“Should you purchase a Macintosh with a PowerPC microprocessor between now and when the switchover is final? The answer: a definite yes! For the next few years, including even after the x86 machines are introduced, you will get more for your money by purchasing a desktop Mac with a PowerPC processor. As Apple can now offer only slower portables, buying a new portable PowerBook with an Intel chip might give you a much faster machine. For portables, we will have to wait to see what’s introduced,” Allan Warner writes for Geek.com. Warner then looks at why you should purchase a desktop Macintosh with a PowerPC microprocessor.
Then Warner asks, “Will Apple still be selling Macs in, say, 2008?”
“I doubt it,” Warner writes. “It looks to me like Apple will be going out of the desktop computer and, possibly, the portable hardware business, evolving instead into being mainly a software company.”
“Apple’s future operating systems will, in some way, work on any of the newer Intel x86 chips, which means just about any computer, even if Apple attempts to stop that from happening. The market will devise methods that allow the average person to overcome Apple’s restrictions. If you don’t believe this, you’re naïve. It’s doable technically and is an attractive economic reality. Steve Jobs is not stupid; I believe that he understands what will happen, and might even be planning it,” Warner writes. “Apple will sell computers as long as it can earn a very good return. However, soon it will compete with the Dells, Gateways, and Lenovos of the world, which sell commodity computers. Apple wants to unseat Microsoft, and Mr. Jobs thinks that he might be able to do it–but that means only high-profit hardware or no hardware at all.”
Warner thinks that the changeover to Intel-based Macs will cause a marked drop in Mac market share and cause developers to stop writing Mac applications. Warner writes, “The only solution is to place the Mac OS on a hell of a lot of Windows machines, and fast.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The crystal balls are out in force today. What do you think of the prediction?
“The news business abhors a vacuum and will therefore create anything to fulfill its need to suck.” – MacDailyNews
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Would Apple ever switch to Microsoft Windows? – June 22, 2005
I understand why Apple went to Intel, though I’m not convinced that it was the smartest move.
The advantages to Apple are that, in Intel, they have a company that is actually interested in the desktop and portable computing space. IBM does not appear to be interested–especially in the portable computing space. Going with Pentium Ms really helps Apple’s PowerBooks, which were in danger of getting trounced next year. Also, as Steve Jobs said, Apple has lots of great things they want to build but cannot because IBM won’t build a chip that meets their specs. This could allow Apple to build the fabled tablet without worrying about it burning up in someone’s hands.
One of the big disadvantages, as I see it, has to do with software. Consider this page at Apple’s site. Now, yes, I know, “Lies, damned lies, and benchmarks.” But let’s rashly assume that Apple’s numbers are accurate, just for laughs.
Why would we assume that a Photoshop running on Mac OS X would be faster than a Photoshop running on Windows? Even assuming that Windows makes apps run slower, just for laughs again, will you be seeing Photoshop run twice as fast? I doubt it.
Even if Intel does amazing things over the next two years and comes out with a CPU which stomps PowerPC into the mud, why would we assume that the Intel PowerMac running Photoshop on OS X would beat the Dell running Photoshop on Windows?
When Apple releases their new Intel machines, shitloads of people are going to buy them. Shitloads, man. Shitloads.
Apple’s ex-CFO is on the record as saying the company wants to move away from its reliance on hardware for profits. Software is becoming a bigger and bigger proportion of Apple’s revenue. It’s not too much of a stretch to think that when selling computers becomes unprofitable it’ll license out OS X. Clone makers will still have strict specifications to build to, however.
Peter, it ain’t all about the speed. Yeah, people want to have the fastest computers, but as the syystems get faster and faster, speed is becoming less and less important. The reason people will buy an Apple over a Dell is because Apple will have OS X and iLife, AND you can play all the Windows games on it. THAT is gonna be sweet. It’s really the last good argument against buying an Apple, and that argument is going to be moot shortly. Anyway, when it comes to running Photoshop, the speed differences aren’t going to mean much at all.
Remember – it’s just a chip and it’s just a company name! Imagine that Intel had purchased IBM’s East Fishkill fab plant a couple of years ago, just before the G5s were released. The G5 would be an Intel chip! So what. It’s not the chip that makes the Mac. It’s the (all together now) OS!
As the FUD turns …. lmfao!!
I’ve never heard such complete and utter bull. Apple pulling out of the computer hardware business would be like Ford pulling out of the automotive industry–it just doesn’t make sense.
