Featured Article: Editorial - iMac Ten Years Later: Another Dent in the Universe
The Back Page - The Rebuttals: Bryan Chaffin vs. Rob Enderle, Round 2
by
- May 10th, 2004
On Friday, I pointed you to Round 1 of my heads up debate with Rob Enderle, the current record holder for our Apple Death Knell Counter. Our friends at MacNewsWorld.com organized and published the debate, which consisted of three questions centered around the basic question of which processor should Apple use, Intel or PowerPC.
In Round 1 of this debate, Mr. Enderle and I laid out our fundamental arguments on which processor family Apple should use (the other two questions will be published later). Today's installment, Round 2, consists of our rebuttals to each other.
In other words, I get the opportunity to deconstruct Mr. Enderle's amazingly inaccurate arguments to his face, instead of having to wait and do it from the confines of a column. For his part, Mr. Enderle tries to counter my arguments with more inaccuracies that I believe will have to go unanswered at MacNewsWorld.
Accordingly, I thought I would take a second to quickly go over them. I am writing from the assumption that you have read Round 2 first, so if this doesn't make sense, head over to MacNewsWorld and read. I humbly offer it as a good read, at least half of it.
IBM's G5 has had production problems: Thanks for that news flash, Chicken Little. It's true that IBM has had production problems at its G5 production facilities, but the sky is not falling. IBM will work through those problems, and everything will be OK. Intel itself has had its share of production problems through the years, but that's hardly a reason for every PC company to abandon ship.
Pentium M outperforms the G5 in some measure: Whatever. That's patently absurd. Or perhaps Mr. Enderle meant that the Pentium M outperforms the Pentium 4; again, whatever. The Pentium M is definitely a step forward in mobile processing technology, but it's still an emasculated x86 chip.
IBM controls PowerPC, while with x86 one gets a choice of vendors: AMD does indeed make great processors, but one of the reasons to go with Intel would be to go with Intel. Transmeta and AMD lack that "Intel Inside" marketing punch. Also, Transmeta hardly has a reputation for desktop computing power, and the company has been targeting the embedded market. Honestly, if at some point IBM were to fail utterly with the G5, I imagine Apple would go with AMD because AMD groks 64-bit processing, but that means Apple is stuck with AMD. The issue of "choice" is a non-issue, no matter how you slice it.
Also, while we're at it, IBM does not control PowerPC, as Motorola is also a PowerPC vendor. I am not going to offer Motorola as a long-term option for Apple as the company has done such a miserable job for Apple's desktop market, but it bears mentioning that Mr. Enderle was wrong yet again.
Apple doesn't control the whole widget because FreeBSD provides the kernel: Stupid, stupid, STUPID! FreeBSD doesn't provide the kernel at all, as OS X's kernel is based on Mach. Indeed, Apple's version of Mach is controlled by Apple, and is developed, in part, with the open source community. The FreeBSD layer, which sits atop the kernel, was originally based on FreeBSD (and Apple keeps up with FreeBSD development), but Apple controls the development of its implementation of this layer in any and every way it wants. He says "If you think about it, Apple probably controls less of its platform then companies like Wyse do." Mr. Enderle is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Patently and absurdly wrong.
Comparing computer OSes to embedded OSes: That's an absurd comparison. Embedded systems largely "just work," as Mr. Enderle suggests, but it's because the hardware is locked down, and the machines do buy one thing. In other words, embedded vendors have all but total control over the whole widget (Linux-based systems more so than Windows-based systems, but even there the hardware lock offers almost total control. In fact, thanks for making my point, Mr. Enderle. It's not about controlling the experience, it's about ensuring that systems work through the kind of total-control that allows you to control the user-experience.
Emulation issues: While interesting, this hardly negates the many, many issues I raised that make moving to Intel the wrong move.
Trending towards being a software maker: Mr. Enderle still doesn't get it. Apple's software is filling niches that Apple has identified as crucial to the Mac platform. These niches are either in markets that Apple wants to dominate (digital film and content creation), or in markets where Apple saw unfulfilled needs it could exploit (i.e. the consumer space and the iLife suite). This is not a trend away from hardware, but rather an expansion to make sure the Mac platform has what it needs.
