Intel Inside Apple At Last

To be honest, this only increased my “why get a mac now” question. If its even the same hardware, I see no reason to get one now. I’ve heard many mac supporters praise the IBM architecture and how x86 was outdated (design hasnt changed much since the 386). And now the mac is going x86. Surely mac wouldnt change to an inferior CPU? I’m kinda confused.

Other than that, its not a big deal for both IBM and Intel. Intel is used to cater to huge market shares (80%) while Apple only has 2%, so if this goes south they wont have a lot of problems. IBM isnt as big, but will still deliver the PowerPC units for high end servers, as well as the fact that the Xbox 360, PS3 and Nintendo Revolution will use PowerPC units. It seems the biggest danger here is for Apple.

The biggest reason given by Apple for the change is not really to do with performance but rather the problem is with heat and the problems that IBM appear to be suffering with their R&D process. I don’t think that there is any issues with the performance of the PowerPC range but it looks like IBM have been unable sort out their production problems and showed no signs of being able to scale their processors down to the smaller production methods. Whether this same problem will impact Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo’s new consoles remains to be seen, although they undoubtably have more importance to IBM than Apple.

In terms of buying a Mac, I have to agree, which is shame as I was looking forwards to getting another one in the next year. This change in the roadmap means that I’ll be waiting for the new Intel versions to see what their price/performance is like since buying a PowerPC that will be phased out eventually doesn’t make economic sense. It’s a shame really since Apple was making real strides into the market and this could derail all the hard work that has gone into developing the best computing experience going and an image that most companies would kill for.

I’m siding with the apparent majority which is giving Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one. They’ve made some good decisions over recent years and we’re hoping that this is another.

So many questions, so few answers…

I was reading an article that shed some light on the issue of the Apple-Intel Marriage. Basically it said that steve Jobs wants to get his hands on Intel’s new Pentium 4 D with DRM tech built into the chip. Why you ask is this important to Mr. Jobs, you might ask. Well it goes to someone you might not expect to be a big player in this decision. Hollywood, Hollywood is a bit nervous about the ditial age just like the music biz was earlier and this was part of some off the record deals a a prerequisite for the creation of a sort of iflicks software that lets Apple users buy movies online just like Itunes. Steve used all his Pixar Moxie to cajole a whole bunch of Studio heads to go forward with this on a DRM Chipped Mac project so he’ll be able to create the first online movie store and hope lightinig strikes twice as Ipod and ITunes have been hugely successful for Apple so far. I’m too lazy to look up the article again but that’s one perspective on why this marriage took place despite it feeling a bit odd couple-ish.

Yeah, I’ve read that somewhere as well. Seems a bit extreme considering the havok that it is going to play with Mac sales so I can only hope that it is going to be worth it. I really hope that Apple survives this change without taking too much damage but I’m sure the company’s situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Definitely fingers crossed time.

Downloadable movies could be interesting but I’m going to need a much bigger Internet connection to cope with that…

What I am wondering is how running a 3.6 GHz Pentium is going to resolve anyone’s heat problems. Those things are power-hungry beasts that have had enough heating issues on their own. I can’t see any super-slim iMacs being made with those processors on them. They’re too hot.

The only good option in my opinion is the technology Intel used in their Pentium M chips. Low GHz, high performance, nice and cool. What what is called again? Dothan? I mean obviously deviations of these are what will go in future Powerbooks and the like, but for the desktop products, I don’t see why they’d want Intel’s rather poor Prescott-style chips. Good luck keeping one of them running cool inside a Mac Mini case.

I’m pretty sure that the current P4 processors will never be seen in a PowerMac (assuming that it keeps that name…) as the development kits are just there to allow developers to test their applications and Apple requires that they be returned by the end of 2007 (I think that was the date given). Basically, these aren’t the processors that you’ll see in commercial versions, particularly given that the current development systems only contains a single processor.

The Pentium M, however, does seem to be a likely candidate for the iBook, PowerBook, and possibly even the iMac, depending upon what Intel have agreed to provide. I guess we won’t know much more about the specifics until next year (January at the ealiest if Steve decides to announce the new models at MacWorld).

One additional item of interest that seems to have come out is that Apple won’t stop people running Windows on an Intel Mac, so depending on Microsoft’s position on this you may see dual-boot OS X/Windows systems or Windows running in a window under OS X at full speed (actually, that gets confusing). This will be a nice feature if it can be made to work since as much as I hate Windows, I do still need it for some applications at work since FedEx has standardised on it for desktops. One of the reasons why I’ve never bought a copy of VirtualPC is that it is meant to be pretty slow and does stupid stuff like limiting the amount of graphics RAM made available (it only uses a maximum of 16MB). Pretty much no chance of OS X running on a non-Mac (that would kill the Mac) though…

On another note, I would have been much happier if Apple had gone with AMD. This is partly because I’ve always been a supporter of the underdog (and let’s face it, Intel has enough market share already). That extra 2% for AMD could have been good for them. The other reason though is that I prefer their processors myself, though I guess Macs - being the non-gaming oriented machines they are, probably don’t care so much about that.

But if these changes mean Macs become viable gaming machines, all the better.

The decision to go with Intel is probably due to what Vermouth said: Intel are supposed to be producing chips with DRM in them that would open the door (as far as Hollywood is concerned) for downloadable movies in much the same way that music can be bought via iTunes. The alternative explanation is that Intel threw a load of cash at Apple and that was more than AMD could afford.

The funny thing is that AMD is supposedly better at dual-core processors and the Mac as a platform is far more multi-processor-friendly than the PC, mostly due to its basis on the Mach 3 microkernel. PowerMacs have, for years, come with 2 processors and some of the current OS tools indicates that 4 processors (more likely, 2 dual-core processors) are due in the near future, so it seems odd to select Intel.