I read an interesting article in the latest edition of InfoWorld by Chad Dickerson. While it’s a bit geeky, Dickerson, a Powerbook user who provides fair criticsm of Apple, reported that developers aren’t the least bit flustered over Apple’s planned move to an Intel CPU. For Dickerson and other developers that he has talked with, the switch for them should be a relatively trivial matter, and a lot of uninformed noise is being made about the change from IBM to Intel. Dickerson explained that it’s not much more than a simple recompiling of their current Mac apps using Apple’s tools, unless the developer was using older software development tools.
We should remember that OS-X and Intel have done this dance before. Steve Jobs admitted that a parallel program has had OS-X running on Intel for years. And too, NeXt computers using NeXtStep (a predecessor to OS-X) ran on Intel for years. Remember, OS-X is built on BSD UNIX, and UNIX is not dependent on any specific platform. Yes, drivers will have to be written to support some hardware such as video cards, for example. And at first, there might be a few ruffled feathers. But in a year or two, I have a hunch that we’ll wonder what all the noise was about.
As for Apple ceasing to exist as a hardware company, I think this is all so much punditry. Apple has a business model that makes a substantial contribution to the company’s revenues and earnings from sales of hardware. To simply become a software-only company would be the real bet-the-farm proposition. So long as Apple delivers unique value in its hardware, I believe that their business model will not change, regardless of what CPU lives inside. I seem to recall a little company named IBM tried to take on Microsoft with OS-2 some years back, and got their asses handed to them.
Good as OS-X is, minds were made up years ago, and those minds are closed. People are willing to embrace an inferior product (in this case, Windows) because it’s what they know, despite its well documented shortcomings. People have a vested interest in inferiority because it lines their pockets and protects their position. Sadly, I doubt this will change. But Apple can stay both competitive and profitable (as a public company, that’s kinda important) by offering unique designs that take advantage of what Intel will offer them. To become a commodity producer of computers, competing only on price would be suicide, as Dell won that war a long time ago. But as long as Apple offers something unique in the industry, which is what Apple does best, I am confident that the company will do just fine, thanks.
There’s news and then there’s noise. The punditry expressed in the article above was just so much hot air. Yes, Apple may have to weather a year of soft sales as it makes its transition. But the company has erased its long-term debt, and has more cash on its books than at any time in its history. Apple’s success with the iPod means the company is less dependent on Macs for its revenue and earnings. I have a feeling that in a couple of years, Apple will be selling more Macs than ever. And for me, the time in between now and then will be a good buying opportunity for its stock.
If you recall a couple of years ago, Apple’s stock sat at a pre-split price of $13 per share. I saw a profitable company vastly undervalued. Then along came the iPod, and Apple’s stock took off. We can expect a lot of flack from pundits and a cynical media in the next year, but this will present a buying opportunity for Apple stock. It’s rare that investors have this type of buying opportunity twice in 10 years, much less 50. If you’re patient, and I am, the next two years could be very bright indeed.
Didn’t I just say OS X is the future of Macs for the next 20 years?
This guy is a bozo, and it’s simple as that.
Steve
God, I’m going to hate myself for this later but…
Those that believe that Intel must equal Windows and don’t believe that you can have pretty much completely indendent platforms based on the same microchip aren’t really all that familiar with microcomputer history.
For example, how many people would equate TRS-80’s and the old hulking CP/M machines a lot of us used to use? Yet the TRS-80 and most CP/M machines were all running on Z80 processors. (Go Zilog).
And the Apple II and the Commodore PET/Vic 20/64 were all 6502 machines. (Well, an enhanced 6502 for the C64.) So were the original Atari machines.
What about the Mac? Started on the same 68000 CPU that powered Atari and Amiga machines. Were Atari, Amiga and Mac interchangeable?
Like Misanthrope said:
“Opinions are like assholes: everybody’s got one.”
He just forgot the last sentence:
And most of them stink.
lisa,
I quote you: “Apple–to be fair–needs to do something to keep these [PPC] machines viable after these new jingle inside machines come out.”
What part of universal binaries is not clear? You keep harping on Apple killing the PPC. For one, Steve Jobs said there would be PPC machines coming out during the next couple of years. This implies support – directly from Apple – until at least 2008. Universal binaries will run on either PPC or Intel.
What has Apple left out in your mind? Pretend it’s the day before the new MacIntel box is introduced for sale and you just bought a PPC Mac. Does the new PPC Mac automagically stop working? Do the universal binaires suddenly ONLY work on Intel-powered Macs? Do you think Apple (and software customers writing for OS X) is going to suddently abandon and flip the proverbial bird at its customers the day Intel-powered boxes arrive?
Peter,
I understand your point, however the benchmarks are based on today (well, today if were a year ago). For one, we don’t have any suitable Intel-powered Macs running OS X to make comparisons, so it is total system comparison, not an OS or CPU comparison. This will change, I think.
