Comments

IBM are having trouble keeping up. They haven't been able to deliver a cool-running G5 chip for Apple's laptop computers. IBM sold its PC business to a Chinese company last month so maybe they're moving more into services?

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 6, 2005 10:31 AM

Who cares! (apart from Intel and IBM obviously!)

It's what Apple do with it and the performance they get from it that matters. not who makes a part. The WOW does not come from the chip!

By the way I do think Intel's jingle in the middle of other people's ads is one of THE most irritating things going.

Posted by PaulH at June 6, 2005 10:40 AM

Intel are obviously cheap, but look at it this way - all the money they save by having other companies advertise their brand for them hopefully means that they can afford to put a little something into R&D!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 6, 2005 12:22 PM

Overall, I'm with Paul: who cares, so long as Apple continue to deliver well-designed, easy-to-use, value-for-money PC's. But then I thought, is this:

a) the start of an Apple campaign along the lines of, "We both use Intel but whose got the coolest hardware and/or software"?

b) a risky move because it puts Intel in a dominant market position and more able to increase prices?

c) a risky move for Apple whose OSX software (let's be frank here) wasn't really sorted until 10.3 was released: how much disruption will users suffer when they port to a new chip architecture?

d)a clever marketing move because Apple know that casual buyers look at processor speeds but don't realise that the Mac sits on a different chip and an Apple 2.5GHz G5 chip is quicker than a 3GHz Intel: the specs will now probably look similar so raise the perception of Apple amongst this casual audience.

e) a deliberate "commoditisation" of the hardware leaving Apple free to compete on design and software?

Posted by Mark JF at June 7, 2005 9:01 AM

"A Mac with INTEL/AMD-CPU is like a Ferrari with VW-motor. I don´t want a VW-Ferrari!"

Posted by Matthias at June 7, 2005 4:42 PM

I agree this is something of a non-issue. What matters more than the chip is the operating system and once Apple can port the stable, Unix-based OS X seamlessly to the "dark side" which they plan to do, what's the big deal?

Jobs says it will be a gradual switch, not dramatic, beginning in mid-2006 and ending in mid-2007. He also said that all of their internal developments have taken place on both the PowerPC and Intel platforms for the last five years. In his keynote address at the Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, he performed his demo entirely on a Pentium 4 system.

This is some of what he said:

“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far. It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”

This is what Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel said:

“We are thrilled to have the world's most innovative personal computer company as a customer. Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come.”

Apple has a history of treating its customers well and supporting older technologies, as evidenced by Apple's prior operating system, OS 9 (Classic), which runs seamlessly inside OS X and allows some of us who stubbornly insist several years later on running some of our programs in classic mode to do so.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 7, 2005 5:23 PM

This is the end of the "old" Apple. The "new" Apple produces things to the masses ... Good Bye!

Posted by Toni at June 8, 2005 1:37 AM

So long as Steve Jobs is running it, Apple in my view will always offer the best quality products, whether they have 3% of the market or 90%.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 8, 2005 1:50 AM

@Noel: Apple is going to get a "MassConsumerCompany", drunken of iPodSuccess. But the traditional AppleCustomer is a very individual person and this person don´t want just another pc-box with an alternate os. I am from Germany and read the the threats in the very important heise.de-forum >>> Steve, this is your "NEXT" disaster ...

Posted by Toni at June 8, 2005 2:08 AM

Toni, I'm pretty individual and a long-time Apple customer and I really don't mind what chip Apple uses or whether lots more people start buying Apples, once it doesn't affect the quality. I'm not too worried that it will.

I can understand people not liking the change, predicting the end of Apple as we know it. I keep in mind what the Virgin boss, Richard Branson, says: "... in whatever world you make for yourself, you can keep embracing the new and the different over and over again."

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 8, 2005 2:45 AM

It comes back to branding -

What is Apple's brand all about?
"Leading PowerPC computer manufacturer" doesn't sound like it was ever a part of their brand. So I don't think that the brand will be cheapened (Intel processors are expensive too :) ) So the Mac brand community can rest assured.

I think that the reason Apple made this big move in technology is for a far simpler reason - Most open source software developers first develop on the x86 platform. Only then do some die-hards go ahead and port that to other architectures. Moving the MacOS to an intel architecture unlocks a tremendous amount of value for Mac users, in the amount of freeware and shareware opensource products that they can access.

Besides this, I think that this move will encourage even more people to develop first on the Mactel platform, for performance reasons. Here's an example:
Take a look at the performance requirements for Quicktime 7 (released last week by Apple)
For Windows users, you need a PC with at least 1.8 GHz of speed, For Mac users, you need at least 800 MHz (G3 processor) of speed. Such statistics could provide better benchmarks for corporate buyers who want to get better ROI out of their investments, influencing their decisions, which in turn spurs innovation on the Mactel platform which increases its value.

In conclusion, I think this move has a lot of value for all three stakeholders - consumers, corporate buyers and Apple itself.

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at June 8, 2005 5:52 AM

It's a fun game to watch. Not as much fun as college basketball but fun none the less.

Please don't predict Apple's demise - OMG - haven't we learned anything?

IMHO - watch for the iPod to disappear shortly. S.Jobs knows it is a temp. solution. He's got bigger things brewing.

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at June 8, 2005 8:25 AM

@Toni: The iPod is mass-marketed to thousands upon thousands of outlets and dominates the market. But don't most who own one still feel that it's special? Everyone I know who owns one still uses it with pride.

And Apple began using largely PC-standardized parts, except for the CPU, since the late 90s. Based on Toni's criteria, she should've left Apple around the time the Bondi blue iMacs (with USB) appeared.

Posted by Kevin at June 8, 2005 9:12 PM

@Kevin we will see :-)

spend a little time an read what loyal Apple customers (exceptionally in the important german market!) say ... in my optinion Apple is on the best way to get the #3 (after Windows and Linux) at the desktop market in about 24 months.

and Kevin: In german "Toni" is male g

Posted by toni at June 9, 2005 3:09 AM

Toni, it isn't the first time Apple have done something lots of people, even hard core fans, initially disapproved of and I don't think it will be the last.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 9, 2005 11:41 AM

I don't think there's too much to that. Just sensational journalism riding on the coat-tails of Apple's latest announcement. Fun though!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 10, 2005 11:59 AM