Featured Article: TMO Quick Tip - Quick Look: View Multiple Images
The Back Page - Pre-Keynote Thoughts on Apple Moving to Intel
by - June 6th, 2005
Chicken Little is surely having a coronary. The gods know that the Mac community certainly is, sparked by the Intel story that surfaced Friday. I must admit that I've had a few twinges myself, but really, there's no reason to get worked about this.
To catch you up in case you had a life outside of the Mac world this weekend, CNet News and the Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that Apple will be announcing The Big Switch -- in fact it's The Biggest Switch of All -- later today. That's right, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is supposedly going to announce that Apple will be moving the Mac platform over to Intel.
As one of the perennial naysayers to the repeated suggestion over the years that Apple must move to Intel, I will be the first to admit that I was wrong, once Mr. Jobs makes this announcement. Or, rather, sort of wrong.
Analysts like Andrew Neff and Rob Enderle who said that Apple would have to move to Intel or perish were clearly wrong (watch them try and claim they told us so), but the reality is that Apple has turned around its computer business while sticking with PowerPC.
That, of course, is the great irony: Apple's Mac business is booming and even Microsoft is moving to the G5 for its Xbox360 gaming console (which runs a Windows variant), and that's probably what has most of scratching our heads. Why, exactly, would Apple change course now?
The company has worked for years to tell us that the PowerPC was a better processor than Intel's. The company worked its butt off to move developers not only to Mac OS X, AltiVec, and Cocoa, but more recently to the 64-bit architecture of the G5. That's a lot of man-hours invested by thousands of developers working, for companies both big and small, learning these technologies, and some, if not much, of that learning will have become obsolete.
Surely many of those developers will leave the platform if they have to start over yet again, right?
Honestly, I doubt that. If Leander Kahney's speculation is right, Apple has nabbed some emulation software that will make this transition as painless as the move from 68k to PowerPC itself was back in he mid-90s.
That should not only mean that old apps will keep running just fine on an Intel-powered Mac, but that developers will be able to take as much time as they want to migrate their projects over to a new processor.
Even if Mr. Kahney's musings aren't right, however, it's obvious that Apple wouldn't make such a move without a workable transition strategy, so I'll save the developer hand-wringing until Steve lays out that plan.
Of course, there's all the angst that Mac fans are feeling at the notion of having to swallow the embarrassment of moving to a processor we've derided since Ronald Reagan was president. Surely we'd rather hold on to our G3s, G4s, and G5s forever rather than use a stinky Intel-powered computer, right?
Bah, not me! As several of our commentators have also noted, the basis of my love for the Mac platform is Mac OS X and Apple's industrial design. Dave Hamilton noted in his blog this weekend that we might have to kiss some of that industrial design goodbye because x86 is hotter than PowerPC (think Thick Laptops and Nosier Computers), I'd still rather use Mac OS X than Windows or Linux, and I know that when the time comes, I'll buy an Intel-powered Mac, if that's all I can get.
To coin a phrase, Mactel (with apologies to former clone-maker MacTell) would still be better than Wintel any day of the week, and that's all there is to it.
Now here's where we need to remember some pre-announcement reality, and understand that we don't know that the Mac will be moved to x86. It's vaguely possible that a "move to Intel" will actually be to some sort of PowerPC variant Apple and Intel have cooked up together. Apple does own at least some of the PowerPC patent portfolio, perhaps enough to have developed a new processor with Intel.
I don't believe that for a second, however.
I do believe that Steve will announce something Intel-related today, and I think it will come in one of three forms:
- A new product using Intel
- A complete move to Intel (possibly for the sole reason of being able to sell us movies that can't be copied using Intel's hardware-based DRM technology, as also suggested by Leander Kahney). This idea has a lot of merit, though it sickens me.)
- The addition of Intel-powered Macs that will sell side-by-side with PowerPC-powered Macs.
In fact, it's the last that I think most likely. It makes more sense to me that Apple would add Intel-powered Macs to its line, not replace the PowerPC entirely. Such a move would appeal to many IT departments, as well as many potential switchers who would feel more comfortable with the Intel name with which they are familiar.
We'll see, however; since we're talking about the same company that is trying to force journalists to reveal sources, pitting the company against the EFF and many of the country's top journalists and editors, not to mention banning books from the Apple Store for being politically incorrect, I won't even be surprised if the Turtlenecked One tells us that Apple is licensing Windows NT as the basis for Mac OS XI.
