Bitterness towards Motorola not visible...yet?
The writing is on the wall with Apple eventually having IBM PowerPC processors throughout it's product line.
Yes, Motorola didn't deliver and Apple paid for it dearly. It's taken years of marketing and spinning (although the megahertz myth is true to some extent) to keep the Apple faithful from jumping ship.
But, I've always found it rather odd of Jobs not bashing Motorola in public. I suppose it wouldn't be too wise really, since his products still need supplies. However, the day is near. I wonder...will the knives and barbs come out the day Motorola is completely out of the picture?
Jobs at MW: "Today, all our processors are now manufactured by a company who can deliver in power and on time."
Yes, Motorola didn't deliver and Apple paid for it dearly. It's taken years of marketing and spinning (although the megahertz myth is true to some extent) to keep the Apple faithful from jumping ship.
But, I've always found it rather odd of Jobs not bashing Motorola in public. I suppose it wouldn't be too wise really, since his products still need supplies. However, the day is near. I wonder...will the knives and barbs come out the day Motorola is completely out of the picture?
Jobs at MW: "Today, all our processors are now manufactured by a company who can deliver in power and on time."
Comments
Burning bridges is allways a bad choice to make.
That's a cool quote.
Besides that, the stagnation of the G4 had several beneficial side effects: It pushed AltiVec optimization into high gear, drove multithreading and SMP support into overdrive, and forced Apple to really make OS X efficient. If you can count on Intel to push an X+1 GHz beast out the door every year you end up with Windows XP, which... well, it single-tasks well! Just like OS 9! So now that Apple has a killer architecture, they can use multiprocessor configurations and expect blazing performance from mainstream applications right out of the starting gate.
I freely admit that it's much easier to take this attitude in retrospect, but still, there's a lot to be said for an ultramodern OS that can run well on a processor whose basic design dates from 1996 (the G3).
Originally posted by Amorph
The #1 reason, as given above, is that you don't burn bridges if you can help it. SPS is about to go independent. They might crash, they might recover. If the latter, you'd like to be able to work with them again. If Steve wants to lay into Motorola, he can wait until SPS is independent - trashing Mot might actually make some sense then, as a way to explain SPS' weakness out of the gate ("it's not their fault, give them time").
I like that. Jobs would get to bash Moto, make us all feel good, and at the same time kiss up to SPS. A real win/win/win situation.
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
Burning bridges is allways a bad choice to make.
Yes, for all we know, 15 years from now, it could be Motorola coming to Apples rescue.
Naaaaaaaahhhhh.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Yes, for all we know, 15 years from now, it could be Motorola coming to Apples rescue.
Naaaaaaaahhhhh.
We can all be wise with hindsight.
Originally posted by Amorph
The #1 reason, as given above, is that you don't burn bridges if you can help it. SPS is about to go independent. They might crash, they might recover. If the latter, you'd like to be able to work with them again. If Steve wants to lay into Motorola, he can wait until SPS is independent - trashing Mot might actually make some sense then, as a way to explain SPS' weakness out of the gate ("it's not their fault, give them time").
Besides that, the stagnation of the G4 had several beneficial side effects: It pushed AltiVec optimization into high gear, drove multithreading and SMP support into overdrive, and forced Apple to really make OS X efficient. If you can count on Intel to push an X+1 GHz beast out the door every year you end up with Windows XP, which... well, it single-tasks well! Just like OS 9! So now that Apple has a killer architecture, they can use multiprocessor configurations and expect blazing performance from mainstream applications right out of the starting gate.
I freely admit that it's much easier to take this attitude in retrospect, but still, there's a lot to be said for an ultramodern OS that can run well on a processor whose basic design dates from 1996 (the G3).
Good points Amorph - the Mac OS has developed to where it is today, thanks in no small part to Motorola, whether we like it or not I guess!
But because of Motorola's failure to deliver processors faster than 500 MHz, Apple had to put dual processors on their PowerMacs to make them appealing and to show that they were making progress. People seemed confused at the time, I remember - Macworld of course asked if "two brains are really better than one," and at the time, they weren't. Not until OS X.
Some interesting cause and effect here... because of Moto's failure to deliver chips faster than 500 MHz for such a long time, Apple ended up selling a lot of 500 MHz and slower machines from early 2000 through late 2001, and there was a 500 MHz iBook in the lineup until spring 2002. Because of all those 500 MHz and slower machines, they had to make the next generation OS pretty fast and well optimized. If Motorola had maintained steady progress, getting to 1 GHz in early 2001 and 2 GHz in mid 2002, there would be a lot more 700 MHz-1 GHz Macs out there today, and Apple wouldn't be as motivated to make OS X highly optimized. Also, dual processor machines may have never caught on, because Apple could have simply made a 700 MHz G4 by mid-2000 instead of having to use dual 500 MHz processors.