Is the switch to Intel Jobs' worst business decision of his life? - Page 2

This is what I see happening in the near future...

1) Apple will start to sell its closed (READ: you must buy our stuff if you want to use OS X) Intel based systems for about 1-2 years.
2) Apple will then open up OS X so that it will run on any Intel based system (with minimum specs of course).
3) After that, Apple will move out of the hardware business... (except the iPod & stuff like that)

I can see some good points to this, and some bad points...

For me, I've always loved Apple designed computers. I think they're great. It will be a sad day when Apple does decide to move out of the hardware development business. On the flip side, I see this as "cheaper hardware for all" that will still run OS X. This is a good thing. The main thing I love about my "Apple Experience" is the "EXPERIENCE"... That is the OS & it's apps!! Apple makes some awesome looking machines, but that doesn't help me with my productivity. The main thing I hate about the "Apple Experience" is the price of the hardware... I've put up with it because it works great & looks nice, but the main reason is I can run OS X!! I'd be much happier if the hardware was a little cheaper. I'm not saying that all Apple stuff is overpriced, just some of it...

I've always thought that RISC architecture was better then x386 architecture, but since IBM & Freescale can't get their butts in gear and make higher clocked chips, I see Apple having no other choice then to jump ship before the ship sinks.

It's not ego. He knows that portables are outselling desktops and without a proper chip for portables Apple is finished. Imagine Apple only selling desktops with tiny little 200MHz boosts each year. This is what you would be getting under IBM. They have been unable and in some cases it seems, unwilling, to provide what Apple needs. Why stick with them? Now is the time to switch. The iPod momentum will likely peak during this transition so it's best to do this now while they have that revenue to back them up. To continue on the same course would be suicide.

Yes, clearly the thing to do is abandon years and years of developer effort on Intel's slower and hotter desktop chips just so Apple can ship faster laptops.

It is sad, Apple was really kicking ass and now all that is gone. Apple is now nothing more than a non-compatible and overpriced x86 OEM.

See ya Apple, I won't be along for your impending irrelevance alongside OS/2 and Be.

I don't see Apple moving out of the hardware business. I see Apple switching to Intel/x86 precisely so they can continue to innovate with their hardware and penetrate new markets. G5s are not a flexible as Intels complete spectrum of processor options (and think of the versatility of form factors with low power designs).

Think powerbooks as thick as an iPod, with OLED displays and 8 hour battery life.

Yes it is, but it's what the entire industry deals with practically. If Apple can't perform, then no one else does either.

I kind of got the sense that Apple is going with Intel more for new products. Apple likes making small things, and the PPC is not for that and probably never will be.

IBM and Moto failed to provide Apple the fastest chips out there. Steve is just tired of this nonsense. Intel might be the answer. let's hope so. If IBM catches up with G5 maybe we still see that on Macs for awhile.
For the end users I don't think we are going to have major problems migrating into Intel. Why Steve would lie for all of us.
IMHO I think this will be a good move on the long run.

I sold my G4 Powerbook on Friday in anticipation of something new in the next couple of weeks. I'd sure like a boosted iBook or Powerbook with a better screen and video card and I still think we'll see that soon, very soon.

I've thought about the Intel switch and I think its a good move. The processor is meaningless to me as a user, what I want are good features (nice screen, long battery life, powerful processor, lots of ram, wireless) and a solid operating system. I think Apple will provide that and more in the upcoming years.

I have no fear of change, just anticipation of the cool goodies we'll see! Wimax is coming, faster, stronger, quieter and cooler processors for our laptops, the options are very exciting.

Bring on the goodies! Its not just computers anymore with Apple, its wonderful technology that can only enhance our lives. Move with it, grow with it, and have some fun.

The thing that shocks me is not that there will be new machines, but the cavalier disregard for the existing customers, who have made investments in Mac hardware. Existing Macs will depreciate rapidly, no question. New hardware and software will have to be purchased, as new software only comes out for the new CPUs or hasn't been debugged thoroughly on the PPC platform.

Endianness is a huge mess. Writing code that is truly portable is very difficult, and you cannot count on that 1980's mess which is Cocoa to do things for you. Developers will not have the time to check every single assignment for endian sensitivity (which is what you have to do). They will simply optimize for the Intel platform and refuse to support old PPC machines - because any true Mac fan will buy a new machine, of course.

