Computer Hardware & Software Will Apple Put Intel Inside?

Forbes ^ | 9 Aug 2002 | Arik Hesseldahl

[sourcery]

FYI

[Michael Barnes]

Apple needs to port OSX to Intel/AMD architecture...It's a ripe market for them to get into..

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Jeff Chandler]

Uh, oh. Another Apple vs. PC thread. Technology's version of the "Neverending Story".

[jdogbearhunter]

VOTE:
Apple should:(a) Switch to Intel/AMD
Apple should:(b) Stay with AIM (their current chip)
or, finally this:(c) Who gives a R@ttzA55?

[sourcery]

The author of the article has the strange idea that Apple's x86 strategy would be to design, manufacture and sell x86 hardware. Were that the case, the objections raised to that strategy in the article would be quite valid.

But of course, that is not Apple's only way to play the x86 game, nor is there any chance they would do anything like that in the near future. What Apple should do, and very well may do, is to port OSX to the x86, and sell it as an alternative to Windows/Linux. In other words, in the x86 world, they would be a software vendor only. They would continue to sell PowerPC-based hardware.

With OSX available for x86 hardware, software vendors with OSX-based products would potentially have a far larger market: there are two orders of magnitude more x86 machines than there are Macintoshes. Apple would have an additional source of revenue: those who prefer, for whatever reason, to use x86 hardware. Just 1% of that market would be extremely significant both to Apple, and to software vendors with OSX-based products.

The major risk would be that a significant percentage of those who would have bought Apple's PowerPC-based hardware might decide instead to buy x86 hardware (on which they run OSX). This is a risk because Apple would make less profit per unit on OSX for x86 than per a Macintosh/OSX bundle. This risk only matters if one assumes that Apple's customer count wouldn't change much as the customer base switches from Macintosh hardware to x86 hardware. But it doesn't seem likely that that would be what would happen.

OSX for x86 would not be a very popular product, even among Mac fanatics, unless and until significant software titles became available. And that wouldn't happen unless software vendors had faith in the viability of the market for OSX software on x86 hardware. So the mere fact that you could buy a CD that would install OSX on your x86 machine would not, by itself, have all that much effect on Apple's sales.

However, if there were sufficient x86/OSX software available so that those who would have bought a Mac start deciding to buy x86 hardware instead, then we're in a different world entirely. In that world, it wouldn't just be high-probablility Mac customers who would be buying OSX-x86. Far from it. There would be at least as many former Windows/Linux users also buying OSX-x86--probably more than enough to offset the per-unit profit differential between Mac customers and OSX-x86 customers.

[sourcery]

Another Apple vs. PC thread

No it isn't. The subject of the thread is Apple's future business strategy. Altough the article itself references certain competitive technical differences between the two platforms, those are simply data points that have import to the analysis of the business case. No one is attempting to assert that Macs are better than PCs, or that PCs are better than Macs, or that Linux is better or worse than either.

[Jeff Chandler]

No one is attempting to assert that Macs are better than PCs, or that PCs are better than Macs

Just wait. Mention those two in the same post and the fighting begins.

[razorbak]

Another decade,

another Will Apple Put Intel Inside? story,

another: 10 years of PC dominance, with Apple market share at 5%.

Apple had their chance about 20 years ago and Jobs blew it with his proprietary obsession (IBM blew it too, but in a different way). No second chance.

[Bush2000]

Lighten up, it's a joke.

[sourcery]

So , would it then be correct to say that those who have both a PC and a Mac "swing both ways"?

[Utopia]

Apple needs to port OSX to Intel/AMD architecture..

They already have it -- without the fanfare. Apple bought NExT. The NExT technology DOES/DID run on Intel. The hub of Mac OS X is called "Darwin". This is open source and can be installed on Intel, now. (Its Mac OS X without the user interface). The user interface of Mac OS X called "Aqua" right now is ONLY available on Macs. However, the Aqua interface is NExT technology, and it can be ported to Intel with little or no bother.

Everytime Steve Jobs is to make a speech at one of these trade shows, I study at the computer rags for speculation - "Apple's going to announce Aqua for Intel" has been a steady theme- but alas, its just proving to be a rumor. It would sure piss M$ off, as M$ is already objecting to PC manufacturers shipping "naked" PCs (a PC with no OS on it) and are trying to stop this practice. M$ claims that if a person wants a naked PC they're really going to put a bootleg copy of Windows on it. A stupid argument, when there's currently Darwin, Linux, BSD, Solaris ... etc that can be put on the PC...

