“The bull case for Apple over the past year has been that booming sales of iPod music players will create a ‘halo effect’ that will lead to higher demand for the company’s Macintosh computers,” Troy Wolverton writes for TheStreet.com.
Wolverton writes, “While Apple has seen an uptick in Macintosh sales in recent quarters, that momentum may be slowed by the recent announcement that it is switching the processor at the heart of its computers from the PowerPC line produced by IBM and Freescale Semiconductor to chips made by Intel. Although Apple offered valid reasons for the switch, it could lead customers to delay computer purchases or choose rival systems based on Microsoft’s Windows operating system.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Clearly, Mac users find that latter option hilarious. Windows-only users, however, would miss the joke. Mac users aren’t going to choose Microsoft Windows based on Apple’s processor choice. It’s the OS, stupid (and the Apple Mac-only applications). The full article gives various viewpoints, including one we agree with: Mac sales will may slow in the short term, but Apple’s core Mac business will be better in the long term.
“More than even the processor, more than even the hardware innovations that we bring to the market, the soul of a Mac is its operating system and we’re not standing still.” – Steve Jobs, WWDC 2005 Keynote, June 6, 2005
Over the last 7 months I have purchased iMac G5, secondhand TiBook, as well as eMac and iMacs for other family members (plus 4 iPods) – the failure rate? ZERO. NIL. NOTHING.
(My 5 year old G3 clamshell stopped working though – but that was because I had ignored it and locked it in a cupboard and it wasn’t happy at that…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
I just helped a newbie buy a Mac, and though I warned him of the chip change it didn’t even enter into his thinking. For the vast majority of customers it’s a non-issue.
If Apple had said they were going with IBM’s CELL to help their roadmap, but it would require a recompile or emulation, with no Classic support but run x86 code faster we’d be over the moon. Well this is what they’ve done, but with Intel.
Buy based on today’s needs people, not tomorrow’s wishes…
My Prediction is, that the only PC company that’ll have OSX on their machines, will be HP. They probably struck a deal back when they started licensing the HP iPod. I’m sure as soon as they can fix it, so that other company’s can’t use it on their machines, they’ll start shipping it. HP was the only company that had any faith in Apple & openly admitted it & admired their products.
write ANYTHING to fill pages to garner hits to sell advertising
THAT should answer a few questions.
If IBM isn’t going to put the resources into making the PPC chip better what other options did Apple have? The Sony Cell chip. They didn’t like it. Also why confuse the mass computer buying customers with a new chip. Beat Microsoft/Dell etc. at their own game. I think it’s a great solution at least for this situation. Ten years from now who knows what’s next.
i agree with “justified”.
this… “analyist” guy couldn’t find his own ass in a phone booth if he used BOTH hands.
Grrrilla.
If there’s a need for an app and you’re not the only one who needs it, why don’t YOU make it and reap the profits?
You might also not that this Try Wolverton person didn’t write alot of this article. Some obvious copy/paste work there.
“Analysts have generally praised Apple’s decision to go with Intel. The move promises to lower Apple’s costs, which helps its computer become more price-competitive with rival Windows-based systems. And the move should help the company produce faster and more competitive notebook computers, demand for which is outpacing desktop systems.”
I’ve only read that about 50 times since Jobs’ keynote.
I wonder at what point does all this “processor speed” stuff even matter anymore? My G4 Mac mini can do anything I want faster than I could possibly need it.
We used to run 60 mhz Power PC chips just fine and got all of our work done. Sure it’s much faster now, but really, how much faster do you want things? Now it’s a big deal that AMD is faster than Intel blah blah blah.
Who cares? As long as OS X runs on it as fast as it does now, it doesn’t matter. Besides, everyone acts like they know what Intel will have ready 12 months from now (an eternity in computer time) for Apple to use. You can’t compare a Intel-based Mac to anything since it doesn’t even exist yet…
And can we stop calling the new Macs “Macintels” or “Mactels” or whatever. We didn’t call them “MacPPCs” or “MacFreescales” or “MacIBMs.”
Let’s see, Windows users tried Linux because it ran in x86 boxes. So now that there will be Intel-chipped Macs, Mac users will now suddenly abandon the Mac platform? If MacIntels run Windows as well as OS X, I see the migration TO the Mac from Windows. The switcher has their investment protected.
Now if “lisa” will only understand that PPC Macs are not suddently worthy for the trash can and will be running new software titles for years to come…
“I wonder at what point does all this “processor speed” stuff even matter anymore? My G4 Mac mini can do anything I want faster than I could possibly need it.”
Try running the new QT movies on my 800mhz iMac. Its too slow, and appears more like a slide show than a movie. If allo you want is Internet and e-mail, then you don’t need the faster processors. If you work in video, photography, programming, or anything else that needs to render or compile, then you need the fastest possible processor.
I have not become a brainwashed Mac user yet, but I am smart enough to know that jobs hasn’t lead Apple astray since his return to the company. I trust this move. Someone earlier said that Steve is privy to Intel information that we are not. That is totally true. I trust this decision, even though I had to go through this thought process to get here.
My 800 should last me until the Mactels come out. Then I will get a new Mac. As I’ve said before, if I NEEDED a new Mac, I’d go get one. But I should beable to wait on the new ones for just home use. I do have to tell you that all of this speculation is making me drool. The possibility of a PowerMac running twin dual-core processors is very exciting. The possibility of a PowerBook running a dual-core processor is equally exciting. The possibility of Intel and Mac leaving the x86 desogn behind in 6 or 7 years has me planning my computer purchase after the next computer purchase.
Bring back the Amiga!!!!
Um….I don’t think so bub!!!
http://homepage.mac.com/rossetantoine/osirix/Index2.html
Free open source PACS software for OS X
The real Sputnik has now been identified. It’s Troy Wolverton. The writing style is for both is the same!
These MacTel machines would have to have lots extra compared to run of the mill PC’s if Apple is going to try to sustain their pricing structure. I’m hoping that Apple does not discontinue the use of Open Firmware. I’d hate it if firewire target disk mode were removed from future systems.
Please forget the second “is” in the above.
Maybe you should spend more time on Google looking for the software you need and less time dreaming about the Dell junk you are about to waste money on.
http://www.idoimaging.com/cgi-bin/imaging/program.pl?ident=116
And if you still insist on getting a windows based laptop, DO NOT BUY DELL, it is cheap commidity garbage. Get an HP/compaq.
Here is another:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/mac/13786
Another pin headed mind fart from Mr.
Corr.
I bought a new iMac two weeks ago. 20″ G5, 2GHz…$1,800. I LOVE this machine.
PC users wait untill Apple has completed the Intel switch in two years time …. what a a..wh.. writing !
How prescient, that quote from SJ, that he knew morons were going to suggest a Mac–>Win Switch LMFAO
Give me a fuckin’ break.. the Intel switch means the next ten years will be great for Intel.. what does this have to do with MS? I don’t know what this guy’s smokin..
Is it hard to believe IBM was great until their broke promises, now Intel’s more attractive? Why is that impossible..?