Apple "Switch"ing to Intel
For those not at all into computers who might be reading this, I'd probably skip this entry... geekspeak ahead. This is also going to be a fairly long post. (To make up for all the short ones.) :)
---
Apple has announced that they are switching from IBM-manufactured PowerPC processors to Intel x86 chips beginning with systems manufactured during the middle of next year. For those not familiar with the significance here, this is tantamount to George W. Bush announcing he's going to donate all of his salary to the ACLU. This is a big deal for the Apple faithful.
Ars Technica has a great article up detailing exactly why this hits Apple's hardcore user base especially hard. Apple has always claimed technical superiority to the Pentium crowd. It is arguable whether this has ever been true, but they have successfully created a religious core user group who have been following the dogma lockstep. "I'll believe it when I see it" and "it will never happen" were common quotes on the Apple forums the day preceding the announcement. The next day, their second most-hated enemy in the world is now their new best buddy.
All of the media pundits are speculating as to what Apple's intentions are and who their real target is: Dell's computers, or Microsoft's Windows OS. Robert Cringely (famous for the "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary on PBS) has his take that Microsoft is the target, and gives good insight into why IBM pissed off Apple so much. Motley Fool's idea is that Apple intends to go after Dell.
While I agree largely with Cringely, and his idea of what will happen doesn't conflict with my view, I don't think that Steve Jobs is as much of a visionary as most give him credit for. I don't think he has a target in mind.
I would hypothesize that IBM has, for at least the past 3 years, been a less than satisfactory partner for Apple, due to their persistent lag of performance and clock speed, despite their marketing department's assurances to the contrary. This in itself would justify creating x86 builds of OS X for the past 5 years. (See the Ars article for more on that, it wasn't that hard.) The final straw, causing Apple to finally bail on IBM and the PowerPC, was Big Blue's inability or unwillingness to create a G5 processor that they could put into a PowerBook and not light the user's lap on fire, along with Steve Jobs not being able to keep his promise of a 3 GHz G5 Power Mac in 2004.
For IBM's part, they have limited incentive to spend time and money on a platform that only holds 3% market share, and is virtually non-existent in the business world at large. It makes much more sense for them to concentrate on the next-gen gaming console market with Microsoft and Sony. (XBox 360 and PS3 respectively.)
Apple has said repeatedly they have no intention to allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, and historically, they have sued the sh*t out of anyone who has tried to make an Apple clone. Which, unless Jobs leaves as CEO (as Cringely suggests is probable,) this strategy is unlikely to change.
The conclusion I draw from all of this, is that this is nothing more than a "simple" switch of architecture, to a platform believed to be more viable for the future growth of their computer business. The catalyst for all of this may well be the iPod, which gives them the revenue to ride out such a significant change.
Apple has been the BMW or Mercedes-Benz of the personal computer industry for the past few years, commanding a price premium for the perception of quality and eliteness... they're just switching engines.
---
Apple has announced that they are switching from IBM-manufactured PowerPC processors to Intel x86 chips beginning with systems manufactured during the middle of next year. For those not familiar with the significance here, this is tantamount to George W. Bush announcing he's going to donate all of his salary to the ACLU. This is a big deal for the Apple faithful.
Ars Technica has a great article up detailing exactly why this hits Apple's hardcore user base especially hard. Apple has always claimed technical superiority to the Pentium crowd. It is arguable whether this has ever been true, but they have successfully created a religious core user group who have been following the dogma lockstep. "I'll believe it when I see it" and "it will never happen" were common quotes on the Apple forums the day preceding the announcement. The next day, their second most-hated enemy in the world is now their new best buddy.
All of the media pundits are speculating as to what Apple's intentions are and who their real target is: Dell's computers, or Microsoft's Windows OS. Robert Cringely (famous for the "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary on PBS) has his take that Microsoft is the target, and gives good insight into why IBM pissed off Apple so much. Motley Fool's idea is that Apple intends to go after Dell.
While I agree largely with Cringely, and his idea of what will happen doesn't conflict with my view, I don't think that Steve Jobs is as much of a visionary as most give him credit for. I don't think he has a target in mind.
I would hypothesize that IBM has, for at least the past 3 years, been a less than satisfactory partner for Apple, due to their persistent lag of performance and clock speed, despite their marketing department's assurances to the contrary. This in itself would justify creating x86 builds of OS X for the past 5 years. (See the Ars article for more on that, it wasn't that hard.) The final straw, causing Apple to finally bail on IBM and the PowerPC, was Big Blue's inability or unwillingness to create a G5 processor that they could put into a PowerBook and not light the user's lap on fire, along with Steve Jobs not being able to keep his promise of a 3 GHz G5 Power Mac in 2004.
For IBM's part, they have limited incentive to spend time and money on a platform that only holds 3% market share, and is virtually non-existent in the business world at large. It makes much more sense for them to concentrate on the next-gen gaming console market with Microsoft and Sony. (XBox 360 and PS3 respectively.)
Apple has said repeatedly they have no intention to allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, and historically, they have sued the sh*t out of anyone who has tried to make an Apple clone. Which, unless Jobs leaves as CEO (as Cringely suggests is probable,) this strategy is unlikely to change.
The conclusion I draw from all of this, is that this is nothing more than a "simple" switch of architecture, to a platform believed to be more viable for the future growth of their computer business. The catalyst for all of this may well be the iPod, which gives them the revenue to ride out such a significant change.
Apple has been the BMW or Mercedes-Benz of the personal computer industry for the past few years, commanding a price premium for the perception of quality and eliteness... they're just switching engines.
posted by Matt at 10:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home