going to buy? No contest.
And regarding the Cell, it was never envisioned as a main CPU anyway as I understand it. Perhaps Apple could use it as a sub-proccessor to do h.264 decoding?
The time to do this is now. Hardware sales will inevitably take a dip in the year ahead, but NOW Apple is insulated by having 6.5 billion dollars in the bank. And NOW, Apple is no longer solely a computer company. It has a second revenue stream with the iPod to hold them over. Plus it's starting to make real money from iTMS sales as well. Apple folks are loyal (some would say to a fault). How successful do you think Microsoft would be if Longhorn wasn't backwards compatible with XP? If they said, "Man were having all sorts of security problems, let's just chuck our codebase and start from scratch with Longhorn". They could never do that. But that's what Apple did with OS X. And it worked because 1) they had OS 9 emulation and 2) because Apple folks are loyal. Microsoft folks are not that loyal. The hard transition for Apple has already taken place.
The computer is the operating system and software, not the CPU. I bought an iBook (500Mhz G3) when 10.1 came out. If it had been a choice between XP or OS 9, I would have gone Wintel. I chose Apple because it has the best Operating System, I couldn't care less what CPU that OS is running on.
And on the topic of hardware sales, I'm kind of amused by these people running around saying the sky is falling. If you buy a new Apple tomorrow, it's going to be supported until it's not a viable computer anyway. Re-read that last sentence: by the time the next "killer app" comes out and you need new hardware to run it, you will have had to buy a new computer and programs anyway. If that's 2 years from now, you're still supported. If it's 5 years from now, give your head a shake. Did you really think you were going to be wirelessly streaming 3D high definition holography on your 5 year old machine? So you buy the new G86 Apple laptop (that runs for 8 hours on a charge) and keep your old G4 Mac mini for web-surfing (aaah the web. Software that runs on any CPU. What a concept!).
To sum up: 2 year transition. Think about it. That's only the timeframe back to Jaguar. That seems like Yesterday!! And in the mean time, no real downside other than somewhat slow machines compared to the competition. And we were going to have to live with those slow machines going forward if NONE OF THIS HAD HAPPENED!
So if the price goes below $15 again guess what I'm going to do.
With your "great insight" I would be anticipating you making a killing on the market. Have you gone short on AAPL in a bit way yet? Put your money where your mouth is?
One thing this announcment definately was not was a hissy fit. The classic example of that is when ATI pre-announced a product and revealed the next release of the computer. Within months NVidia became a supplier of video cards to Apple in pre-configured machines. This was the end result of two building PPC issues: The inability to deliver speed increases on schedule (3 GHz is now 1 year late), and a low power portable compatible chip not anywhere in the roadmap. The former is mostly prestiege, but the latter is where the future growth in computers is.
As to the annoucment timing, this is the WorldWide DEVELOPER CONFERENCE. This is where you tell the people who make the software, without which your computer is a door stop, where you are taking the platform. Last year they talked about Tiger, delivered this year. This year they talked about switching to Intel (a much larger changeover) for delivery late next year. Now Apple does now have to spell out explicitly to "Ma, Pa, and the Corporate Clueless" (stolen from <http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/>) that if they buy a computer today Apple will still support it with the next revisions of their OS and Applications and they have to at least get the major software vendors to do the same.
I've asked three people today since the announcement if they would go on and buy a Mac in the next year, and they all said yes to buying iMacs or Mac minis. I was surprised! They all said they are satisfied 10.5 Leopard and even 10.6 and iLife (and updates) will continue to run on it, so the Mac will be usable through the end of 2009 (or 4.5 years). They said by 2009, it's more likely that they would buy a new Mac because the old one would be too slow for new capabilities rather than current software no longer working.
I think Apple needs to be ready to combat the FUD that will be coming soon by making the case that its current or new PPC Macs will be supported by its software through the rest of the decade. That didn't come out so clearly to me in the keynote.
OK, I was really, really hoping for the unthinkable - an unbundle from tightly controlled software/hardware. Yeah, that's right, OSX in the wild on your Dad's INTC box today.
Failing that, a no excuses dual boot MacTel box (maybe that happens but I have read elsewhere the chip will not be pure but a "variant" chip sold only to Apple from INTC. why does that strike me as dangerous and dumb?)