All that said, let's look at all the reasons not to freak out, no matter what Apple does today.
1.) If Apple moves to Intel, it will have a compelling reason to do so. That reason could be technical (IBM is already more than a year behind promised speed targets), financial (Apple thinks it can make more money selling movies and Intel-powered Macs than it can selling just PowerPC Macs), or reasons of market share (more corporations and consumers would Switch to the Mac if it used Intel), or perhaps some combination of the three.
2.) Apple will have a solid strategy for transitioning the developers and users alike if it does move to Intel.
3.) It's Mac OS X that makes the Mac a Mac.
Lastly, remember that those who think a move to Intel means beige boxes with Mac OS X are ignorant. If Apple moves to Intel, Mac OS X will only run on Apple-branded computers. Apple will use a ROM-lock or some other mechanism to make sure that it's the Apple logo that matters, and not "Intel Inside," because Steve is obsessed with controlling the user experience.
I'll follow this bit of pre-announcement pondering with some specific analysis after the keynote.
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 Jun 06, 2005 8:34 am Subject: Intel Inside
QuoteApple will use a ROM-lock or some other mechanism to make sure that it's the Apple logo that matters, and not "Intel Inside," because Steve is obsessed with controlling the user experience.
No matter what, I really hope this is the case - and that it can't be cracked. I love my mac. In 1992-94 OS/2 was a better operating system than Windows and look what happened to it.
I want the user to have to choose which hardware/software they compute on still because otherwise we are dealing with too many variables for our OS X.
We're still four and a half hours 'till the moment of truth (damn West Coast conferences!), which gives us all plenty of time to speculate. So, here's my take: The whole thing is a huge misunderstanding by the press (which is a euphemism for "complete, total, BS"). I can't see this move as possibly making any sense whatsoever, and my prediction is that it simply ain't gonna happen.
Or maybe Apple will simultaneously announce that it's switching to Intel x86 AND buying Universal Music (remember that little gem reported as fact by mainstream news outlets?).
I've been wrong before (witness the iPod shuffle), and I'm prepared to be wrong again, but this time I'm betting against WSJ and CNet.
Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:01 am Subject: Hmmm ...
You know, Intel makes a lot more than just x86 chips. There are probably Intel-made chips in a lot of Apple products; I believe that is what is used in the Airport base stations.
Just because Apple is making a deal with Intel doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to be looking at x86 machines running OS X. Maybe it's a new device.
Quotetbone1 wrote:
You know, Intel makes a lot more than just x86 chips. There are probably Intel-made chips in a lot of Apple products; I believe that is what is used in the Airport base stations.
That's what I pointed out on one of the other TMO discussion threads on this subject. When I opened the side of my G4 tower I immediatly found a couple of Intel chips. I suspect that if you opened a Mac IIci or Mac SE you might very well find Intel product in there somewhere.
One thing that I've been thinking about ever since all the game box makers announced plans to use PPC--that no one else seems concerned about--is IBM's ability to provide all those game box processors AND still be able to find time/resources to supply Apple. Could it be that Apple asked IBM about that and IBM said they couldn't promise anything? Or that Apple would be third or fourth in line?
Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:38 am Subject: Watch Jobs Crow About Non-Mythical 3+GHz Intel
Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:50 am Subject: What the hell is bitter about it?
QuoteRealityCheck wrote:
Remember the megahertz myth? Watch Jobs do a 180 and now brag about how fast Intel chips are. What poetic justice that Mac fanatics are forced to swallow the bitter pill of having Intel inside. Today should be made a national holiday.
it isn't the bloody CPU that makes it a Mac it is the OS.
Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:40 am Subject: good point.
QuoteGuest wrote:
In reading the NYT story today, it's clear to me that the leak is with IBM. IBM knows that Apple is moving to Intel since it didn't sign a new contract for future processors, but it doesn't know exactly what is coming out of that Apple-Intel partnership - is it Mac OS X running on a PPC, Itanium, or x86 chip?
No matter what Steve says today about the transition, we'll have to start dealing with the FUD that Gates & Enderle will spin - i.e., that there is no reason to buy IBM-based Macs now. And since you should wait for the Intel-based Macs, you'd be better off going (or sticking with) Windows since Longhorn will be released by then.
