Monday, June 06, 2005
Apple and Intel: A Marriage Made in Somewhere or Other (Updated)
Apparently it’s true.
I’m getting my facts together and I’ll be back as quick as I can.
Quick Update:
From Create Digital Music
Apple is making a transition to Intel processors because Jobs says Intel delivers better performance per watt, and IBM has let them down with no 3 GHz processor and no PowerBook G5. The transition will last “a few years” starting next year at this time with the first Intel-powered Macs.
According to Jobs, Apple has secretly been working on Intel compatibility for five years. (Ironically, what many rumors had speculated when Apple first made the transition to the NeXT operating system, which always ran on Intel.) He says the entire WWDC keynote was presented on Intel OS X. The operating system was always designed to be cross-platform, and every Apple app has been cross-platform tested, from iPhoto to QuickTime to Dashboard.
Compatibility Tweaks Required: This transition won’t be without technical hurdles. Code will have to be tweaked and recompiled for Cocoa and Carbon. That could be bad news for the Mac music developer community, which has just expended lots of energy just dealing with the OS X transition—now they’ll have to do the same for a kind of third platform, and Apple will have a leg up with its Logic, GarageBand, and Soundtrack products.
Man, I hope this doesn’t end up being a bad thing…
Update: Marketwatch is confirming the move, too.
As a user, here are my questions: how portable are the applications I already own? If those products have to run in emulation (and they will), how will performance be affected? How much effect will this have on the prices? And, how quickly will developers be able to port their apps to the new hardware?
Secondary questions, since I wasn’t at the conference and didn’t hear Jobs’ words: how long will Apple support the PowerPC architecture? How long can I expect other vendors to support the architecture if I can’t afford an upgrade by next year or the year after?
Update: Bryan has thoughts on the subject. I agree with much of it, although I still say that the final disposition of this move will be in the hands of the third party software developers. If they handle the temporary dual OS strategy with grace, then the move will probably be painless; but if some of the big players balk at a new chip and tweaking and compiling their software for two operating systems over the next few years, then the move could be a near disaster. I buy Apple computers for two reasons: I prefer the Operating System, and all of the applications that I want and regularly use are well-supported.
Update: Zygote Design has some particularly clear thoughts on the subject.
Comments & Trackbacks
This will be bad news for Microsoft.
How?
I don’t believe that this will impact Microsoft at all. The average user doesn’t choose their OS based on the processor, they choose their OS based on what applications they use and the OS that is most comfortable to them (often what they use at work). Apple has not, as I understand it, announced that they are marketing OSX to PC-users, they are simply building Macs with Intel chips. The real money for Apple is in hardware, so I don’t see them doing anything different in the forseeable future. Even if Apple were to create a version of the Mac OS that runs on non-Apple, x86-based systems they would still have the issue of getting the non-technical user to switch. This isn’t as easy a sell as the ./ crowd believes it to be (I know, I have tried). The average end-user is resistant to change with respect to their computer. It took them a long time to get comfortable with what they have and they don’t want to go through the learning curve again.
I don’t think that Redmond really cares all that much about this change at Apple.
I agree with Jerry, this isn’t a change for Microsoft at all. The only people that get hurt by this deal are IBM/Moto, and that’s going to be minimal. Apple moved a little under 2 million units last year, which sounds like a lot, but every single next-gen gaming console has 3 to 8 PowerPC chips and each of those consoles will probably hit 10 or even 20 million units sold. IBM mostly loses the branding opportunities that being an Apple partner brought, and really, how many IBM ads have you ever seen that even mentioned Apple?
Honestly, I have very little care how this effects Redmond; I just want to know precisely how it’s going to effect me and the developers who make the software that I use on a daily basis.
Beyond that, if Apple gains marketshare, that would make me extremely happy, but I don’t see it fighting for control of the OS market with MS any time in the near future.
I haven’t seen anyone address what impact this will have on the most important product of all time: The IPOD. More specifically, Mark Lanegan songs on IPODs. Will he sound better, or worse? More poignant? Will he be forced to return to drugs on the news that Apple will use Intel chips? We need to know these things.
Focus, people.
You’re just trying to get on my good side.
It’s working, of course. Heheh.
You have a good side? Huh.
It’s not my backside, I’ll tell you that…
You know, every time Apple makes a move, it’s forecast as doom for the company. And it’s usually played out well enough. I’m going to trust Jobs on this one. the UNIX core of OS 10 is meant for less reliance on a specific chip, or so it would seem to me.
And I’d suspect some of the same will rub off on the major players in the software end.
I’m of a mind that nobody’s buying Apple for the chip anyway. We buy for the rockin’ OS that beats the pants off Windows!