Moving to Intel means cheaper Mac boxes to address the low-end market: Wow, that's just ignorant. While I too think Apple needs to address the low-end market, or low-expectations market (a term I coined in one of the installments of this debate that has yet to be published), the reason it has not done so has nothing to do with which processor is in a Mac. Look at the US$799 entry-level eMac: This machine is packed with features, is inexpensive, and comes with an G4 processor. If Apple wanted, it could shave another couple of hundred bucks from the eMac by stripping the CD burner, ethernet, modem, FireWire ports, etc. In fact, it is Apple's insistence on including such features, in addition to its desire to put form at the same level as function, that keeps its prices high. It is most specifically and certainly not the price of the processor. Why does Apple do this? Because for whatever reason, the company has decided not to go for the low-expectations market. While a mistake (IMNHO), it is far different from Apple not being able to make a cheap box because the processor is too expensive.
OK, there you have it. Even his rebuttal was filled with factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and downright fabrications. Go read both of our rebuttals, if you haven't already.
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
You can send your comments directly to him, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From The Back Page
- $5 WiFi Routers...With a Catch - June 27th
- Boot Camp Means More Mac Users - April 13th
- Rob "Wrong Again" Enderle Peers Into Apple's Windows Future - April 12th
The Back Page Archives
Observer Comments
Mon May 10, 2004 12:53 pm Subject: Undeniable Reality - Mac Highest Risk For IT Managers
Mon May 10, 2004 1:02 pm Subject: How CISC got to be more popular than RISC is a mystery
Mon May 10, 2004 1:08 pm Subject: Enderle's ignorance is STUNNING...
Mon May 10, 2004 1:19 pm Subject: The Rebuttals: Bryan Chaffin vs. Rob Enderle, Round 2
Round 1: Chaffin, Round 2: Chaffin. Looks like a TKO to me. Great rebuttal. I think this is the first OS discussion I have ever reard that came with an OSHA warning label? <G>
WARNING: the following content is not appropriate for everyone. Persons suffering from high blood pressure, certain heart conditions or a general inability to weather radically different viewpoints are advised to use caution when reading.
Looking forward to the rest of the article.
Mon May 10, 2004 1:25 pm Subject: Re: Road Warrior
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
I read it before coming here. It is one thing to win, it is another to get the other guy to see that you won. Tough for debates and spins.
But what fun, I think this will be a good forum for both of you. What I wonder, is that at the end, did either of you influence each other. I mean will Enderle concede something to you and will you be able to pick up a nugget of wisdom from him.
Good points, anonymous (please consider registering!). I am always happy to acknowledge when I am wrong, though I am often accused of the opposite. To deny reality is irrational, and I strive to be as rational as I can be. The challenge for those disagreeing with me, therefore, is to show me where I am wrong.
Mr. Enderle has utterly failed to convince me that any of my premises need revisiting. My guess, judging by his poor rebuttal, is that I failed to convince him, too. I am not sure if that will be the case when he reads all of the facts he has wrong, but somehow I doubt that I managed to convince him of anything.
As you said, that's the tough part. In fact, I doubt that either one of us managed to even convince anyone watching this debate, either. Those on either side of the discussion will pick and choose the parts they perceive as backing up their own already-held beliefs, and ignore the rest.
Such is the nature of life.
Thanks for the post, and please consider registering!
Haha I love how Enderle starts off with a point that shows he has some info on the topic but then inevitably says something to show that he doesn't quite understand the facts he has gathered. He must be one of those guys who has just enough knowledge to get into the guts of their OS, but then breaks things cause they don't really know what they are doing.
Bryan, I love your "low expectations" quote. I have been saying for years that people just don't get Apple and what they are doing. The PC world is filled with users who will settle for just good enough. Having a garbage PC is somehow better than having no PC.
Some of the benefits of using a Mac are very subtle, and there is a large chunk of the PC using market that those benefits are completely lost on.
Some people prefer champagne. Some people think cheap beer is the nectar of the gods. It's all in what you value.
Quotebryson wrote:
Bryan, I love your "low expectations" quote. I have been saying for years that people just don't get Apple and what they are doing. The PC world is filled with users who will settle for just good enough. Having a garbage PC is somehow better than having no PC.
Some of the benefits of using a Mac are very subtle, and there is a large chunk of the PC using market that those benefits are completely lost on.