Loyalty works both ways, Steve. It is this realization that Apple is a corporation like any other, with no other goal than to extract as much money as possible from its customers, that rankles the most.

It was the right move, perhaps the only move left to do.

Remember, the cost of a new, next generation fab (65 nm, 45 nm) about doubles every generation. A 45 nm fab will cost 10+ billions USD, if not 20+ G$. Apple looked at the comparative finances and capabilities of Intel and IBM and came to the only conclusion, Intel is virtually the only company guaranteed to get to 45 nm.

IBM will be selling 200+ sq mm, 200+ million transistor Cells and Xenons into boxes selling for about $400. Intel will be selling 200+ sq mm, 200+ million transistor Yonahs, Conroes and Meroms into boxes selling for about $1500. IBM's coming investment into 45 nm is going to be shaky compared to Intel.

That's all to it. Apple made the right move.

There really is no denying that Intel's 90 nm, absent SOI no less, offers better transistor/watt than IBM's 90 nm: 2.13 GHz P-M at 27 Watts compared to 2 GHz 970fx at about 45 Watts (based off of the Xserve 2.3 55 Watts). And Cell at 3.2 GHz looks to be at ~80 Watts, with 30 to 40 Watts attributed to 1 PPE + 512 kB L2. Apple has been for IBM to produce a <35 Watt max 2 GHz 970fx for the better part of a year now, and there are still no signs of it coming.

The future is about the quality of the fab and who gets there first. The basic trend is fab costs doubles every generation. There will be fewer and fewer companies capable of developing a next generation fab, so that leaves Intel, East Asian conglomerate, and IBM. Apple went with the sure thing.

Apple still needs to offer compatible software though. At minimum it needs browser compatibility, IM compatibility with MSN, Yahoo and AOL, and media compatibility. If they can do that on top of executing on Intel, it will be all good.

I'll be looking forward to a dual-core Yonah Mac laptop in Fall 2006. It will be faster and cooler running than a dual-core 8641D of the same performance I guarantee you.

Like Ben said in Star Wars, it all depends on your point of view. Evil, that is. We don't think we're fools, but we allow ourselves to believe advertising every day. It's excused and even rewarded in our society. Are you really that mad at Jobs for changing directions, or just at yourself for not realizing that most of what CEOs say is marketing. Think of his former words as comfort food for your mind that allowed you to weather the humiliating speed at which the PPC has languished. Not since the days of Power Computing have we really had any self esteem.

Come on, Steve was telling us that PPC was kicking Intel, but yet your everyday computing experience on the Mac was so much slower in comparison to a PC - things like the time it takes to open an application to the speed at which your browser renders a web page. The signs were there, we just didn't want to read them. Religion can do this to a man if he's not careful.

Let me give you a great example of marketing deception at its finest going on right now. You may or may not have heard about GM's "Employee Pricing for Everyone" campaign that was just announced. The gist is you can buy a car at the same price and discount as any GM employee. Sadly, most people will believe this because they "want" a new car, and this is the excuse that it's OK. See, what you won't know (unless you're in the industry or do your research) is that simultaneously with the announcement of the employee pricing campaign, GM on Chevy alone cut their maximum rebate from $6,500 to $3,000. Hmm. Wonder why they did that? See, instead of giving the buyer a REAL discount, they gave their employees a price hike, cutting everyone down to the same level. Find a Chevy ad in your newspaper from two weeks ago. Compare the prices with today (make sure the stock numbers are still identical in the disclaimer). See if the prices are not the same. I personally did the ad production for a Chevy dealership in a major Texas city, and their prices went UP by around $500 to $2,500 on EVERY VEHICLE IN THE AD. Nothing changed except that GM, like a great magician, moved the cards around on the table to give the illusion of savings. There just aren't enough minutes in 60 Minutes to get to it all.

I think in America today, "marketing" is a way of lying that is accepted. What GM did is even considered more noble, since not only do they let you think you are getting some "once-in-a-lifetime" deal, they're actually SCREWING YOU FOR MORE MONEY at the same time!!! They have the biggest corporate balls in history! Consumers want to accept it because they love to buy things. Sellers have to lie to compete because everyone else does too. GM is desperate to sell cars. We're desperate to love Macs and everything associated with them.

