Dvorak predicts the ‘MacIntel’; says ‘Apple must go with Intel or risk its future’

John Dvorak is at it again. He writes, “Apple must go with Intel or risk its future. I’ll explain why. (Mac users should actually like this column, for a change.) I see an opportunity for Apple to take the entire market – away from Microsoft, that is. The window is open. Much of this initiative, I believe, will come from Intel.”

Throughout, Dvorak’s bias that Apple is on the brink of demise underlays the foundation for his “theory” that goes like this:

– “Intel would love to screw Microsoft… and get the world back on the Intel/Itanium fast track.”
– “Apple must drool thinking about the other 95 percent of the market – the part it doesn’t own.”
– “Apple has to act boldly – and soon.” (Because Apple is always on the brink of disaster in John’s world).
– “Late 2003/early 2004: Apple ports and optimizes the Unix-kernel OS X for the Itanium.”
– “2004: Apple rolls out another version of the OS for the plain x86 family, selling that version directly to any OEM (Dell, HP, IBM, and others) for bundling.”
– “Late 2004 or sometime in 2005: Just as Apple’s new OS begins to populate the x86 market, Apple rolls out its own x86 machine.”

Dvorak concludes, “There is no doubt that a MacIntel machine could supplant the Wintel platform. And most likely, the entire hungry Linux community could port all the x86 Linux code to the MacIntel OS within weeks, creating a huge flood of good products. Adobe and other Mac products already run x86 code. This whole ploy is not like starting from scratch. Everything is already geared for success. The ducks are in a row. Right now, all things being equal, Apple should be able to grab half the market for operating systems. If it’s as aggressive as Microsoft was with Netscape and essentially gives away the OS to the installed base, Apple could possibly knock Microsoft out of the box completely.”

Read the entire thing for yourself here.

13 Comments

  1. John, you’re great fun, but you’re delusional beyond compare.

    This Mac user most definitely does NOT want “to grab half the market for operating systems.” I enjoy the fact that my superior Mac OS X machine is not inflicted with crippling viruses and worms with each passing week. Most Mac users I know what a healthy Apple that continues to fly below the radar of malicious coders. And how will Apple benefit by letting third-parties propagate all manner of hardware configs that Apple would not control? All that will do is begin to introduce the same maddening inconsistencies we see all too frequently in the kludgy Wintel world.

  2. SteveJack… you seem to be one that accepts the idea that the reason that Windows is so rife with virus/worm etc. problems is because of it’s popularity and not because of poor coding and a general lack of effort at security.

    I think it is possible to create an OS that is used by 50% plus of the population that is also secure. If Microsoft really did start losing significant market share to Apple or someone else, I bet that security and other quality issues would quickly decrease dramatically. MS’s monopoly decreases their motivation to release a high-quality product.

    Afterall, what are MS users going to do if they aren’t happy? Switch to Linux on the PC? Evidently not.

  3. Why can you not handle opinions that differ from yours? I love that you refer to his opinion as “bias” whereas your opinion is.. what? Retarded? Close-minded? How would you describe it?

  4. TCO,

    You’d be correct, except that Dvorak is a known biased Anti-Mac idiot. Thanks to sites like MDN, at least fools like him are exposed for the morons they are – and like you are, too, come to think of it.

  5. Apple is going to switch to Intel & Exxon has a secret carb that gets 100mpg, uh huh. C’mon people, this is about as far a stretch as one can get. If Apple was going to switch over to the Intel chipset the time to do it would have been at the introduction of Mac OS X. Apple is just now coming out from having to write software for both sys 9 & X, why would they want to move sideways when they can move foreward?
    A switch to Intel would require a rewrite of the entire OS, peripheral suppliers would have to rewrite drivers AND software, and Apple would piss off about everybody who has invested in the conversion to sys X. The investment in time and resources required would be huge, and would bring development of OS X for PPC to a standstill. Then after all is said and done, who’s going to buy it? If you think that people sitting out there with orphaned computers are going to switch over to a new platform made by the same company that just hung them out to dry I’ve got some swampland in Arizona I’ll sell you.
    The PPC platform is superior to everything the Intel/AMD world has to offer, Apple’s mistake was letting Motorola jack them around this long.
    When the 970 based Macs come out, the difference is going to be amazing. The current PPC chip limits system bus speed, doesn’t get full benefit or DDR chips, and is about at the end of it’s development cycle. However, if you produce a PPC chip without these limits, the speed increase with even 32 bits is going to be awesome.

    Put your bets on this scenario:
    1) Apple introduces X-Serves based on IBM 970 chipset late this summer, or in the early fall.
    2) Apple introduces new Pro Macs/Powerbooks based on 970’s at MacWorld in January 2004. At the same time, the iBook changes over to the G4 chip. Apple also intros OS X server for 64 bits at the same time.
    3) Apple introduces iMacs/eMacs with 970’s in the Summer of 2004.
    4) Apple introduces iBooks with 970’s in January 2005. Apple also introduces an upgrade to OS X with full 64 bit support.
    WHY?
    1) This gives Apple time to prep the OS for 64 bits, which is really not yet needed in the home market, but would be a great boon for the Server/ProMac market.
    2) This gives Apple time to get everybody on AltiVec without product overlap.
    3) This gives IBM time to ramp up production of the new chip without throwing quality out of the window.
    4 This gives software developers time to get their future plans in sync with Apple’s hardware & OS plans.

  6. Davgreg, I’d go with your predictions over Dvoraks any day. He is completely clueless. I just hope the 970 roll out happens a little faster than you predicted.

  7. I do not think a switch to Intel is a good idea, nor is it something I expect. However I do think Mac OS X for Intel is a good plan.

    We work in a Windows world. I even run a windows machine for work (we require tools only avalabile for windows). In my circle of friends, more than 80% would gladly pay $129 to Apple for OS X on their machines.

    The big problem for the Mac is the lack of programs available for the Mac. Not the biggies – the mac is a perfectly viable business computer. But the oddball programs that you need once a month. Another biggie is games – developers play games. Only market share will solve this.

    Most of the new Intel customers will spend huge amounts of time in VirtualPC, but they will begin to scream for native versions. Cross-platform API’s will take root as companies are forced to maintain both platforms, and it will become the norm that you write appllications for both systems.

    Over time Apple will gain the market, as they are moving towards a more open and free (as in freedom, not as in no cost), but Microsoft is going the other way. We all like the freedom to determine how we use our computers.

    Will Apple do it? I don’t know. I think they fear losing the uniqness of their hardware, and the higher profit margins they bring. I disagree, Quality will sell, and in the long run Apple will sell many more systems than they do now. Especially if they naturally release the PowerPC versions first, the Apple machines will always be a few months ahead of thir intel counterparts.

  8. Somebody oughta adjust his meds. He’s cycling up again, and his rants gets more weird as the days go by.

    Considering that he thinks Apple should have tanked years ago (since they are always on the brink), why does anybody even take him seriously? Why does anyone still pay him to write this bizarre form of reality? Sheesh! It’s like listening to the Iraqi Information Minister.

    Go away, John.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.