The Intel switch was based upon the future roadmap. This is something about which we don’t have clear insight – at least not like Apple and its hardware engineers. We do have to have some faith. But clearly, Apple is hosed in the laptop market with nothing to significantly move the platform forward. Steve did say more PPC hardware was coming out over the next couple of years, and who knows, maybe longer than that?
Until OS X on Intel is proven, PowerPC’s might still sell really well for the next few years, despite their shortcomings and lack of future (esp. in the higher end systems). I also believe OS X will run on these for a good 5-7 years from now, so they’d still be supported for their “taxable” lifetime.
I don’t believe Apple will get out of the HW biz, but if they did, they would probably do it only when they were losing money on hardware, and probably only if it was like 5 quarters in a row with a continuing downward trend, and if they had sales on OS X to non-Apple hardware picking up the slack. Steve’s done the software only thing before, so he may have a trick or two up his sleeve.
That said, i also wouldn’t like to see them risking OS X on a platform which may die or run out of steam again either… so I think they maybe doing the ol’ NeXT “multi-platform” approach.
Reading between lines in the Universal Binary guidelines, I’d say this is exactly what they’re doing. eg. using “__BIG_ENDIAN__” rather than “i386” and strong suggestions to move to their own (portable) vector libraries, rather than native binaries like AltiVec and SSE. , By abstracting as much as possible from the hardware, they aren’t as dependent. Of course, tuning their libraries for each platform would become much more involved as well, and would be interesting to see how well that turns out, especially with the initial Intel hardware versions.
I want to go on record saying that as much as I dislike this prediction and what it means to Apple – I think it is the dead right.
Apple would need a MUCH broader market (far more than 2%) to survive as a software company.
My prediction:
APPLE for the discerning 30%.
WINDOWS for the ‘dumb terminals’ at 65%.
LINUX for the geeks at 5%.
Apple is DESIGN magnificence: both in hardware and software; today, tomorrow and the next day. It is in safe hands.
OpJ, your age is showing, but you are 100% correct. And, thank you for the stroll down memory lane. My first computer was a Commodore PET. It came in RAM sizes of 4k, 8k and 16k bytes. I bought the 8k because I couldn’t imagine ever using up more than 8,000 bytes (8 typed pages) of programming space. I figured that colleges and research labs would use 16k of space. (Remember “Hunt the Wumpus”? It must have been the very first adventure game. Today’s games really aren’t much different.)
Today, too many self-proclaimed computer geeks are clueless as to how their computer really works; they are constantly confusing its hardware abilities with its software. They argue such trivial issues as bus-speed, clock-speed, and even word sizes (32 and 64bit) and not have a single clue as to what it all really means. They regurgitate myths, fallacies, rumors and outright lies as if it were all gospel taken directly from a CPU spec sheet. Computer complexity today is far beyond any single person’s ability to grasp all of its intricacies. This complexity also includes the human interface factor.
Rather than fogging issues with useless numerical parameters, the very bottom line is how quickly can the slowest of humans create the swiftest result. It matters not if the computer is a dual-whatever running at multi-giga-obnoxious speeds if the keyboard’s “A” key sticks or the user must click on a confusing sequence of various icons just to do a common task.
The user interface really is the important issue. CPU types and speeds are meaningless when the user must track down and install device drivers or frantically scour hundreds of help-document pages (with their boss screaming down the hall) to find how to access a single function.
A very small minority of us will ever run our computers to their full potential… okay, if you use Mathematica, you are a proud exception.
This battle of whose cock is bigger would be much more amusing if everyone was able to stand back afterwards and see the futility and nonsensicalness of the time and energy wasted upon it. But, alas, they don’t. They argue until they pass out from brain aneurysms believing that their rants hold some miniscule amount of value. In the end, the battle of the phallic fight is all that it really is. Both sides entered the battle stubborn, prejudice, and unknowingly misinformed and drawing absurd conclusions, digging their feet into the soft sand they mistake for bedrock.
Idiots; both sides, every one of them.
How is OSX ever going to get a double-digit market-share, if it comes only on boxes that look oh so purrty but cost a bunch more than a middle-of-the-road Wintel PC?
(A word for those who use ‘Dell’ as an example of a cheap Wintel PC. Get out there and check prices. Dell are pretty costly for Wintel PCs, because they make good quality hardware, despite your FUD-slinging. For cheap boxes, try non-brand self-built stuff. But this aside.)
Do you think that people will switch OS, just because you can run Windows-applications on a system, that also has some other OS, that is alledgedly much better than Windows? They don’t NEED OSX, so why try it, if the price isn’t right?