If Apple were to announce their Mac OS X on Intel, they'd mop up. Let's face it, Apple wrote the book on the human interface with the computer - what ever you think of them as a company, their OS work is right out of the cognitive psychology field when they studied the results of people like Miller et al and devised an OS that really took into account how people react to computer as a system as a whole.

[Michael Barnes]

I know all about it. But, I would like them to port their "distro" to x86. If I want to get that "Aqua" theme, I'll install Linux with E and grab a theme.

[Utopia]

But, I would like them to port their "distro" to x86

You don't need to port a thing. There is already a distribution for Darwin on x86 architecture available now. Go to Apple's site. Click on the Darwin button. Download instructions are there.

I have to say that Aqua is more than just X-Windows with a theme (I'm familiar with both).

[mykej]

"They already have it -- without the fanfare. Apple bought NExT. The NExT technology DOES/DID run on Intel."

Saying NeXTStep "runs" on Intel is generous. It crawls. I loooooved the pizza box machines and the cubes, but Intel boxes just didn't cut it.

I doubt that Apple will switch anytime soon. For reasons, look at the following examples:

1) NeXT. It just never work right or sold well when it was only an OS. NeXTStep was tied to the architecture of the box, and it was great where it belonged. Similarly, Solaris also sucks on intel. It's my favorite OS, running on a sparc, but I won't even use it as an xterm on intel.

2) Apple opened up to clones in the early-mid 90's. Customers were able to buy cheaper boxes running motorola chips. Working in an animation/video house at the time, I can tell you we had nothing but trouble from third party boxes. (Of course we had more trouble than most people do even with Apple boxes, but every machine was pushed to its limits every day. The Apple boxes held up better.)

Apple depends on knowing how everything in the box works and fits together. I don't think I would trust them to write an OS in the rough and tumble commodity world of intel hardware. Apple know more than any OS company out there about UI, but they have a horrible track record for writing software that runs anywhere but on a tightly controlled system.

[Brookhaven]

Switching to another chip would require a whole new round of rebuilding, or "porting," existing applications to work on the other chip.

Here is the real danger for Apple, and the reason they won't switch chips.

If you're a software developer, and you're going to develop for an "Apple/Intel" architecture, also developing a "Windows/Intel" version is going to look pretty tempting. After all, you've done most of the work when you did the initial "Apple/Intel" port. That huge windows market is going to look pretty tempting.

If Apple's applications do start showing up in Windows versions, it will hurt Apples sales. Apples not going to do anything to make it easier to develop apps that run on Windows.

[mykej]

" If you're a software developer, and you're going to develop for an "Apple/Intel" architecture, also developing a "Windows/Intel" version is going to look pretty tempting. After all, you've done most of the work when you did the initial "Apple/Intel" port. That huge windows market is going to look pretty tempting"

Except there's nothing to leverage in writing a windows port. Presumably, if they released MacOS on Intel they'd have cross compilers and all sorts of tools to handle all the endian issues and whatnot for you. You're still writing to the MacOS API.

The Windows API is *nothing* like the Mac. I imagine it would be fairly painless to write a MacOS program that would run on either platform (given good tools), but having an Intel version of MacOS won't make a Windows port any easier.

[Fabozz]

"If Apple were to announce their Mac OS X on Intel, they'd mop up."

Agreed—within a few years, they might even take over more than 50% of the desktop market, which would be a phenomenal blow to Microsoft. But they're not going to, because Apple is run by idiots. They guard their dwindling hardware market so zealously that they're perfectly willing to pass up vastly more profitable software sales—just ask anyone who worked at Power Computing. Even if Apple decides to switch to x86 CPUs for Macs, there will still never be a version of OS X that competes with Windows, because Apple will never, ever release a Mac OS that doesn't require you to buy hardware from Cupertino.

[Utopia]

because Apple will never, ever release a Mac OS that doesn't require you to buy hardware from Cupertino.

Sigh. I know. Personally, I think its silly. What's the diff if Apple sells computers or just the OS? The Cupertino folks probably didn't realize this, but if they released OS X on x86 - the PC people might actually be inspired to give Apple computers a try -- I reckon OS X on x86 would actually increase their hardware sales.