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

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 124
    chagichagi Posts: 284member
    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.
  • Reply 62 of 124
    sam damonsam damon Posts: 129member
    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.
  • Reply 63 of 124
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sam Damon



    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.




    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?
  • Reply 64 of 124
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    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.
  • Reply 65 of 124
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chagi

    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.




    THANKS!

    Who cares for the chips. Go Apple, Go Intel!
  • Reply 66 of 124
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chagi

    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 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.
  • Reply 67 of 124
    dave jdave j Posts: 84member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by inslider

    I think in America today, "marketing" is a way of lying that is accepted.



    Wise up. Grow up. Get a life.




    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.
  • Reply 68 of 124
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    I think that was a quote from George Carlin. And that is not a joke.
  • Reply 69 of 124
    octaneoctane Posts: 157member
    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?
  • Reply 70 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by icfireball

    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.



    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.
  • Reply 71 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by D.J. Adequate

    One: It's going to kill sales of their computers for the next year. Would you buy a computer who's architecture will be dead in a year? Who the CEO says is so crippled it can't continue on in the future? My guess, not many people are. At a time where Apple sales were finally starting to uptick, Apple kills them dead.



    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.



    Quote:

    Two:No more innovative software on the Mac. It's just too easy now to recompile your windows apps to run on the Mac. And since Windows is the big money maker, that's where your development dollars will go.



    OS 10.4 has some great features, but if the Apps don't support them, then what's the point? Unless Apple makes it, Mac software has also just been killed.



    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.



    Quote:

    Three: Head to head comparison. Now it will be even harder for Apple to make a sale when people compare it to windows. If the hardware is the same, and the software is the same, then price becomes the only differentiator. Microsoft can afford to take a loss, Apple can't. Microsoft (and Dell, for that matter) can price Mac right out of the market.



    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.



    Quote:

    Four: How much money does Intel take in from Dell? How much from Microsoft? If either of those two start hurting due to Apple, how much pressure do you think they can put on Intel? Apple will never get as good of pricing, they will never have a say in the design.



    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.
  • Reply 72 of 124
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    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.
  • Reply 73 of 124
    drazztikkadrazztikka Posts: 240member
    What about virus-vulnerability?
  • Reply 74 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drazztikka

    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.
  • Reply 75 of 124
    tidristidris Posts: 214member
    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.
  • Reply 76 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidris

    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 current product line would be today if they had gone from Motorola directly 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.
  • Reply 77 of 124
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    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?
  • Reply 78 of 124
    thttht Posts: 4,449member
    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.
  • Reply 79 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Simple Ranger

    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.



    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.



    Quote:

    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.



    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.



    Quote:

    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.



    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.



    Quote:

    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.




    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.
  • Reply 80 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    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.




    Here is the link to the review: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436



    The point is it seems to point out some fundamental problems with the Mach kernal--one's the G5 help mask. Moving to Intel, without the mask, these problems will become more apparent, not less. If your SQL server runs worse under OSX than under Windows on the same hardware, which will you choose to run? It's not OSX that has the problems, it's the kernal it sits on.



    People think getting chip parity with windows will close the perceived performance gap. I'm not sure it will. You also get a lot of "Windows Sucks" posts here and on Slashdot, but the average user is comfortable and happy with Windows.



    Anyway, here's another Arstecnichnica that pretty much sums up how I feel. Even if it was only a pipe-dream, while Apple was on a separate architechture I could always hope for some Mac Only breakthrough. Something that would launch my favorite computer into the lead. Now we have parity, and that's all we'll ever have with hardware--parity. That's probably good enough, but it's sad to see the dream die.



    http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
Sign In or Register to comment.