If you have been living in a Faraday cage for the last 24 hours and haven't heard the big news yet, Apple is switching processors from IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola) to Intel chips. The transition starts now for developers, but the first Intel based Mac won't be in consumer hands till this time next year. All Macs will run Intel chips by 2007.
The first rumors of this came about a couple of weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal. There was some healthy skepticism about this rumor. Then on Friday C|Net said it was a done deal. When I heard this my skepticism decreased a lot. If both C|Net and the WSJ think it is happening, then who am I to doubt it. By the time I heard the news yesterday morning I was a shocked, but not surprised. I thought about what this means for Apple a lot yesterday. I'm still not sure, but here is what I think . . .
1. PowerMacs, PowerBooks and G-series naming is dead: Just as Apple killed the Quadra name when they moved to the PowerPC chip, they will kill the Power and G-series monikers. I don't know what the new naming convention will be, but this gives Apple a chance to rethink there marketing.
2. The first generation of Intel Macs will be a disappointment: People will expect a huge improvement in speed, but in the end they are going to get a modest bump. It will be the equivalent of the recent G5 speed bump.
3. The first Intel Mac will be a laptop: Apple desperately wants a next generation laptop and so do their customers.
4. Mac sales will suffer before Intel Macs are released: Consumers will hold off purchasing a new Mac until the Intel Macs come out, hoping for a cheaper or faster Mac.
5. Intel Macs will cost about the same as a PowerPC Mac
Overall, I'm not sure if this a good move for Apple, I think only time will tell on this. I am a bit puzzled why Apple chose Intel rather than AMD (I guess this mostly has to do with volume). My hope is that this transition will be mostly smooth. I have been through the two previous transitions (Motorola -> PowerPC and OS 9 -> OS X) and neither seemed horrible. In the end, if the developers accept this then it will work.
So now the ultimate question. I'm planning on buying a new laptop at the end of the summer. Do I buy an iBook or a Powerbook?
Posted by Noah Brimhall at June 7, 2005 11:28 AMNo question about it - buy a Powerbook!
This is huge for Apple. It will allow people to run Windows on a very powerful Mac. I think it will be a very good move. The only thing that urks me is someone running a real Windows OS on a Mac. Something bothers me about that sort of 'cross-breeding' :)
Posted by: Bryan Harding at June 7, 2005 02:39 PM"No question about it - buy a Powerbook!"
Perhaps I should clarify my concerns about buying a PowerBook. The PowerBook has not been fundamentally updated in 2 years and is not that much faster than the iBook (1.3Ghz v. 1.5Ghz). So should I buy a more expensive (by $700) 15" Superdrive PowerBook or a decent but cheap 14" Superdrive iBook?
If you still would recommend a PowerBook, why?
Posted by: Noah Brimhall at June 7, 2005 04:33 PMNow you know why I linked to the C|Net story. Most Mac fans lump all media reports into one big heap. But there's a difference between a pundit/columnist/analyst and an actual story that states it as a fact (with named or anonymous sources).
As for your numerical thoughts:
1. I agree, and this is the first I've read this idea. Kudos on the original though (so rare these days)
2. Agree, unfortunately
3. Dunno, it could be a Mac mini, or some other class of product that Apple doesn't currently sell (home media center, tablet pc). They said they would target consumer machines first, then professional. I consider a next generation laptop to be on the professional end.
4. Agreed, though waiting around for a machine that runs less software than one you could buy now doesn't make sense to me. There will also be a dearth of sales when they are first introduced, as the software situation will not have stabilized ('Quark doesn't run on the MacIntel yet')
5. Thoroughly agree. Anyone who thinks that this will lower the cost of Macs to the level of other Intel-based PCs doesn't realize how much Apple loves its high margins. I mean, if people will pay more, why not charge them more, right?
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much good that will come of this. I figured they'd make the switch if it meant you could run Windows apps via a 'Classic'-like mode or if Windows apps would be easier to port. Instead, there's going to be no regular 'Classic' nor 64-bit support.
The neverending question: PowerBook vs. iBook. I would ask: Do you need (or will need) external monitor support, audio in jack, PC Card slot, FW 800? Or would you prefer more durability, better wireless reception and less crotch-burning?
Posted by: Eddie Hargreaves at June 7, 2005 11:51 PMDespite Schiller's position that Apple will never support OSX on non-apple hardware, I can't help but to hope that it some day will. Even if it's a limited amount of hardware. Although lack of hardware support is probably one of those things that makes the Mac OS experience so great.
I hope this means we can get cheap video cards (finally). And I hope this is beneficial to the community (PDX).
Posted by: Andy at June 10, 2005 09:26 AM