Interesting News



CNet has announced the "news" that Apple will announce a switch to Intel chips from IBM on Monday (That's tomorrow as I write this).

The majority opinion appears to be that Apple will be switching to the X86 processor line and abandoning the PPC architecture. And a whole bunch of pundits (cough John Dvorak cough) who have been predicting this for years are now saying "I told you so." And many are assuming this means that OS X will be ported to Dell machines and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

Not so fast, however. While I don't pretend to be "in the know" on this, I once worked for Apple and have some notion of the Apple business style, and I say that Intel chips != X86. Intel makes lots of chips, and there is no reason why Intel could not develop the next generation of PPC chips, particularly if, as some have reported, Apple holds the controlling interest in the PPC consortium and are contractually allowed to seek other partners for PPC. I don't know whether that's true, or even possible, but it strikes me as unlikely for Apple to sign contracts that leave it at the mercy of its suppliers.

What is true is that Apple has probably been frustrated with the pace of PPC development by IBM, and might very well seek another partner, since Motorola has let Apple down, followed by IBM, which has missed the 3.0 GHz target by a year and counting so far. And IBM, which once really needed Apple for the G5 PPC market, now has lots of suitors: Microsoft, with its XBox 360 and Sony, with its Playstation 3, both of which are using PPC technology. Steve almost certainly feels that IBM has been distracted from Apple's needs recently. On the other hand, Intel would very much like Apple's business, and perhaps they can break the 3.0 GHz logjam for Apple with their process and the PPC architecture.

What (still) does not make sense is for Apple to abandon the PPC architecture in favor of X86. Here are my reasons for this opinion:

1. Apple has denigrated the X86 processor architecture for years, correctly touting PPC as the superior technology (even if it lagged speedwise for a while; that was the fault of Apple's suppliers, not of the architecture).

2. Apple has just completed a difficult transition from OS 9 to OS X, with all the attendant pain on the part of customers and developers. Just when things are really looking good for Apple, why would they take the suicidal step of forcing a processor transition into the works now?

3. Using X86 technology lowers the barriers to running OS X on Dell PCs, a move I would only expect if Apple were exiting the computer biz altogether and planning to compete with Microsoft for the operating system biz. This move would almost instantly move Apple from a $6 to a $1 billion company, forcing the layoff of hundreds of designers. Since I happen to know that Apple is hiring in these areas, I don't expect this is the plan.

So here's what I think: Apple will not port OS X to standard X86 PC machines. Apple will probably not switch to X86 processors in their computer hardware. Apple probably is seeking a partner for PPC development since IBM has let them down. This might be because Apple is done with IBM altogether, or it might be to spur IBM's efforts a bit. It might even be to replace Motorola as their supplier of G4 chips, which fits in with the scenario of using Intel chips in the lower end machines first.

Of course, I could completely be wrong. Lots of supposedly more knowledgeable people than I am appear to believe exactly that this is a move to X86, no ifs, ands, or buts and in 2-3 years, Macs will come with an "Intel Inside" sticker. I don't want the abandonment of PPC to be true, but lots of these same people seem to thing adoption of X86 would be an advantage to Apple. I (and many others) keep seeing all the reasons why it's a suicidal move.

We'll know by about 11:30 PST tomorrow, I guess.

Posted: Sun - June 5, 2005 at 05:15 PM        

©