Wise up. Grow up. Get a life.

Apple is loyal to its customers. They will be continuing to offer the near highest performance desktop computers (at what cost I don't know) into the future, something not guaranteed with PowerPC. They are providing an emulation environment so that PPC apps can run on Intel.

What they are not loyal to is PowerPC. That's the right decision.

The troubles involving incompatibility is the cost of transitioning, similar to the cost of Mac OS 9 to Mac OS 10. That price is worth it, if not necessary, if IBM can't provide Apple the CPUs they are looking for.


I was a NEXTSTEP user since 1993 up to 1997. Cocoa app cross-compiles are 99% trivial and endian issues where few and far between.


This will be an issue. I agree. But it's symptomatic of any transition. It's a price Apple is willing to pay. They have essentially lost all the customers who refused to budge from Mac OS 9.


Apple had a choice between steady decline with PowerPC or possible vitality with Intel. It's an easy choice. If you didn't notice, Macintosh was declining and IBM wasn't producing higher performance or low watt 970fx chips on any sort of timely schedule.

I think Apple instead will make all the the smaller consumer Macs themselves, and align with another vendor to make more powerful workstation model Macintoshes, It sounds like a good idea to me. Mac OS X Ala Alienware.
Sounds promising.

Mac market share doubled recently, from 2% to 4% - and he said right in his speach that mac sales were growing much faster than PC sales.

Besides that, I agree with you.

stop your bitching_____steve is smart and look at his history. if apple is to stay competitive ibm isn't helping. you have all complained about lack of ooomph in apple laptops. time will tell. but what more elegant solution to "emulation" than mac osx on intel and you can use all your other software. hey, now i can get a pb and run my single business app without using ms emulation junk. great news. now you keep saying that apple is a hardware company, now it can spread it's good fortune without having to worry about software developers. we get os x and access to many software. you complained that appple should have include emulation software in os x as standard, well now you have it.
stop the doom and gloom. wait and see.
if you need an apple computer now get it now, the software will be supported for long enough to not make a difference.

as time goes by, amd may help also, so we have more options not less.

Apple's switch to Intel does NOT mean they will be running the OS on PC's, and it does NOT mean they will stop making Apple hardware. Intel to IBM, they are all just chips, and there won't be any major change except performance, politics, and price. Also, who said Apple will use the pentium chip series or any other pc chip series at all?

It is the end of an era, and has come of a shock (seeing as the next gen consoles have all shifted to PowerPC Processors). However, Apple is moving to Intel next year, perhaps the chips used won't be Pentium 4s. Lets face it, the P4 seems to be dying.

This move can go either way, it could be fantastic or the end of Apple as we know it today. Perhaps we disapprove of the move as lets face it, we like being different, and the fact that we're moving to x86 makes us less different, elitist, unique, or whatever you want to call it.

We didn't go mad when Apple moved from Motorola to IBM.

Oh, I'm sure some people managed to get mad about that.

It is the gutsyst most couragous move any business man has ever made.

Weither it fails or succeeds depends on how certain litttle details are worked, and its anybodies guess which way those will turn, for or again Apple.

But if a wrong turn is made it might just be possible to turn back.

ONLY TIME WILL TELL !!!



Odds are Apple will own the WORLD by this time next year !!!

Was Jobs quoting growth rates or market share? If it was market share, I don't think I will believe him until independently verified.

I hate to say it, but a lot of you guys are being rather idiotic about this whole thing.

XCode will compile two types of programs: PPC only, or PPC/X86 FAT binaries (because developers aren't stupid).

How exactly is Apple abandoning its user base?

I think Apple will weather this storm, wether its with 40% market-share or 2% remains to be seen.

The Mac faithful will stand by there machines. Now they get bonus compatabilites... Think how fast VPC will be now, and you may be able to boot into Windows too. I don't use PCs or VPC, but some users do, and if it ran faster I'd be more likely to use it for testing.