Apple hardware will remain in the ‘ultra high-end’ niche until it becomes comparably priced to Wintel PCs. OSX, if Apple have their way, will remain restricted to that niche.
So, only if Apple decide to license OSX, I see OSX taking over (Fortunately, the hackers of the world will force them to). If Apple hardware is dropped along that way, fine with me. Sofware-only companies can do quite well, let’s ask Bill Gates, eh?
And I don’t give a toss what a PC looks like, as long as it works. I don’t buy a PC to make a fashion statement…
What a lot of the pundits seem to forget is that OS X and Apple computers are BETTER and much more comparable in price these days. Why the heck would anyone move to something like windows which is so clearly inferior in a lot of vital areas such as security if it costs about the same?
The soft outer wood of the Mac User base was whittled away by pricing in the 90s. Also the Classic Mac OS, while still better than windows any day, did not enjoy the same extremely pronounced superiority that OS X does.
So the Mac User base today consists mainly of very discerning people who KNOW FOR SURE that Macs and OS X are better. The deadwood was cleared away and from the hard inner core of very dedicated users that remained, new growth has begun to emerge. So while the switch to Intel may have some switchers waiting and the growth that has been seen recently may slow for a bit, I seriously doubt if the move to Intel will result in loss of market share.
As for the writers take on desktops and laptops and whether it is better to buy a Mac now or wait, I would have to say that I agree with him on this. But where I think HE is being naive is when he assumes that Apple and Steve Jobs has not taken into account the risk that OS X may be hacked onto regular wintel boxes. I don’t know how yet, but I am sure that Apple has thought long and hard about this and has a pretty good plan on how to prevent it. BUT, even if it DID happen, I think the superiority of OS X and the very clear advantage of having a computer that can run all three major operating systems will give Apple and incredible marketing advantage and that we are going to see a major jump in Apple’s hardware business after the switch – NOT TURNING INTO A SOFTWARE COMPANY – that is a a pretty LOL proposition.
The above should have read:
I think the superiority of OS X and the very clear advantage of having a computer that can run all three major operating systems without complicated hacks will give Apple an incredible marketing advantage and that we are going to see a major jump in Apple’s hardware business after the switch.
This guy knows nothing about Steve Jobs. Steve loves hardware design. He has arguably the greatest living industrial designer (Jonathan Ive) working for him. There’s no way Apple would stop making hardware unless it suddenly became grossly unprofitable. With NeXT, he only gave up hardware design when he faced the choice of doing that or closing the whole company.
Switching to Intel doesn’t make Apple just another box seller, nor does it mean that they’re competing with Dell, et al, any more than they do now. Sure, this is bigger than the switch from Motorola to IBM, but not THAT much bigger.
Houdini Reborn: OK, so the developer MacTels run OSX and the developers have found that they can install Windows XP with no real problems. All the buzz right now is about how can Apple can’t stop people from putting OSX on Dell boxes. How this will kill Apple (yada, yada yada. I’ve even read an article on geek.com saying that Apple will get out of the hardware business entirely and focus on software. Apple is going to go head to head against Microsoft. (????) Apple’s strategic shift is clearly about the hardware. Apple clearly makes the best hardware around and the public at large is finally getting this message. The sucess of the iPod coupled with the rollout of the Apple stores has pushed this perception. It’s well known that that Apple makes the majority of its money on hardware sales and that it’s laptops and desktops are the most profitable in the industry. I believe that Apple’s long-term strategy is to sell more desktops and laptops by going after users who appreciate the fit and finish of Apple’s hardware, (and will pay a premium for it) but still want to use Windows (for what ever reason, real or perceived). Here’s the situation that Apple has created. An Apple desktop/laptop that runs OSX and Windows efficiently. Apple doesn’t realy care which OS you use the most, as long as you buy their hardware. Apple’s going against Dell, HP and all the other windows-only box makers.
glucoseboy,
“Apple doesn’t really care which OS you use the most, as long as you buy their hardware.”
Uh, that’s kind of a gross overstatement, don’t you think? Apple doesn’t put so much effort into OS development and other software offerings but not really care which OS you run.
justified,
you are correct. the statement “Apple doesn’t really care which OS you use the most, as long as you buy their hardware” is a gross overstatement. I would like to retract this statement and have it stricken from the record.
Sometimes I get on these rolls and go a little too far. (my wife calls me on it all the time)
That being said, if the MacTel can run both OSX and XP seamlessly, would Apple release versions of iLife for Windows? (and any of it’s other software as it has done for itunes?)
How much revenue would Windows version of Apple’s software generate for the company? But doing so would hurt hardware sales.
Hmm……