Ultimately, however, I am sure that there was a business reason for the choice. The question remains as to whether it was the correct choice for the platform. Since the decision has been made and since I have no intention of buying Windows again then I can only hope that it was the correct one.

Yeah, I’m not saying Apple’s choice was a bad one for them, as I said, I just would like to see AMD getting some more chances to really make it big. I don’t like Intel being in such a dominant position - but I’m like that for everything in the tech industry, really.

It actually wouldn’t surprise me if Intel added a cash bonanza to seal the deal. They’ve done it with Dell in the past, haven’t they?

Interestingly, on the subject of games, MacWorld UK has published an article documenting the thoughts of game developers attending WWDC regarding the switch. Essentially there seems to be 2 schools of thought on the subject:

Pro: It will allow Apple to grow its marketshare and enable ports to be created more quickly

Con: If the Mac can run Windows, why bother creating a port in the first place?

In addition to the above there are a number of thoughts about the use of Xcode2 to develop universal binaries (some see it as easy, other see it as a potential nightmare). My primary concern would definitely be whether the ability to run Windows would kill the market for ports or original Mac titles. Sometimes I think it would be nice to be able play PC games on the Mac (hell, I even bought Warhammer: Dawn of War because it wasn’t going to be available on the Mac), but I’d much prefer a native version that didn’t require either a reboot or Windows at all. If a PC version was available first (assuming that a port was coming) and could be played at full speed on a Mac, then I think it is safe to assume that most Mac gamers would buy the PC version unless the Mac version was going to have compelling reasons to choose that over the Windows one. This differentiation is alluded to in the article but the differences in practice seem pretty minor (Aqua interface and combination of original + expansion packs into a single distribution) and I doubt that any of those listed would be a compelling reason to wait. Therefore, unless Apple convinces developers to release native Intel OS X versions of titles at the same time as the Windows one (such as Blizzard does today), then the future is potentially bleak for native Mac gaming, although it is not necessarily bad for gaming on an Apple system in general.

I’ve read a few pieces of conjecture, without any solid proof to back this up, that IBM may not have been responding to what Apple wanted. It makes sense as providing all 3 consoles with their CPU is a way way way bigger fish to fry so to speak than dealing with Apple’s 2 percent of the PC market.

Just for the record i see this as a good move for Apple really. I mean for one thing the consumer electronics segment may be Apple’s best segment at this point. I mean I’ve not bought an Apple computer ever and wasn’t really likely to do so. But an Ipod I do have, and if they can make something as nice and cool for Movies then I’m all for it. I’d even consider trading in my Linux Laptop and PSP for a Ibook(or whatever their low-end laptops are called) and movie player. I’d also hope that this could make development of a Mac version of PC games even easier or something that could really be done without much work so we’d see them. I’d reall start to consider a mac at that point for my next machine.

Games-wise the major problem for the Mac is DirectX, and probably the relatively small market (although I wonder what proportion of the PC market plays games). If OpenGL can be made to be a strong force against DirectX (I really have no idea on the relative merits of either at the moment) then it would make sense for existing developers to use OpenGL rather than DirectX since they could tap into 2 markets with little additional effort. This would be a real win for the Mac but I am not sure if it will happen, although I know that Apple are pressing for it.

I think next year is going to be a very interesting year…

Hmmm, I just came across an interesting article that extends the Intel Inside announcement to state that Intel may in fact be looking to takeover Apple entirely and that the WWDC announcement was just a precursor. Effectively the article cites Intel’s displeasure with Microsoft to be the driving force (not enough new operating systems to drive PC sales and then using IBM for their new console) and the desire to “take them on”. While such a merger, based on the facts presented, seems plausible I cannot say that I like the idea at all. Given that the article suggests that Intel would allow OEMs to create OS X-based systems, it seems that this would be the death of the Mac hardware. That, I think, would be a shame as its a great thing that differentiates a Mac from a generic PC.

OK, well I don’t know exactly what to think of that. Some serious competition against Microsoft is good, no doubt about it. But I don’t like the idea of Intel being in charge, partially because I don’t like the outlook for AMD if this all comes to pass. And I like AMD. I like them a lot.

I don’t care so much for Mac hardware itself, as it was always more expensive and lacking performance in areas I care about, but I can see why this whole thing would be bad for the legions of Mac fans out there. The switch from IBM to Intel seems to be displeasing enough, but a merger of this kind would leave them gutted, I dare say.

Still, I think this is one of those “Wait and see” things.

Mac hardware is a bit of a sticky topic. On the one hand, it is definitely more expensive (with the arguable exception of the Mac Mini) than comparable systems but on the other hand it tends to use very good components and be exceptionally well designed and put together. For example, my PowerBook wasn’t cheap and a PC laptop will run rings around it these days, but I’ve still yet to see another one that has a better screen.

Apple knows a few things very well and good design is one of them. We might not like the look of it now but the old iMac was a revolution in its day when the only competition was beige PC towers. The same situation continues today with both the new iMac and Mac Mini being revolutions in design when compared to the accepted norms. The performance could use a kick in the pants (although is better in some areas, such as wireless) but the system design is far better than anything else you see from other manufacturers. I’m just really afraid that this kind of focus on design details will be lost if future Macs are made by the likes of HP (although, give them their due, HP PCs aren’t bad looking).

The only good outcome from this could be if a similar deal happens with OEMs as was performed with HP for iPods. HP can build and market HP-branded iPods but the iPod itself is exactly the same as a standard Apple verion. In that respect there probably isn’t much in it for the OEM (no differentiation probably makes for little incentive to make Intel Macs or whatever they’d be called) but would at least hopefully maintain some degree of quality.