is this all a smokescreen?
With all these Apple going to Intel rumors, I've been wondering, is this all a smokescreen? Some of it is plausable, and other parts smell strange. Here are a few things that I think are weird:
1. The WSJ breaks this story. Very unusual to have that publication break any story on Apple.
2. Steve Jobs is asked about it and offers a somewhat different not-confirming-not-denying remark from what he usually does.
3. If Apple talked to Intel a month ago, that's a very small time frame to do a bet-the-company transition.
4. It would cause a lot of frustration with the existing user base.
5. If they were to run on generic x86, they would be taking on Microsoft head on. Don't you think Mac Office would disappear?
6. What about apps? These computers are going to appear with no apps (other than apple-supplied). What are people going to do with them? If it's generic x86, developers will probably take the attitude of "why don't you just run windows on it? I don't want to support two operating systems." That's what they've done in the past.
How are existing apps going to run? Are they going to have a binary translator done by that time?
7. If they're not going to take on microsoft head on, how are they going to keep people from running it on non-apple hardware. I can guarantee if it's in x86 binary format, some hacker will find a way to make it run on generic x86. Right now the PPC compilation is preventing that.
1. The WSJ breaks this story. Very unusual to have that publication break any story on Apple.
2. Steve Jobs is asked about it and offers a somewhat different not-confirming-not-denying remark from what he usually does.
3. If Apple talked to Intel a month ago, that's a very small time frame to do a bet-the-company transition.
4. It would cause a lot of frustration with the existing user base.
5. If they were to run on generic x86, they would be taking on Microsoft head on. Don't you think Mac Office would disappear?
6. What about apps? These computers are going to appear with no apps (other than apple-supplied). What are people going to do with them? If it's generic x86, developers will probably take the attitude of "why don't you just run windows on it? I don't want to support two operating systems." That's what they've done in the past.
How are existing apps going to run? Are they going to have a binary translator done by that time?
7. If they're not going to take on microsoft head on, how are they going to keep people from running it on non-apple hardware. I can guarantee if it's in x86 binary format, some hacker will find a way to make it run on generic x86. Right now the PPC compilation is preventing that.
Comments
Originally posted by frawgz
Apple is a secretive company, but when's the last time they ever created a smokescreen for an upcoming announcement?
Columbus
Originally posted by murk
Columbus
I think you can also argue that was the result of shoddy reporting on CNET's part.
Originally posted by frawgz
I think you can also argue that was the result of shoddy reporting on CNET's part.
Here's the Columbus story; I originally had no idea what you were talking about. Thanks, Google!
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-209082.html?legacy=cnet
Originally posted by murk
Columbus was the smokescreen for the original iMac.
No. No. Not at all. The iMac was one part of columbus, as was the ipod, and itunes, and iphoto and idvd, and imovie... and the mac mini?
It all makes sense now...
Of course, it means Apple is poised to quickly and decisively unleash OS X on the greater x86 community at any opportune time!
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Apple is not going to take on Microsoft directly. The only thing that will change from a user standpoint is that the CPU will have a different name. Otherwise, OS X will still only run on Mac hardware, Windows will not run on Mac hardware, and OS X will not run on anything but Mac hardware. These restrictions are easy to do, just slap the Intel CPU on a custom mobo and wrap it in a cool Apple hardware box.
Of course, it means Apple is poised to quickly and decisively unleash OS X on the greater x86 community at any opportune time!
If Apple moves to Intel, I'm going to suck my own dick.
Originally posted by MarcUK
If Apple moves to Intel, I'm going to suck my own dick.
You too
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Otherwise, OS X will still only run on Mac hardware, Windows will not run on Mac hardware, and OS X will not run on anything but Mac hardware. These restrictions are easy to do, just slap the Intel CPU on a custom mobo and wrap it in a cool Apple hardware box.
I am reading these discussions with great interest. However one point is not clear to me: what Apple has to gain by switching to Intel chips? Why enter this hell of a transition to a new CPU architecture, if there are no huge benefits? Are there such benefits or not?
Originally posted by MarcUK
If Apple moves to Intel, I'm going to suck my own dick.
have fun with that.
Originally posted by oh_the_humanity
have fun with that.
It's a very old AppleInsider joke, you wouldn't understand - isn't that right Dawg
Originally posted by MarcUK
It's a very old AppleInsider joke, you wouldn't understand
If I judge from the post count (s)he is new here, so it is normal that (s)he does not understand.
Originally posted by Aquatic
One thing that just doesn't make sense...IBM has HUGE business now with making the PPC for consoles. Sure, they are not Macs. But there must be some R&D overlap, and it's good for the unit as a whole, giving it revenue for more R&D, for the G5 as well, and perhaps something Cell-based. I mean it IS a good thing, not a bad thing, right, with IBM and the consoles?
Not if IBM redirects their intelectual, monitary, fabricating, and personell resources into the console buisness and leaves the 970, which is basically only used by Apple, to die a slow death. IBM has anounced Cell blade servers, just like they did 970's right after it was released, and their server buisness is apparently more portable than Apples is at the moment.