Some people prefer champagne. Some people think cheap beer is the nectar of the gods. It's all in what you value.
In any case, I'd like Apple to at least release the microbrew of computers then. I think a cheap Mac would do wonders in the consumer market, not to mention (in the long run) the business and enterprise domain.
Mon May 10, 2004 3:22 pm Subject: The posts are not visible...
Mon May 10, 2004 4:18 pm Subject: Enderle got trounced.
Mon May 10, 2004 4:21 pm Subject: Why Crud Tech Dominates & Liars Are Believed...
"I don't understand how a crapmaster like that is able to make a living."
The answer here is easy: The liars know that to be called a truth-teller you must tell people the lies they want to hear. Political pundits are yet another example of this syndrome. Enderle gets paid to tell his victims... er... clients what they want to hear, not the real truth. Truth is *NEVER* profitable.
As long as the so-called "IT Pros" need to protect their useless featherbedded jobs, crap tech will always dominate. They are fully aware of the fact that every company that has gone all-Mac has soon fired most of their IT staffers who were pretty much redundant with a system that didn't need them to coddle it. Enderle's blathering is just another way they fool the boss so they can keep these worthless jobs.
Mon May 10, 2004 4:32 pm Subject: excellent work bryan
a very good debate-- i especially like how his only argument against your mobile statement is that "centrino is not actually a processor" and that is supposed to carry the weight of x86 is better than PPC.
all in all, whether apple decides to switch to x86 or not is irrelavent. if apple does switch to x86, OS upgrades will cost $129 ($79 for education), and your "low end" mac will still run about $800 with three usb ports, two firewire ports, a cd burner, built in 17" monitor, a second display port, two headphone ports, a microphone ports, and all the other stuff that is shoehorned into an eMac. this doesnt even include all the software that is preinstalled and included in the price. check the info, to make a dell of the same speed and quality costs at least $300 more.
apple could easily make a $300 eMac. include no software other than the operating system, make it a normal CD drive, kick one of the usb ports and both firewire ports, and basically make it something that a Mac is not.
it is a shame that you do not get to refute his misinformation, nor he another chance to refute you over at MacNewsWorld.com
TRO
QuoteApple did release a low-end Mac, it's called an iPod. The "low-expectations" concept is great because what kind of computer could one expect for US$400? Does someone who can only afford US$400 for a computer really have a need for what one currently expects from the typical laptop/desktop? In order to get the price down to US$400 Apple would have to dump a lot of the features that users expect from an Apple in the first place. Granted the iPod just does music but it is still a "low-end" Mac.iggyb wrote:Quotebryson wrote:
Bryan, I love your "low expectations" quote. I have been saying for years that people just don't get Apple and what they are doing. The PC world is filled with users who will settle for just good enough. Having a garbage PC is somehow better than having no PC.
Some of the benefits of using a Mac are very subtle, and there is a large chunk of the PC using market that those benefits are completely lost on.
Some people prefer champagne. Some people think cheap beer is the nectar of the gods. It's all in what you value.
In any case, I'd like Apple to at least release the microbrew of computers then. I think a cheap Mac would do wonders in the consumer market, not to mention (in the long run) the business and enterprise domain.
Mon May 10, 2004 4:51 pm Subject: Bravo, Bryan!
Well done.
I knew the game was up when Enderle misidentified which CPU Jobs initially chose for the NeXT platform. Hey, we all make mistakes, but COME ON. What kind of half-assed rookie goof is that?!
I'm a Windoze user (*gasp*) and do computer support for my Windoze-imprisoned company (*double gasp*). That point you made about user experience being a product of strict hardware and functionality control was 100% spot-on.
Fact is, Windoze and the Linuxen DO work, provided you keep a close eye on what peripherals, cards, software apps and whatnot are involved. Outside of this "safe zone" (and sometimes within it), your typical Windoze system is a house of cards. Sure, it's better than it used to be (Win9x and before) but it's nowhere close to the Mac unless you as a user (or MIS guy, like me) scrutinize every element of the system for compatibility and regularity - in other words, EXACTLY WHAT APPLE DOES.
Enderle has really pissed me off now. I know the person who wrote the Popular Mechanics article that Enderle keeps referencing and NO WHERE in that article does he EVER say Apple cheated on the benchmark tests. I really want a phone number to call Enderle and give him a piece of my mind, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea.
