Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, WWDC
Apple on Intel, Everyone Just Chill Out!
Apple is switching to Intel chips over the course of the next two years, that's what we know. I have had a few days to digest this information and to put on my pundit cap and try to figure out what it all means for Apple as a company.However, I noticed something a little odd. Commenters on everyone of our Apple/Intel posts since the announcement have been asking, 'Should I buy a [insert any Mac model here] now or wait until the Intel Switch is done?'
Let me try and answer that simply: if you need a new machine now, buy it. If you weren't going to buy a new machine for another few years, wait. This shift should have no real effect on your purchasing decision. Apple has made it clear that they will be supporting their PowerPC code base for a long time, and that the switch isn't going to happen over night. This will take time, and during that time it would be very silly not to buy a Mac because it will soon be obsolete.
Here's an open secret in the computer business: machines are built to be obsolete the minute they are sold. Mac users are a little spoiled in this respect because our computers manage to hang onto their value much longer than our Wintel brothers and sisters, however, the moment you buy a Mac you should know that sooner or later a newer, shinier Mac is going to be announced. This annoucement hasn't changed that, it has only made it a matter of what chip is kicking around in that newer, shinier Mac.
Go forth and buy Macs, people!
The picture used in this post is courtsey of Eric Conveys an Emotion.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Neil E. Hobbs said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Well, Apple might well be supporting all us old-skool PowerPC groupies, but will the developers?
Sure, it might be as easy as making sure they check both the Intel /and/ PowerPC boxes in Xcode, but there's a whole lot of Altivec fun that's just not going to be leveraged for those of us with the processor that apparently wasn't good enough.
Bah. The only good thing is that 'real' PowerMac prices might come down in the next year, although if Apple's keeping a tight reign on their inventory then maybe we won't even get that.
Reply
Sk8rCai said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Here! Here!
Go buy Macs...wheeeeeee!
Reply
Carl said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
If anything, for the first year or two, a PowerPC will be superior to an equivalent Intel box. Why? Because it won't have to emulate anything, so it can take advantage of existing software at full speed. Just look at the leaked benchmarks of the developers boxes-- for un-Intel-ized applications, PowerPC is still the name of the game. PowerPCs will also be able to take advantage of future software, since there's no way any developer will fail to release dual binaries for the next five or more years. Why would you? You'd be cutting your potential audience down for no reason. True, you can't expect any new applications to put effort into creating really detailed Altivec instructions to speed thing up. On the other hand, existing applications won't rip them out either, so it's not like your computer will be any slower. It just won't run future software as quickly as it could. Which is also the case for… hmm… EVERY COMPUTER EVER!
Reply
Dave L said 3:42AM on 1-28-2008
I agree. I bought a dual 1.8 g5 recently to replace my g3 (I use the term "replace" loosely as the g3 is still used every day. I'm very glad I got it now. It's not as if I was going to wait another year or two once I decided to buy. In a couple years or so I'll get a MacIntel--yeah-I feel a little dirty saying that. I think I need a shower.
Reply
Kesey said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Nice advertisement, but how can one justify $3,000 for a powerbook knowing that the tech they buying isn't the latest and greatest. Yea, it may be supported and it may run all of the software one needs, but that's a lot of money to pay for something whos resale value will plumet the second Intel Macs ship (probably sooner). I say, unless you *really* need one now, wait.
Reply
Christophe Andres said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
The only ones that really need an Intel Mac for now are developers, because as mentionned in the "Universal Binary Programming Guidelines" states: "The best approach for any developer in that situation is to build the existing code on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor, run the native x86 binary, and see how the application runs." So a developer can't just recompile but needs to test on a real system.
Users on the other hand should just buy what they need and when they need it.
Reply
Hugh Fulljames said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
My scenario is that I was starting to think about upgrading my Imac (desk lamp variety) 800mhz, because I could do with a little more MPH for editing home movies. I was thinking that I'd probably do this in the autumn. With this Intel annoucement, there is no way I'm going to upgrade this year. My old machine works fine - it could just do with being a little quicker.
I can easily put off the decision for another year and wait until the Intel machines arrive.
I suspect this situation is quite common - its rare for your Mac to just stop being able to do what it does, instead you upgrade because you 'fancy' having a faster machine, bigger hard drive, bigger screen etc. I think what this is likely to mean is that hardware sales are very, very slow for the next year with only people who 'need' to upgrade doing so. Then when the Intel machines arrive there will be a flood of pent-up 'upgraders' buying machines.
