Monday, June 06, 2005
Watch This Space for the Apple/Intel News of the Day
I was dismissive of the initial report, but it looks like it might actually come to pass: Apple might truly be moving to Intel processors and the AIM (Apple IBM Motorola) alliance might finally be dead. The noise and news has moved beyond the typical speculation and right into the realm of serious talk; and if that news is correct, we’ll know by the end of the day.
News.com reported that Apple would begin the transition to Intel with its lower-end computers, such as the Mac Mini, in mid-2006 and higher-end models a year later.
Apple’s break with IBM stemmed from Jobs’ wish that IBM make a larger variety of the PowerPC processors used in Macintosh systems. IBM balked because of concerns over the profitability of a low-volume business, News.com reported.
I still wonder how the shift will be handled and how a dual OS strategy will pay off for Apple (since they will need to not only support the two operating systems for sale and distribution, but also for update and support during the first few years after transition). Even more curious, and potentially harmful, will be to see how the move changes Apple’s relationships with developers.
It’s hard to second-guess Steve Jobs, but I’m still uneasy about this news.
(0)
Comments & Trackbacks
I just don’t see it.
Where does this even make sense? If Apple announces that they’re switching to x86 chips it’ll kill Mac sales, very possibly forever. Who’s going to run out and buy a new PPC Mac when they know the whole architecture is going to change? Especially if the Mac is then seen as just a really expensive Intel PC that comes with a funny OS. And you know it will be, regardless of any architectural differences.
You’d also think that they’d let developers know more than a year out. IIRC, they let developers know about the PPC switch way farther in advance. They also probably couldn’t get away with a “Fat Binary” emulation scheme like they had with the PPC switch. Then they were emulating the Moto 680x0 chips on a vastly faster processor, that’s not the case with PPC->Intel since the G5 and P4 are pretty much at parity performance wise. And what about software that uses AltiVec?
I guess we’ll find out in about ten minutes. Could happen, I suppose. After all Jobs is from another planet.
Honestly, those are a lot of the same issues that I kept thinking about--and, yet, I’m fully expecting to be disturbed by the real announcement in just a few minutes.
Highly disturbed.
While I’m really surprised by this, and somewhat apprehensive, I also see some cool potential. If a Mac is just a PC running OSX, then will we be able to install OSX on a PC? I think the answer might end up being yes, even if it is unsupported and takes some hacking. That would make having a “Mac” much cheaper. Of course, it would also kill that Mac cachet.
Which might not be bad, most of that cachet is just snobbishness.
Crazy man. I like being a snob.
Whatever happens, I doubt you’ll be able to run OS X on non-Apple hardware for a couple of reasons:
A) It doesn’t make any sense for Apple to do so. Apple makes it’s money from selling Apple hardware. If you can run OS X on a $300 e-Machines POS Wintel box why pay for Apple hardware?
B) There’s no way Apple has the resources to devote to supporting even a significant range of Wintel hardware. Trying to support every silly gimcrack made for the PC is just a ridiculous amount of work. even MicroSoft has trouble with it.
C) Remember when The Steve came back. First thing he did was kill the Clones. I don’t think the reasons for that have changed, and there’s even less case for running on a bog-standard PC platform.
Also, as ZB points out, I like being a snob.
You silly little man.
Who you calling little?
A) I don’t think OSX will run on just any generic PC. I also don’t think Apple will go out of their way to make it run on generic hardware, I agree that will just canibalize Apple’s hardware sales. But if they’re just going to put an Intel motherboard and chip with an ATI video card in a PowerMac, what’s to stop me from reading the first review of the box and building myself one from exactly the same parts? Sure, they’ll probably try to do something to stop me, like a hardware key on the motherboard or something, but how long until somebody hacks it?
B) Like I said, this won’t be something Apple will support. It’ll most likely even break the OSX EULA.
C) That’s why I’m so surprised by this move. It will make building Mac clones at least theoretically possible, and that’s gonna have Apple’s lawyers working a lot harder.
Regardless, I’m glad you enjoy being a snob. I do, too. I love the longing looks I get when I whip out my 17inch Powerbook. But being a snob is expensive, and I have a four year old whose mother is insisting we send to private school next year.
We’ll get a chance to see how quickly that Apple-specific motherboard can be hacked to more generic hardware. It’s happening, it’s real, it’s definitely going to be interesting.
Matt, ‘twas a joke. I just thought you’d be taller.
Another interesting question: If it’s hard or impossible to install OSX on my own PC, how hard can they possibly make it to install XP on my Mac? Dual-boot, baby!
Now that’s just sick.
Matt,
“If a Mac is just a PC running OSX, then will we be able to install OSX on a PC?”
You already can. It’s called Darwin: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
Darwin is not OSX. It doesn’t have the Aqua interface and it can’t run Cocoa or Carbon apps. If I wanted to run BSD I’d just install that.
Dual boot XP and OSX? It’s like a geek version of this
Matt,
My point is that the actual operating system in use in OSX does currently run on Intel systems, so the idea of running the full OSX suite on a PC is not unreasonable.