I agree with this. However, what does IBM have to gain by leaking this story????
Other thoughts: I read somewhere (either here or another mac site) that Steve was primarily concerned with keeping PPC around while they did the transfer from OS9 to OS X. Maybe it was just easier to do one thing at once. Now that that's over with (the best OS) - with the iPod taking off.... they can focus on the fact that there's no roadmap for PPC chips from IBM and they need to stay competitive.
I'm sure that they'll make it as seemless as possible. I am almost certain that Tiger and OSX were created with the possibility of running on Intel without many issues from the getgo.
One of the biggest tipoffs is that laptop sales are now overtaking PC sales - and Apple is no closer to putting a G5 in a laptop 2 years after the fact.
Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:59 am Subject: Re: Consider this...
You're not taking into account that Apple makes its money on the hardware. Going PC in the way you're saying means Apple takes a serious cut in hardware sales. They have to make it up somewhere. Are prepared to pay as much for Mac OS X as Windows users do for WinXP? iPod sales do NOT make up the difference in income from hardware sales.
Licensing Mac OS X to other box makers, like Dell, would be a big turnaround from Jobs' stance on clone makers. Not outside the realm of possibility, but I don't believe Apple has the numbers to make such licensing lucrative; nor do I think switchers would come on board fast enough just because Intel is inside to make up the difference in income. The average user that makes up the bulk of computer sales doesn't by a Windows PC because of the chip, despite what Intel marketing claims. It's because "Well, I will stick with Windows because it's what I know. The Mac looks nice, but I don't want to learn a new computer system and all that."
Unless Jobs has gone insane or truly has something bigger planned, the income numbers just don't add up for me to believe all this speculation about MacIntels. It's another device, an enterprise server or piece of hardware, or something entirely not mentioned by any of the CHicken Littles on both sides of the OS fence. 
Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 am Subject: Finally, everything's falling into place with RC!
Suddenly it makes sense.
Reality Check is getting so orgasmic over Apple switching to Intel *because he'll get to install a warezed cracked version of OS X on his cheap Dell or whatever*. He's a closet Mac lover, and he just didn't want to shell out any money for a real Mac or for the OS, and now he's happy because he'll get to use it for free! Awwww. How cute.
Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:20 pm Subject:
QuoteBookman wrote:
All I can say is
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Reality Check is right on - if true, this will be one bitter pill to swallow.
All the claims of how great the G4 and G5 are will seem like lies, and make it very hard for me to ever believe a thing Jobs says again.
Then let me suggest that you've placed too much trust in the wrong place. It doesn't make a lot of difference what Steve Jobs actually thought about PPC while he's been touting it. Not touting it (and by extension, not dissing x86 to some degree) was never an option. You can't sell any product if you can't convince the customer you're behind your technology and supplier choices 100%, along with providing reasons for those choices. Anyone in a position such as Jobs will do all he can to create a great product, but, WHATEVER that product is, or how great it REALLY IS or ISN"T, doesn't change the fact that marketing and salesmanship, which inherently contain a certain amount of BS, are ultimately necessary if you're going to change the world or make any money.
Sorry, Bookman, not meaning to scold you. Just keep in mind that part of SJ's job description includes the word "sales". Beware the RDF!
I agree with Bryan's statement that what makes a Mac a Mac is the OS. As a Mac user, I don't really "use" the processor at all. It matters only to developers, for the most part, and that's where the execution of a successful transition will hinge.
I think it's sort of funny that anyone would "Freak-Out" over Apple's switch to Intel from IBM. It’s sort of like being afraid of drinking water because you can’t swim.
Apple isn’t the finest PC in the world today because of it’s processor. Apple is what it is because of it’s design, architecture and most important because of its devotion to you. We love the Mac (really OSX) because it delivers the goods using an interface to deliver an experience, that’s easy and fun to use. OSX delivers an operating system that makes your life more productive and less stressful.
Now, to keep the car crazies from clenching their buttocks: Apple G5’s running OSX are clearly superior to any Wintel box regardless of processor count, Ghz, RAM or any other factor. Understand that our universal concern is about is about keeping computers accessible, not about raw computational power or other arcane measurements.
Macs are cool because they respect your needs and deliver a platform that enables software developers to produce powerful, elegant applications that leverage Apples fabulous UNIX interface and enhancements.