Anyway, the big deal here might be purely psychological. A feeling that if AAPL is going INTC then perhaps I ought to rethink my choice of machine too. And all this as Longhorn [which does not suck as massively as some complain] arrives on fully 64 bit multicores at leas from AMD...
The final irony may be indeed that the IBM design now adopted for xBox (was it the fact these hit 3.2GHz and Apple got none that pissed off Steve?) may end up supporting Windows without much effort.
This kills me, but I also know part of the problem WHY Apple switched. I found out today before announcement when I asked a Vice President at IBM whether the rumors were true that Apple was leaving the IBM partnership.
His response?
What rumors.
'nuff said. Apparently, they don't read the writing on the wall, the ceiling, the Internet, the billboards, or anywhere else.
I still think going with Intel is a mistake. Years of bashing the "Wintel" world and suddenly you jump into bed with the enemy?
Lawyer or no, Mr. Kheit, your comments on the business and technology aspects of this announcement are right on in every respect. Let me add three additional points:
1. I'd like to think Mr. Jobs has, indeed, learned from the past. Laying the ground work over the last five years to enable easy translation by developers shows a remarkable amount of foresight and perseverence. Announcing early is essential if developers are to have applications ready when the new machines are available.
2. On the other hand, if Rosetta really works, why not ship x86 machines with it right now and let the native applications follow when they may? Apparently at least Mathematica already runs natively and it could be sold to you and me as soon as they could produce new CDs. The fact that they didn't take this route is an indication Rosetta is not ready for prime time and will not be for some time to come.
3. I for one will hold off buying a new machine until the dust settles. I lived through both the 68k and OS 9 transitions and don't look forward to living through another. Apple may have planned for a dip in sales since I remember seeing recently that they had a lot of cash on their balance sheet and Wall Street types were beginning to wonder what they were going to use it for. Now we know.
Jonkun227 wrote: Go ahead. Don't buy a Mac in the next 12 or 18 months. Wait for the new ones. Make the prices drop. In the meantime I'll be outfitting my studio with a whole new round of PPC based Macs. I'd only buy one in that time normally, but with the kind of market you're describing I'll just have to outfit everyone I know with one of those $49 Macs.
And you know what? They'll function at least as well as the one I'm using today.
The problem I see with all this is that almost everyone from the school caretaker through to industry analysts (not claiming which are more reliable) have stated that the next 18 months was going to be THE TIME when Apple can really push mac hardware sales.
Almost as an aside many above appear to accept that the next year or more is likely to be a hard time to expand the platform (perhaps even hold its ground). Can anyone tell me how this is good timing to make this annoucement then? Strikes me that it is almost the worst possible time. This sniffs of panic to me, or at best a forced move. Steve may well claim that OSX on Intel has been a long term project yeah but we all knew that even classic ran on Intel in labs so this does not prove that this is a well thought out and carefull decision, it was a contingency plan.
Strikes me more likely that they simply had little choice. either IBM couldn't, wouldnt or through pressure from other customers (guess who) deliberately held back G5 development. The crucial factor I believe, as others have mentioned is the laptop problem. This has forced the issue. After all wouldn't it have been far better to have done this 2 or even 1 year ago? Or in one or 2 years time for that matter when a run at getting Tiger adopted by switchers could have taken advanyage of all the good press (who will remember that now) instead of raising the second hurdle as it had just cleared the first. Can you just see the PC salesmen's reaction now as the buyer asks about that cute mini in the corner?
This may well have been necessary but don't let's take this as a well planned move, because it can't be remotely marketed as an asset unless 1) Rosseta as its name suggests truly is the digital version of perpetual motion and 2) Intel has some unknown ace up its sleeve in chip design.
As a designer who knows full well that OSX from classic was/still isnt an easy move (hey can anyone actually make Central European fonts work properly in it yet? indeed some fonts at all) I will remain cynical about the first. As for the second I am unaware of Intel ever being particularly secret about its road map especially when the opposition look to be so far ahead in practice and it needs a boost. AMD would indeed have been a more logical choice its even taken IBM technology and made it work but then Apple could hardly upset the big player and potentially screw itself to yet another small player even if it has better technology can it. It has to ally with Intel and hope it can use superior AMD chips later perhaps.
For the first time in years I presumed that we had a stable and predictable platform for the forseeable future. That feeling has lasted precisely 2 months
.