I agree with everyone who has said that the processor doesn't really matter. However, having the Intel machine is going to be a safer long-term bet than buying a PowerPC machine during the next year.
What's really exciting about this move, is the possibility of a Mac that can ALSO be booted in Windows mode (I use a Mac at home and a PC at work, but often have to lug my PC laptop home to catch up with some work). Or even more exiciting being the possibility of running a blazingly fast version of Windows inside an OS X window.
Reply
Darren said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Hi everybody
In my opinion this is a great day for God and the whole team. He is looking in to the future for Apple and as I'm sure you all realise the intel chips will be getting through a lot more performance per watt in about a year; 15 vs. 70! I think that it is a brilliant day for Apple and we will be recieving dividends in a year!
Reply
Aaron Willis said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Okay, Here's the deal. If you've read this far down into the comments. You care about this issue. First, watch the WWDC Keynote. It will answer a lot of questions. Second, the "Benchmarks" are pitting a SINGLE PROCESSOR Pentium 4 Machine, against a DUAL PROCESSOR G5. Was there ever a question of who would win that one? Steve J. said in the keynote that the LOWER end Macs would get the makeover first. I believe that's because a 3 GHz P4 and a 1.42 GHz G4 are pretty comparable as far as usable speed and power. Some benchmarks would rate one higher than the other. They are kind of Apples & Oranges. (if you will excuse the pun) I don't know everything that there is to know about Processors, but my 2.4 GHz P4 machine runs pretty close to my old 1.25 GHz Mirror Door G4. I think that this is an easy transition there. Altivecs or not, you run photoshop, or pro-tools on my two systems, you kind of get the same result. Also if you listen to Intel's CEO, Intel and Apple are WORKING ON SOMETHING. I think that we are going to see more innovative products from BOTH companies to accomplish this agenda.
When I first heard this news, I to felt it was a bit heretical to the cult of Mac. After telling my Windows based friends for 2.5 years how bad their systems suck, now, the new macs run on the same hardware. So what. It's the software; OS X, Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic Pro, etc. that makes Apple truly great. You put OS X on a "wintel" box, and it will kill Windows. Just like if Apple made a PDA, it would kill Palm and Windows CE (or Mobile).
I agree, everyone, just chill out. I'm still a little nervous, but everything that Apple has done lately has been great. Would they commit suicide again? At the top of thier game? I think not.
Reply
_victor said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Thanks Scott! I can come down off this ledge now (thank goodness for wireless).
I remember the switch from Apple 2-era to Macs, from 68k to PPC, and this will be no more or less painful for the end-user (I hope).
We should all keep in mind that AppleCare extends a warranty for up to 3 years, which is an appreciable time of life for something like a laptop or iPod. And since my iBook is a piece of junk, think I'll go ahead and buy a new PowerBook next year anyway!
Reply
Small Paul said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Neil: you've overstated the task that faces developers. There's only one checkbox they have to tick :)
Carl: your premise depends on there being lots of applications in the first year that still require emulation. Developers have a year to convert, and Apple seem to be putting lots of effort into helping them. So I'd suspect that the major applications will be sorted by the time any hardware gets to channel.
However, I think the optimisation question is interesting. I'm pretty dense, so I've got no idea how much optimising for particular processors (i.e. let's use Altivec for this) goes on. But I'd guess that maybe it'll take longer for apps to really take advantage of the new Intel processors, as opposed to just running on them.
I dunno though. I say buy Macs now, they'll be worth thousands in a few years due to rarity value :)
Reply
Steve said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Hugh, I would check out a 3rd party processor upgrade for your aging iMac - that should give you the added boost you're looking for in the next 12-18 months until the Intel line is introduced. Think Other World Computing :)
I have to agree on the chill statements too. I don't know how many of you have ever worked close to senior leadership in large corporations, but these guys rarely, if ever, make huge mistakes. The execs that do continually make big mistakes are judged by 'the street' (Wall Street) and ousted for one reason or another. Think Carly at HP or some of the Enron execs. Also, many execs that are UNWILLING to change end up on the cutting floor. Jobs evidently realized that he could be limiting Apple's future growth by staying on PowerPC. He may have plans for Tablets, media PCs, PDAs, etc. and felt it just didn't have that flexibility with IBM as a chip partner.
