Filed under: WWDC
Editorial: Apple on Intel
By WWDC 2007, Apple will be switching to Intel. What does this mean?
It depends on who you are. If you are a mobile user, like myself, it means there will be no Powerbook G5. The next Powerbook will be running on an Intel chip.
In fact, it most likely means that there will be no new Apple hardware until there is some sort of Intel-powered Apple product. I cannot imagine Apple managing to sell many machines running a PowerPC chip after they just ditched the platform so openly and quickly. So if you've been waiting for the WWDC before buying that new Mac, you might have to wait quite a bit longer.
This probably also means that Macworld Boston *could* be the place where some new hardware running on Intel will first emerge. I'm guessing that we'll see new Intel-based hardware trickle in sooner rather than later. Otherwise, Apple's sales are going to bottom out.
Jason thinks that Apple's next move will be to give the OS away for free, get everyone hooked, and then start charging. This is an interesting theory, as it is the same bait and switch they pulled with iLife and iTools become .Mac.
I don't think it will happen, though. I could be totally wrong. I was about today's news.
I could see Apple now selling the OS to any machine. Steve said, "The soul of a Mac is its operating system". If that's true, then what is to stop a marketing movement called "Make Your PC a Mac: Give it some soul."
It also means that that "soul" will most likely be shackled by DRM.... Don't get me started.
These are just some random thoughts I am having as I reel in shock at this news. What do you think?
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
marlo said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I think that what processor your computer is running is almost totally irrelevant for the vast majority of users. If the user experience is the same, no one should really care. Which brings me to my next point: it is incredibly unlikely that Apple will permit Mac OS X to run on anyone else's hardware. First, it's an economically-driven business decision; they need to sell hardware. Second, it's that "user experience" thing; third party hardware opens a pandora's box of potential incompatibilities and other problems mac users haven't needed to deal with for a long long time, especially compared to Windows users. Apple can control the whole experience, which is why Macs are a pleasure to use. So don't get too excited about running the Mac OS on one of those new ThinkPad tablets anytime soon!
Reply
Sascha said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
This is like a nightmare. I was just about to buy a powerbook for my next two years of schooling and this news is like a blow to the face. It basicly means that the powerbook I buy will be fairly useless in the near future beacause of the processer chip switch.
Which blows.
No matter how much cash I spend on making it the latest hardware, that chip inside is not going to be compatable with the next-gen apps made for intel processors.
Bottom liner is I now have to wait till they launch a notebook line WITH intel processors.
And so do some other people that were about to make purchases.
Where the hell was IBM... Why are we settling for incompetence just beacause it is 'stronger'?
Dont change horses midstream steve!
Or something like that.
Reply
Eric B. said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I am with you on this one as I'm completely blown away by the news. My immediate reaction was "Oh crap, there goes the resale on the 17"PB I bought 2 months ago and the Dual G5 sitting under my desk." It was always nice to know that you could get a reasonable price when it came time to upgrade. Aside from that I have to assume that this is the right move over the long term. How much longer can the Powerbooks go without a move to something faster / more dramatic? There are so many ways that Apple can go wrong with this one. I hope they able to switch to Intel and still give me that warm and fuzzy Apple feeling. I think that will be key to the longterm success of Intel inside Apple.
Maybe I'll feel different after I finish digesting all of the crow I've been eating this afternoon.
Reply
Michael Str? said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
You know what's really interesting about this? People will not only be running Mac OS X on Intel, people will ALSO be running WINDOWS on MAC hardware.
This works both ways for Apple. Powerbook and iBook sales are going to got through the roof. Regardless of what Dell et al. seem to think, there is a market for computers that don't look like shit, and iBooks are already very competitively priced.
Think a $999 iBook capable of tripple-booting into Mac OS, any ol' Linux distro and friggin' Windows. Can you say million-seller?
Reply
Merv said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
What I think is that Apple is going to release its hardware based on an Intel chip + a propietary motherboard/chipset.
So it won't be as easy as buying a Dell and installing Mac OS
I don't think Apple will be willing to run their OS on the many varied (china made) cheap motherboards in the market today.
Reply
Random said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
*coughs* Sorry, wrong person.
STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE!
Honestly, it's not the end of the world. Intel is not the villain. If IBM couldn't compete and come up with something that Apple felt was up to its standards, why not switch? Was the PowerBook G5 really ever going to happen? The chips are too hot; that's why the iMac G5 sounds like an airplane.
Bait and switch isn't the right term to use for changing from a free service to a paid service. I think a drug metaphor might be more accurate.
I don't think Apple is going to make the OS available to everyone. Apple is a singular product; that's part of its appeal. Do you know what kind of manpower would be required to support an OS on multiple machines plus Apples? That's why Apple has top support ratings year after year; they know their product intimately.
Reply
Andrew Kaufmann said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I think Apple is positioning themselves to attack Microsoft, and this is the start. Business-wise, the decision makes sense. And I doubt Steve would have done it if he didn't look at Intel's tech roadmap and seen things he liked. I think Mac stuff will still be well designed and well implemented -- or so I hope. I do worry a little bout Tiger being a little sloppy around the edges sometimes, I hope that doesn't become a trend.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. I just hope my iMac G5 isn't already obsolete, I just bought it!
Reply
Wysiwyg said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
Dear Mother Of God. Its like Nintendo saying that theyll release Mario and Zelda to Segas System, in the middle of the Genesis vs. Super Nintendo wars!
Maybe theres a good side on it: more Mac games.