Back to the point- The Intel question… Ask yourself where we’ll be in five years with IBM? IBM just sold it’s entire PC business to Lenovo Group (a Chinese company- think mass production, decreased labor costs and bigger margins,) after selling the hard drive business to Hitachi a few years ago. What does that tell you about IBM? Where’s the real money at IBM? Apparently not in hardware. IBM sees its future in the services business.
Now ask the same questions about Intel. Intel is in the hardware development business. Intel is a big boy and despite their foray into a million other things, they really understand how to design and build an engine. The processor. Yes others have beaten them, AMD, IBM (a little bit) and so on. But they didn’t have a very special thing, their about to get. A client with money, power, prestige and vision. A very special client that will motivate their focus and help them think outside the box. Sometimes, it’s important to have a client that’s a little bit of a prick.
Now, I love Steve Jobs or more accurately, I love what he represents. He is a leader with requirements, demands, expectations and a seriously vested interest. Not just money but a seriously vested conceptual interest. Steve has been at the right place, at the right time more than once. He’s not lucky, he’s smart. Just as important, the Apple team is not screwing around. It’s a smart bunch, devoted to raising the bar, comprised of a devoted crew that see their professional lives as a religion.
IBM isn’t cutting it. Why do you think there isn’t a G5 PowerBook? Do you think Apple is holding out? Why is the G5 the only mass market PC with a processor that requires a liquid cooled radiator? It’s easy to see that Intel has dual core 64 bit processors and even simpler to predict their future using Moore’s Law. So let’s twist it a little bit and point out that processors will get twice as fast at half the price every 18 months. Perhaps Steve should coin a “law” – “twice as cool at 10% off every 18 months.”
Personally, I think it’s a marriage made by God. Apple has everything to gain by moving ahead (read market share) and Intel has everything to loose by failing the challenge.
One last little thing. Did anyone think to ask what makes up the Pixar render farm? You know all those hundreds of machines rendering little complex pictures of Nemo. I don’t know but I’m willing to bet their not G5’s… I’ll bet their Intel powered rack servers running a Linux variant. I’m guessing that if Pixar had a huge G5 render farm it would have made the news.
About me: I owned a software company for 18 years that only developed Windows applications. It was successful, I sold out. I’ve been raising my daughter for the past several years and having fun.
I miss creating interesting answers in software, so I’m starting a new company. This time our environment is OSX.
I think we’re the ultimate converts, we know both platforms inside out.
Yet we choose: Apple.
Recent Headlines - Updated Tuesday, May 13th, 2008
- Tue., 5:00 PM
- iPodObserver - CW: AT&T's 3G Network Leaves Verizon, Sprint in the Dust
- 4:00 PM
- Montage 1.5 Gets New Styles System, Scene Navigation Enhancements
- 3:45 PM
- RIM's Empire Strikes Back at Apple
- 3:00 PM
- C|Net: Remote Possibilities for Apple
- 2:55 PM
- Mac Gaming News - World of Warcraft Patched to 2.4.2 - Class Changes, Mac Fixes
- 2:20 PM
- Apple Publishes Details on WWDC Keynote
- 1:40 PM
- Office 2008 for Mac Sales Soaring
- 11:50 AM
- Apple Gives Retail Store Site a New Look
- 11:10 AM
- Mac Gaming News - Friction Games Ships Penumbra: Black Plague
- 10:40 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - The Mighty-dirty Mouse
- 10:05 AM
- Adobe Updates DNG Specification with Camera Profiles
- 9:35 AM
- iPodObserver - HBO Joins iTunes with Two-tier Pricing
- 8:35 AM
- Apple Rolls Out "New Get a Mac" Ads
- 8:10 AM
- PageSender 4.3 Enhances Menu Options, More
- 7:40 AM
- Podcast - Apple Weekly Report #125: iPhone Expansion, NBC and Zune, Apple's Eco-stance
- 3:10 AM
- MS Office 2008 SP1 Improves Stability, Security, More
- 3:05 AM
- Microsoft Says Visual Basic Returning to Office
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- Download Typestyler, still the Ultimate Styling Tool for Internet, Print and Video Graphics. Works great in Classic with a Native OS X Version on the way. Free Tryout: www.typestyler.co