Plus, if Windows compatability remains, you've just removed another barrier to entry. I'd bet a good chunk of PC users would pay Apple prices for a Mac knowing it can dual boot to Windows if they change their mind or need to run a Windows thing. Right now if you buy a Mac and change your mind you're pretty much stuck. I bet the average Joe would stick with Mac, but if you still want to switch back you just need to pay for Windows, and you can always switch back to Mac if you later change your mind. This is a no brainer.

You know Linux will run on this too. This makes Mac even more Unix l33t.

Some sales will be lost, but if you need a Mac you should just go get one. Nothing is changing for about a year, and who knows how it will start? (My money is on XServe.)

Overall I think the downsides are shortsighted and longterm this will be huge. The potential upside is unimaginable! And you know our boys have done their homework!!

This all boils down to one question - what makes Apple (Macs) great? From my perspective it is all about two things (for a consumer) - cutting edge design, and an OS that is stable, secure, lacking in viruses, free of spyware, etc. I'm sorry, but the hardware guts that drive it don't matter much, so long as it is fast enough and just plain works.

Apple has gotten completely screwed twice in a row - first by Motorolla/Freescale's inability to deliver processors at progressively and significantly higher clocks and volume, then by IBM, which did nearly exactly the same thing with the G5s (great when they came out, stagnant since).

To succeed in the long term, Apple needs to partner with a supplier that is capable of meeting both the speed requirements and the sheer capacity required to continue to grow the company. I guarantee you that few people aside from developers give a flying you know what about PowerPC, the mass market cares about: price, availability, and a great user experience.

I'm sorry, but I see this as NeXTStep, Mark II. Uncle Steve seems determined to repeat the past.

It's the beginning of the end of Apple as a hardware company. This is not to say Apple will disappear, but I cannot help but see the parallels between NeXT's situation as it developed, and Apple's current one.

Software and hardware tend to leapfrog each other. In this case, it seems Steve did not have faith in IBM's roadmap, so he decided to pull the trigger.

It's the end of an era, and we can say we were here when it happened.

IBM's roadmap says build more game consoles. They want to sell PlayStation 3, XBOX 360, and Revolutions. General purpose desktop CPU is not IBMs direction. Who do you think is really catering to desktop and mobile computer users?

Intel Switch might Level the playing ground...BUT...what this probably means is that Apple won't have the possibility to create chips that are must stronger against it's competition.

THANKS!
Who cares for the chips. Go Apple, Go Intel!

I only read the beginning of your post, but I agree, and say that my opinion on what makes todays Mac so great is the supioror Mac OS, and Apples' consumer, and Pro applications. Not to exclude Adobe, or any of the other great developers. They all helped make the Mac what it is. Apple just put the finishing touches on the whole computing she-bang.

What's sad is that, having correctly analyzed the built-on-lies-and-deception of American marketing, you pass it off as normal, mature and almost praise worthy. It is none of these. It is what it is: a total lack of honesty and integrity. Acceptance of this is the opposite of wisdom.

I think that was a quote from George Carlin. And that is not a joke.

Inslider and Chagi, thank you, I nearly had no reason to post after reading yours. And thank you to those who still have faith that Apple will deliver what we and people in general are looking for.

I really get a laugh out of these boards when people say "Apple is doomed!" "Apple is greedy! This only benefits them!" really, pure lunacy. Same old FUD flyin around.

On a side note, did anyone else notice in the conference Steve's somewhat somber tone at saying they were switching to Intel?

This might especially be problematic if, as an Ars Technica review seemed to indicate, there are problems with the mach kernal. In their benchmarks, it seemed to have trouble with threading. Now, as long as the hardware was slightly different, the benchmark remain unclear. But now, if it's slower than the NT kernal then Apple's will just be slower. No chance to leapfrog, not even on very specific benchmarks.

Yes, sells may be hurt in the short term, but this is obviously a long term strategic move. And to call the current machines "crippled" is just plain histrionic. Sure, maybe one should hold off on buying a laptop -- they've been stagnant for two years. But there's no way you can say a G5 now isn't going to run OS X beautifully for the next 3 or four years.


What are you talking about? Just because Mac's will be running on Intel doesn't mean you can compile a Windows app for OS X. The reason the Mac platform is doing so well is because of the software -- specifically the great development tools. This isn't going to change. OS X has been processor independent from the beginning and yet it's still the best OS going.