*snif*
Reply
Nick H said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I was at the show... There is only one word for how I feel. Betrayed. What makes Apple tick is ***not*** just the OS it is an innovative architecture. By going with Intel Apple is sending a clear signal that it no longer wants to innovate on the hardware front. My next box will be AMD X86-64 w/ Linux.
Reply
Rob said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I think this is a good move for the future. Even though Apple may have to dip into their piggy bank in the next year it will be (hopefully) a huge payoff in the long run. I don't think the new-to-Mac customer is going to care what chip is inside. Just those of us that have been on it for awhile will be curious. Apple will have to show their stuff in the next year to prove they've made the right decision but looking at the keynote it seems like they've thought this one through pretty well. Time will tell. If the stock price goes down because of investors fears of Apple losing money in the near term what a great chance to get some stock because you know it will go up.
Reply
bryan webster said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I agree with Marlo, i still think we are going to see Apple machines with Intel chips being the only ones able to run the OS.
But what does this mean for older users when apple releases software? surely they cant drop people with G5s all together? or will they release an Intel and a G5 version of software until hardly anyone has G5 macs anymore? and will 3rd party developers have to do the same?
i think at the end of the day to users it is not going to make much of a differance except when they time on when to buy a mac.
i was looking at a G5 iMac but after this announcement i think I will be sticking with my G4 for a while longer.
Reply
Euan said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
Dave Winer seems to have inside info on things.
Reply
Callum said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I don't buy my hardware new to - on the next day curse the god of progress for creating something new. Sascha, did you? Did you buy your Powerbook thinking it was the premium, that that was Apple's best product ever. NO! Its crazy - the software will move on, but you won't be able to run new software in 3 years time anyway (iBook G3-er talking on Tiger here!).
I bought my iBook months after the G4 came out... there were problems with the G4 - they'd fix them. But I didn't want (for work I couldn't) hang around. I wasn't pressured into switching. I really can't see this double-library thing kicking off for all suppliers of OS X software, but maybe! MS & Adobe will be there.
I'm missing the point, right?
Reply
Andrew Kaufmann said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
"What makes Apple tick is ***not*** just the OS it is an innovative architecture. By going with Intel Apple is sending a clear signal that it no longer wants to innovate on the hardware front."
I disagree strongly. What makes Apple tick is great design that makes computing easy and enjoyable. They have an attention to detail in every level of design that people appreciate.
If the computer works well and looks good, people won't care if it runs on PowerPC, Intel, or whatever.
Can you name all the chips in your iPod? Didn't think so. You can innovate just fine with whatever guts you want. It's what they do with the chips that makes Apple what they are.
Reply
Small Paul said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
Sascha: your G4-based PowerBook will not, by any description, be useless. Mac OSX will continue to run on PowerPC for years to come. Applications converted to run on x86 will not cease to run on PowerPC. New applications can be made to run on both PowerPC and x86 simply by checking a box in XCode (literally). It appears Apple has learnt the lessons of the transition to PowerPC, so I really wouldn't worry on that score.
I'll be interested to see if we get a Mac-less version of OSX. We were trying to figure this out in the office today. We figured that it might make sense, given Apple's huge marketing push for Tiger: something like "The world's most advanced operating system... now for Mac and PC."
But can Apple make money from Tiger alone, without the hardware sales, we wondered? Then we thought that a fair proportion of Apple's user base would still buy Apple's hardware anyway, as we're suckers for the slick design, high quality (or impression of it), long useful life and nice little touches. So Tiger on PC would just be an extra revenue stream.
Longhorn vs. Leopard, anyone?
Reply
Mark H said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
If Apple adopts the Trusted Computing (aka TCPA, Palladium, etc) capability built (or to be built?) into Intel's CPUs, this transition may signal the beginning of the end of users having any real control over their computers. Read the following to find explanations of how this is likely to kill free software, shareware, and free operating systems such as GNU/Linux and *BSD, among many other very bad things.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html (short overview)
http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html (long but comprehensive)
I switched to the Mac primarily because of Microsoft's plans to incorporate TCPA into their OS, so to say I'm disappointed by this possibility is a huge understatement. If you thought DRM on your music was bad, you really don't want to see this come to fruition.
Reply
Small Paul said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
Oh: and it'll be a cold day in hell before Steve lets Windows runs on a Mac.
Although, with an x86 in there, one would assume there will at least be a hack that allows it.
Oh dear god. Now there's a thought to turn the stomach. At least with Virtual PC it's emulation, all nicely imprisoned within Mac OS.
Ew!
Reply
Small Paul said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
Oops, sorry. Dave Winer says different vis a vis Windows running on x86 Macs.
Double ew!
Reply
Nick H said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
"If the computer works well and looks good, people won't care if it runs on PowerPC, Intel, or whatever."
Try telling that to all of the folks who have invested into the G5 architecture on the hardware and software front. Hey guys ready to "uprgade" all of those 64 bit apps?
Reply
Steve M said 4:19PM on 6-16-2005
I'm one of the few who thought this was good news. IBM has dropped the ball with performance on the G5, and it was time for Apple to cut loose. OS X IS the experience, not the CPU. So I am not at all worried about how good OS X will be on the new CPU, it will still rock, and it will have faster CPU's that can be cheaper due to quantities.
However, I am sorry to see that Apple will continue to insist that OS X only run on their hardware. It would have been a major coup to announce that future versions of OS X will run on other computers (like Dell.) However, Apple still seems to believe that their big money stream is from the hardware, completely ignoring that the most profitable tech company in this Solar System is a software company. Apple continues to amaze me with their half hearted attempts at greatness.
Reply