Sculley Says Apple Should Have Switched to Intel

Jump to First Reply
chinneychinney
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
According to this story, former Apple chair John Scully says that Apple should have jumped-ship on RISC in the 80s and went with Intel's CISC architecture. I am not sure that I agree with the entire premise of his argument, but I have to admit that this move, at least, would have avoided the trouble Apple has had with Motorola. But how could have Apple have known that Motorola would stall in its chip development???
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    And it would have killed Apple as a hardware maker. Next topic...



    Sculley is a wash-up who has resigned himself to a rather unsuccessful venture capital firm. I wonder why.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 32
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    It's quite true: looking at how Scully left Apple, I'm more than underwhelmed at anything he might feel he needs to say about Apple's supposed market strategies.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 32
    imacfpimacfp Posts: 750member
    Eugene's right. I don't think Apple would have done well as a PC clone maker and they didn't really have a viable OS that could run on intel back then. In the end two things hurt Apple. 1. IMB allowing MS to put their OS on anybodies box and 2. Apple not allowing other box makers to use Mac OS in the early days. MS became what Apple could have become if things were different.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 32
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Just because you use a X86 CPU doesn't mean it's just another PeeCee. Apple would have avoided tons of trouble with speed had they done this.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 32
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Even his hindsights suck!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 32
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Just because you use a X86 CPU doesn't mean it's just another PeeCee. Apple would have avoided tons of trouble with speed had they done this.



    Perhaps, but then would they be in the relatively good position they are in now in the portable market? I don't think so.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 32
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Just because you use a X86 CPU doesn't mean it's just another PeeCee. Apple would have avoided tons of trouble with speed had they done this.



    Depends what you define a PC as...



    I think it does...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Just because you use a X86 CPU doesn't mean it's just another PeeCee. Apple would have avoided tons of trouble with speed had they done this.



    Unfortunately, yes, it does. Mac OS would be cracked to support other x86 hardware. Good-bye Macintosh. Good-bye Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 32
    fotnsfotns Posts: 301member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Unfortunately, yes, it does. Mac OS would be cracked to support other x86 hardware. Good-bye Macintosh. Good-bye Apple.



    Coming from those whom I would generally assume are convinced of the superiority of Apple over any computer system, I?ve never understood the logic behind this argument. Even if Apple did have a proprietary x86 system, and someone cracked the OS to run on any old PC, why would all these hypothetical loyal customers immediately stop buying Apple?s machines in favor of any generic PC? Could it be they might not want to pay the 25-40% premium Apple would charge over comparable PCs? In a way are you not saying then that Mac users are held hostage by Apple, forced to buy their more expensive hardware in order to use the operating system they love, and that these people would flee to the open and free world of PCs the first chance they get?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 32
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Silicon Graphics tried building an Intel based workstation.



    Yeah, that didn't go over so well.



    Case in point.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    FotNS, because Apple's hardware sales are hanging on a thread as it is. Because there really are Mac users who use Macs purely for the OS rather than the hardware. Maybe you and I aren't in that group, but plenty are. Apple shouldn't give those users any reason to switch. Besides, if Apple did switch to x86, it would be seen as a move out of desperation. Imagine what the vultures on Wall Street would think? And how soon after that would Apple hardware become even more typical of a commodity PC?





    --





    As it stands, x86 is a dying ISA anyway. Intel, at least, *will* eventually move away from it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 32
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney

    According to this story, former Apple chair John Scully says that Apple should have jumped-ship on RISC in the 80s



    What Apple should have dumped from the start was Scully himself. He's the reason Apple lost the opportunity to have the #1 market share crown instead of M$. He's a spineless reptile. Even now he's still kissing up to Bill Gates and company... maybe he's just stupid
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 32
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    My point is not to debate the merits of the x86 technology now. I just wonder if, not having the benefit of hindsight, Apple actually made an unwise choice back then. My cousin worked for IBM in the late 80s and I remember him crowing about their RISC chips and how CISC would soon hit a technological wall. I think that many people in those days had that opinion about CISC, even those who were otherwise fans of that technology. I think that Apple's choice was probably the best one at the time.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 32
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Seems to me you can't engage in such topic without going into the pros and coons of both processors. No?



    If you ask me Apple made the right decision. Scully knows nothing worth debating about.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 32
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iPeon

    Seems to me you can't engage in such topic without going into the pros and coons of both processors. No?





    Well true, but what I mean is that I don't want to debate whether Apple should switch to Intel now. I just wonder if they made the right decision back then, knowing only what they knew then. I think that they did make the right decision then, but things did not exactly work out as expected.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 32
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by penseive

    Perhaps, but then would they be in the relatively good position they are in now in the portable market? I don't think so.



    Um yea because you know Apple dominates the Laptop market .... NOT!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 32
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Um yea because you know Apple dominates the Laptop market .... NOT!



    Perhaps not, but 7% isn't something to snuff at either.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 32
    shatteringglassshatteringglass Posts: 176member
    Sculley has no right to be making any comments. He kicked Steve out of Apple and declared himself a visionary, despite knowing nothing about the industry.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 32
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Um yea because you know Apple dominates the Laptop market .... NOT!



    Completely unrelated logic. Apple's market share has nothing to do with what type of processor they use or would have used. Even if Windows was way slower than the Mac, the majority would still use Windows. Pure and simple it's become the default (standard) OS on the planet.



    What's really absurd is Scully saying what he's saying. Apple's market share failure can be attribute straight back to him as the cause. It was because of HIM that Apple lost the OS game. It was his dealings and givings to and with M$ that gave M$ the edge. Steve knew what was up with M$ and was ready to put a stop to it, what does Scully do? You all know the story. Clueless backstabbing moron.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Sculley didn't make Apple lose the market dominance game. He failed to give Apple direction after it lost it...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.