Damn, but that man is an ignoramus.
Mon May 10, 2004 6:13 pm Subject: How come you guys(gals) don't post at the debate site?
Mon May 10, 2004 6:51 pm Subject: According to Rob.....
The major starting point for RE is that the x86 is the only commercially viable CPU for personal computers. There are a few problems with this axiom. The 6800 and later PPC archectures are more efficient. In fact, the other archectures have been used extensivly in embedded applications especially in the Telephony industry. It seems to me that IBM will sell enough units in servers, game boxes and Macs that the PPC will be produced in sufficient quanities to be viable.
Also the x86 seems to be at the end of its archecture line with Prescot. That chip is just too hot even for the desktop. My skepticism with Intel's roadmaps is growing. I remeber one of Intel's previous CPUs that died in the marketplace in the 70s or so. It was called the i360 I think. It looks to me like the Itanium is on life support.
Mon May 10, 2004 7:17 pm Subject: I'm not having any problems reading the troll posts
Maybe get a better browser. Like Safari. In fact, I'm amazed at how fast opening and closing messages is.
The speed that this thing works suggests to me that the text is there in the html, but being hidden by java or something. If so, the you can read all the replies in any browser by viewing the source HTML.
Mon May 10, 2004 7:36 pm Subject: Re: I'm not having any problems reading the troll posts
Quotealgr wrote:
Maybe get a better browser. Like Safari. In fact, I'm amazed at how fast opening and closing messages is.
The speed that this thing works suggests to me that the text is there in the html, but being hidden by java or something. If so, the you can read all the replies in any browser by viewing the source HTML.
It uses CSS and javascript, the html is indeed always there so viewing the source will allow you to read the posts. The IE problem is now fixed it was caused by IE not knowing the difference between the name and id properties. Gotta love these MS "standards" that Enderle is talking about.
Mon May 10, 2004 7:53 pm Subject: Well, Enderle was right about ONE thing...
The Pentium M and the Transmeta variations on the platform -do- outperform the Pentium 4 family in terms of work-per-clock cycle. Not only are they more efficient, they also run cooler. Unfortunately for Mr. Enderle this means that there are also some changes that, at least in theory, trade away some raw horsepower for these advantages. (The only saving grace here is that software has not in general caught up the the real capabilities of the Pentium 4.)
There's an excellent overview of the Pentium M processor family at the AnandTech site: http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1800
Having said all that -- Bryan, you trounced the guy, even without considering your analysis of his rebuttal. Nice work!
Mon May 10, 2004 8:51 pm Subject: IT pros are not bad people! (Rob Enderle... well...)
QuoteBorborygmus wrote:
As long as the so-called "IT Pros" need to protect their useless featherbedded jobs, crap tech will always dominate. They are fully aware of the fact that every company that has gone all-Mac has soon fired most of their IT staffers who were pretty much redundant with a system that didn't need them to coddle it. Enderle's blathering is just another way they fool the boss so they can keep these worthless jobs.
In my experience, this is almost never the case. Everywhere I've worked, the management has insisted on Windows or another Microsoft technology because it's what the customer wants, or they weren't aware of any alternative. Microsoft has quite a bit of mind share among the non-technical people who make decisions and sign checks, and when another unfamiliar name is mentioned as an alternative, it's dismissed out of hand because, if it were better than Microsoft's similar product, the executive would have heard of it. Right?
I think it's safe to say that all IT pros who work in the trenches every day would love nothing more than to have perfectly working machines on everyone's desktop. There's a fallacious school of thought that says IT people love it when things break because it's job security. That's total BS. IT people hate it when things break because it rabidly consumes time they could be spending implementing new technologies to help developers, staff, and customers. Fixing broken Windows boxes is usually frustrating and exasperating. I don't think there are too many people in this world who enjoy that kind of punishment day after day.
Back on topic... I'm stunned as to how Rob Enderle can make a living consulting and writing for any publication. He obviously doesn't have even the most basic facts about the Mac straight, which makes me wonder if he really has the facts about anything else correct. When people like Rob Enderle are this blatantly wrong, it makes me wonder whether their purpose is to seriously comment about and debate the issue, or whether their purpose is to stir the pot and reap the benefits of whatever exposure comes from it.