This is bad for Microsoft because, in spite of what Jerry says, people will be more likely to change OSs if they don’t have to change their box.
Of course Apple’s decision to shift to Intel will have an impact on developers and users. Just as their shift from Motorola to the PPC chips did. Just as their shift from OS 9 to OS X did. Developers and users will survive and prosper. Programs written in Cocoa or that have been carbonized, and that stuck with the Apple toolbox, won’t have many problems. Linux and most other Unix platforms are available for just about any chipset available, including PPC. It won’t be a problem porting the Mac OS, or the program.
What will happen now is that companies like Dell and HP can start building Mac boxes without having to change their assembly lines. The corporate world can now look to competition between the two OSs, which will mean lower prices and better features. Because of the design principles Unix is built around, Unix is more secure and stable than Windows, making the cost of ownership much lower.
Microsoft has a lot to fear. The proof will be if the next 6 months or so MS stock price starts going down, while Apple’s rises.
Well after reading some of the new developer docs that Apple released today and watching the keynote (mmm, Apple Kool-Aid) I’ve climbed down from the clocktower.
Apple just needs to do a really, really good job of explaining that PPC is still a first-class platform for the future to keep from tanking Mac sales now. Can they do it? I hope so, they’re certainly a lot better at PR and image than they were at the start of the PPC transition.
Just had a big post wiped out by getting the spam word wrong, but perhaps that’s a good thing. Short version:
HP and Dell won’t start making Mac clones, Apple won’t let them.
This isn’t going to make switching to Mac easier, PC users won’t be able to just install OSX on their Dell for a lot of reasons (1. Bryan buys Mac because the OS rocks, but the OS rocks in part because of the uniformity of the hardware it runs on, it would crash a lot more if it had to support any video card you threw at it, rather than just a handful. 2. A lot of people buy Mac because of the physical design of the machines and the cool factor that brings.)
The only people that will build Mac clones are hardcore geeks, and those will be one-off systems that won’t be cheap (just cheaper) running some hacked OSX install.
The only other people (well, other than ordinary users that will get quicker and cooler Powerbooks) that care about Macs with P4s are geeks like me that will install XP on them.
You couldn’t use the back button and retrieve the comment?
Maybe I really do just need to make it a preview-only comment system or figure out how to carry over the comment to the “you screwed up” page so that you get another chance.
I mostly agree with what you’re saying, although I wonder precisely what Apple will do to make the system so unique that OS X can’t be made to install on non-Apple systems. I also wonder how quickly their protection will be hacked to allow for OS X install on standard Intel boxes.
I hit the back button and the window was blank. Maybe if I used the back link in the error message?
I would guess that they’ll use a standard motherboard with a tweaked BIOS or a non-standard ROM connected that identifies the machine as a Mac. The OSX install will check for that info. I doubt it will take long (a week?) for someone to figure out how to make OSX stop checking. But you’ll still need the same hardware as the Mac system since that’ll all they’ll write drivers for.
Oh, and the back link doesn’t work any better.
Z, Matt:
According to eWeek (page #2 of this:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824781,00.asp) the solution is in the chip itself. Intel has a technology called LaGrande that can prevent any OS but the Mac OS from booting on a Mac. I don’t know anything about this technology so I will have to defer to the article.
Informative article.
My immediate thoughts:
1- LaGrande does make the move make more sense.
2- However, I don’t trust the idea of “unbreakable” and think that the most talented geeks will find that to be a clear challenge to their abilities. We’ll see what happens.
3- Oddly, while Apple could end up being a big winner in the long haul (although I really wonder what sales of PowerPC based boxes is going to look like over the next two years), Microsoft could be a winner, too. Let me explain: while I prefer the Mac OS, there have been times that I need to use Windows and times where it would simply be more convenient for me to be using Windows. Virtual PC is a half solution--yes, it does emulation well (or it did the last time I tried it), but it is slow. Having an actual, honest-to-God dual boot system appeals to me, and MS might actually get me to pony up for a Win XP license. The only advantages Virtual PC has are that it doesn’t require reboots and it can share some resources with OS X. Significant, yes, but compared to the ability to actually run XP at a good speed on the same box? I’m not so sure.
Either way, that makes the whole thing even more interesting for me.
Jerry - Thanks for that info. That will probably make it very hard to install OSX on a generic box, and will also make it hard for me to dual-boot XP on my Mac. That matches the more detailed info that Jeff Harrell left in this Vodkapundit thread. Good stuff over there.
Matt, in reference to dual boot boxes:
From this article. Now, all of my other thoughts to the side, can I tell you guys how much I want a dual boot Apple laptop?
Interesting post that claims that the current developer version of OS X will run on standard Intel hardware here. Course, this won’t always be true, so try it now if you can find it.