Jobs knows what he's doing here. He told us some of the story at WWDC (his performance per watt story), but I suspect there is a bit more to it than that. It could be a strained IBM/Apple relationship, lack of (from Apple's perspective) continuous improvement and investment by IBM into future architectures (or platforms such as mobility), worry about future supply and being a 2nd tier citizen to the droves of XBox, PS3, and Revolution chips that will be literally pumped out of IBM's doors, etc.
Regardless the reason, this decision was not taken lightly, and was not made without all of the possible market reaction scenarios. My sense is that he made the decision with a mountain of data, lots of smart people, binary compatibility, and an eye to the future growth aspirations of Apple into newer markets.
If anything, I think we'll all be celebrating this change in 24-36 months with greater choice, better battery life (for mobile products), possibly an Apple PDA or Tablet in hand, and a backwards glance into the past with the words, "Why did we worry about it so much at the time?" echoing through our heads.
Relax, breathe, and continue creating great content on your aesthetically pleasing hardware running the best OS on the market. The aestehetics won't change and neither will OS X - those are the two bits that matter most!
Reply
Dave Taylor said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Yeah, well, I already wrote about how everyone is getting their virtual knickers in a twist for no particularly good reason! :-)
http://www.intuitive.com/blog/apple_moves_to_intel_so_what_big_deal.html
That's my $0.02 on the subject.
Reply
Chris said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
One thing folks keep saying that isn't exactly true is "I'll wait a year".
Steve never said that in one year they will release Macs on Intel. He said by this time next year Macs on Intel will already be available. My guess, we'll have Mac Intels by Spring.
Also, all this talk that resale value for PPC macs will plummet is nonsense. Utter nonsense and horsehit. Think for a minute people. Do a search on ebay for "iMac G3". The buy it now price is around 400$ on average. And people will pay that, and do. 400$ for a machine that's around 5 years old that can't even get close to running Tiger.
Damn, drop the friggin doomsaying. Quit assuming that every person on the planet has the same requirements that you have. Use your big-boy brain.
Apologies for the uncharateristic harshness of my tone. This shit is just getting ridiculous.
Reply
Eric said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
I wouldn't worry about Altivec optimization too much. This is why Apple tries to provide cool libraries for developers and the Intel announcement makes CoreImage seem more important.
If you program using CoreImage, then it's handling the optimizations and not the developer, so when you get on Intel, it'll automatically switch to using SSE.
Also, the computer's CPU has absolutely NOTHING to do with viruses. Viruses are software that attacks software. Unless you go to a lot of trouble, a Windows install can't touch your OSX files.
Reply
Sunny said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
I bought my first Mac - a 15" Powerbook - right after the SteveNote. The transition will take a good part of atleast 2 to 3 years. By that time 'Apptel' situation would have stabilized enough for me to make another purchasing decision. I am happy with my decision.
Reply
Dave Parks said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
"Apple has made it clear that they will be supporting their PowerPC code base for a long time"
... and we all know that Apple keeps its word on such things, I mean, look at Classic.. oh.. wait...
Reply
David said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Defer buying because a G4/G5 machine is obsolete? Because resale value is going to plummet? This is *always* true and the switch to Intel doesn't make it any different. I bought my alBook three weeks before Apple speedbumped them and Apple speedbumped the G5 desktops just 8 days after I bought. In both cases my computers' resale value dropped. In both cases I knew Apple would be releasing new machines that would trump my new computers. It happens and it is something I've come to expect and accept.
The only twist Intel brings to the equation is how long developers (including Apple) will continue to support the PowerPC. Conservatively we can expect one upgrade from each developer after Apple completely switches. So at the earliest, sometime in mid to late 2008 software will start being Intel only. In other words, we can expect our newly purchased Macs to be fully supported for the next three years. That is just about how long I keep a machine as my main production machine.
So Intel changes everything - and it changes nothing. The value of new computers will drop - just like the value of new cars. Old computers eventually stop being supported. That is life. But that doesn't mean old computers become valueless nor does that mean a new PowerBook is suddenly without value and totally obsolete because Apple is switching to Intel.
Reply
Fen said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Considering the PPC Mac base is going to be many times larger than Intel Macs for many years to come, any developer not willing to make universal binaries is brain dead. These companies are around to make money, and not supporting PPC users is throwing said money in the toilet.
Reply
Vanitas said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
RE: Steve
"I don't know how many of you have ever worked close to senior leadership in large corporations, but these guys rarely, if ever, make huge mistakes. "
I'm really not sure whether to laugh or cry. Do you even look at the business page? Or the front page for that matter?
Reply