[spindler]

Everyone seems to be simply repeating what Steve Jobs claims is the reason for the processor switch. But Apple has been in this position many times before. If it was simply a matter of PPC processors being too slow, why didn't Apple do this move long, long ago? What was stopping them all those years? This is a gigantic move and the reason given is much, much too small. If you decided to get brain surgery after years of avoiding the option, you'd have to give a better reason than simply having the same headaches you've always had.

G5s are at 2.7 GHZ and Pentiums at 4GHZ. The gap has usually been that size and Macs have been much further behind. In terms of portables, Macs have been way behind processor-wise for a long time, but it didn't seem to matter much to Apple

Obviously, when Motorola was stuck at 500 MHZ, that was the time to make a move, things were looking far, far more desperate than now, so why didn't they switch then? Here's what I think are the real reasons for making the move now:

- This transition is a bigger deal than Steve claims it is and some developers will be angry. So now that Apple has the momentum with sales growing from the iPod effect, Steve Jobs is doing what he has obviously wanted to do for a long time

- The real reason for the switch is that there is now, for the first time, lots and lots of outside interest in the Mac. Selling a machine that runs OS X, but can be used as a Windows machine if things don't work out dramatically reduces the risk to the switcher. There are millions of people interested in Macs now, but only a small fraction go through and actually buy a Mac. The Mac Mini was an attempt to get switchers, but the results have been modest. If you can't get them with a $500 machine, you aren't going to get them at all. So Apple has pulled out all the stops, and is now only getting about 200,000 extra unit sales per quarter. That is a miracle compared to all previous attempts to grow, but still pretty small. So now is the time to offer them the easiest path to a Mac. Soon, you will be able to buy a Mac Mini for $500 and try out OS X risk free. If you aren't thrilled, just install Windows and you have the PC you were going to buy anyway.

I really think that reducing the barrier to entry for switchers is the real reason for the processor switch. But I'm interested in any other ideas, because if it was just a matter of a small MHZ gap, Apple would have done this long, long ago.

[Goldfinger]

IBM told Steve to **** off.

[chris v]

Beleive it or not, one of the things that intrigues me about this is having the ability to dual-boot Windows. I hate windows, but there's exactly ONE application I would really like to have, that'll probably never be ported to OS X. If I could replace my Powerbook with a laptop that would boot OS X and Windows, I could use it for cave surveying on-site, and that would be tres cool.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by spindler

I really think that reducing the barrier to entry for switchers is the real reason for the processor switch. But I'm interested in any other ideas, because if it was just a matter of a small MHZ gap, Apple would have done this long, long ago.

the barrier for switchers would still exist in the confusing application/emulation/switchover BS that is forthcoming

i think the real reason is exactly what he said and there is lots of PLUS and MINUSES for staying and switching. some of the things you mentioned are PLUSES.

[ajprice]

Steve saw the PowerPC roadmap, it looked like this:


If Steve was confident enough on the launch of the G5 to say speeds will be 3GHz within a year and then have to launch 2.7GHz at the top of the range 2 YEARS LATER, that has to be water cooled, and no sign of a G5 cool enough to put in a laptop, then why should he have stayed with IBM?

Going to Intel puts Macs on a level field with PC's, and puts Mac development on the same level as PC development. So Apple should now get the same tech as PC's, in terms of GHz, and other aspects such as wireless technology.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by spindler

Everyone seems to be simply repeating what Steve Jobs claims is the reason for the processor switch. But Apple has been in this position many times before. If it was simply a matter of PPC processors being too slow, why didn't Apple do this move long, long ago? What was stopping them all those years?

Well, one thing that was stopping them was a way to run some of the PPC binaries on the Intel processor without a huge speed hit. It was easy to write a 68K emulator for PPC because the new chip was much faster than the old one.

Once Transitive announced their new technology (Apple calls it "Rosetta"), it became much more feasible to make a switch if IBM proved unable to meet the demand.

[spindler]

"Once Transitive announced their new technology (Apple calls it "Rosetta"), it became much more feasible to make a switch if IBM proved unable to meet the demand."

This is probably true. The emulator technology makes it possible for Apple to transition. But then the question stills stands as to whether Apple would have transitioned back when Motorola was stalled, had Rosetta been possible then?

Another question is how come Transitive could invent Rosetta, but Apple couldn't themselves? Apple has always had an interest in being able to move to another processor, maybe more interest than any other company in the world. They have lots of R&D people. Is it possible Apple couldn't create this technology but some small company could?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by spindler

"Once Transitive announced their new technology (Apple calls it "Rosetta"), it became much more feasible to make a switch if IBM proved unable to meet the demand."

This is probably true. The emulator technology makes it possible for Apple to transition. But then the question stills stands as to whether Apple would have transitioned back when Motorola was stalled, had Rosetta been possible then?

Another question is how come Transitive could invent Rosetta, but Apple couldn't themselves? Apple has always had an interest in being able to move to another processor, maybe more interest than any other company in the world. They have lots of R&D people. Is it possible Apple couldn't create this technology but some small company could?

tim berners lee "invented the internet"

hey, in the corporate world things are not always black and white. maybe apple hired their company to produce this effort instead of starting a new apple division/work group. if hiring 20 people that has experience is not as cost-efficent wise as to just hire a qualified company to develop it... then they gotta make the wise choice.

[JoshuaZ]

I think the time was right, and the software and tech was right, so Apple went for it. A bunch of factors came together. It was no light decision, and I'm thinking its the right move on apple's part.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by spindler

I really think that reducing the barrier to entry for switchers is the real reason for the processor switch.

The barrier isn't lowered significantly. You'll still have to buy new hardware, and you'll still have to buy it at a significant premium. You'll still have to run Windows apps inside a virtual machine (not a true emulator, but interface-wise there's no difference other than speed), and Apple still won't be providing one. Where, then, is the barrier to entry lowered?

But I'm interested in any other ideas, because if it was just a matter of a small MHZ gap, Apple would have done this long, long ago.

There are only two areas which really make any sense: marketing dollars and DRM.

[Eriamjh]

Steve was tired of lagging behind. With this switch, there will be no more "MHz gap". Steve probably yelled at IBM. IBM told him to "switch if he didn't like it". So he did.

The 5-years of Intel builds of OSX has to tell you something. Apple has been considering this for FIVE YEARS!! Five years ago Moto had us stuck at 500MHz and the future looked like crap.

This transisition guarantees that Apple will have the same hardware as Intel PCs, the market leader. It also means an easy switch to AMD if necessary (or an AMD version at the same time). It will be bumpy, but now processor bumps should come more regularly and more predictably.

[ink]

I think it's a combination of all the issues raised in this thread plus the XBox 360, the Revolution and (to a much lesser extent) the cell processors for the PS3. IBM is gearing up to make lots and lots of identical 970 derivatives. They are going to make money by devoting their FABs to Microsoft and Nintento, and this does not bode well for the variety of chips that Apple wants to have access to. IBM looks at the investment opportunity of a small-ish market that Apple provides, related to the development costs that it entails; then they compare that with the relatively simple process of the huge markets of scale that N/MS offer and they know where to go. They can make beaucoup bucks with little research by going with the consoles.

Intel, on the other hand, has been dealing with lots and lots of small producers that want the same thing that Apple wants for ages. They provide a variety of chips, and have a variety of product lines that are actively being developed.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are only two areas which really make any sense: marketing dollars and DRM.

you may be right but you can't base that on a rumor as of yet. we'll see in the coming hoopla.