The software is the same? Yes, you will still be able to choose between Photoshop on the Mac and Photoshop on Windows. And yes, Windows will be faster than the Mac in some cases. Has that not been the case previously? Again, Apple differentiates itself as a platform. OS X and the iApps and the Mac experience is what makes a Mac a Mac. Windows is still going to suck even if it moves to PPC.


And how much leverage would they have with IBM going forward now that they are focused on delivering for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo?

As far as I can tell, you have not provided one good argument.

Wow, DJ Adequate, so apple should stagnate and not see 4Ghz in the next 3 years and not offer state of the art laptops with power and power efficiency because of benchmarks that might appear on Ars? OSX is a very good, usable OS, and in my informed opinion, has much better threading for an end-user OS than linux, let alone windows. Intel is Apple's future, and IMHO, the future looks a lot brighter than trying to figure out how to cram a G5 into a portable.

I expect OSX will get more "tech" with time, anyway, not less.

What about virus-vulnerability?

Virii are generally exploits of vulnerabilities in software (e.g. Windows' architecture). Just as Linux on Intel has its own security strengths and weaknesses so will OS X on Intel.

Obviously a worse Jobs decision was not doing this years ago. Like the Intel CEO said, what took them so long? Just imagine what Apple's product line would be today if they had gone directly from Motorola to Intel.

I believe it was Adobe's Bruce Chizen who said, "What took you so long?" And Jobs wasn't at the helm of Apple during the switch to PPC. And who's to say we'd have OS X if they had switched then. There's no use in second guessing ancient history.

I'm just happy that Apple is in a position to make these moves in a calm, controlled manner.

Right now it is best to get your G5 powermac or imac.

Wait for the Powerbook. That will be the first one with the new chipset. You are right about the HDness of the G4 on the 17" It sucks.

hold if you must for 6 months on the laptop. That is a strength of intel.

The dual core dual chip droolstations are on their way. But the wait will be at LEAST a year.

powerbook
ibook
mini/ihome
imac
powermac

That is what I see.

imagine a slightly overclocked P (whatever) using the cooling system of the current Powermac! Fast and cool at the same wattage. Perhaps even 4 chips of dual core.

Apple makes good decisions (mostly) and they have thought this one through for 5 years. We have had this for 1 day.

What else is locked away in apple's dungeon?

Jobs' worst business decisions?

In no specific order:

o Not producing "Macintosh" on top of Apple II and MS-DOS
o Hiring Jon Sculley
o Positioning NeXT hardware in college level education market (should have been consumer and content creation)
o Not transitioning NeXT 68k hardware to NeXT x86 hardware instead they made NEXTSTEP for Intel processors
o Not realizing the power of WorldWideWeb.app and not creating NEXTSTEP based web servers

The PowerPC -> Intel transition is still up in the air. We will see how it works. It was necessary though. It is really up to how good Mac OS X will be now.

Closest analog is probably SGI, but SGI lost because ever more powerful graphics cards overtook their business. We'll see how Apple does. I think they really really need to have browser, IM, and media parity with Windows to compete. That may be all they need.

To get to a long term win, you have to survive the short term. I worry about Apple in the transition. I don't think current Macs are crippled, but listening to Jobs talk about all the shortcomings and missed dates and power problems, that is sure the feeling he seemed to be giving.


What software do you use? This is already a problem as Adobe and Macromedia have moved cross-platform, Apple's system technologies aren't adopted quickly. One of the touted advantages of this in the media is that it will be easier to port Wintel programs.

And while OSX has been processor dependent, much of the software isn't. In many field, including mine, Alitivec has sped things up a lot--and that is tied to the processor. Also the giant front side busses have been a godsend, but again, they are tied to the processor.


But most users don't seem to think Windows sucks, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation because Macs would be selling in huge volumes. I think Apple will have to try harder to keep it's unique brand.


But the game console market at least wasn't actively hostile to Apple, which Dell and MS are.

Lastly, even if my fears are irrational, I still think they show Apple has some serious marketing challenges ahead of them. Steve Jobs is usually so good at selling his vision, and this time I just don't get it. I guess I can accept that this was a necessary move, but it's still not one the excites me--or much of anyone judging from most of the coverage I've read.