I was thinking a lot about a direction where Mac is heading and where the next battle for market dominance in computing will start. My perception is basically based on business/ economic viewpoint. (However, I predicted that Jobs will demo OS X on Pentium during his keynote and that next OS X version will run on Intel chips, so it seems sometimes my guesses do materialize
)
Anyway, one recent link, that seemed to explain a lot to me is NY Times
here
and another, already discussed a lot, about an Intel-Apple virtual merger (no, I do not think they will merge).
Leaving aside important architechtural differences between PPC and x86, which probably made PPC in general a superior technology, there are some points which all direct to same direction:
1. Increasing standardization of Mac parts with PC world - USB, PCI, IDE, RAM and later graphic cards, needing only firmware flash- came to logical conclusion - now Macs include standard CPUs.
I say standards because x86 CPU, both from Intel and AMD, and additionally from Transmeta, VIA all belong to standard x86 type. This standardization is extremely important for development of new models, shorter R&D time and lower production costs.
It finally means that Mac CPU speed progress will no longer deviate from general trends in personal computing world, which is a Good Thing™, since excluding some historical moments, in general PPC platform always lagged (recall G4 500 mhz fiasco and so on). This trend remained unchanged with G5 and IBM totally failed to deliver ANYTHING G5 usable in mobile computing.
Do not forget also that future prospects of IBM shifting its attention to consoles meant even slower progress than in recent years and perhaps lack of mobile G5 for a foreseeable future. Which would all result in Mac platform being completely stuck behind the rest of world in terms of CPU progress and, increasingly, speed.
(CPU speed does matter because it is one of main technical parameters by which the system is judged by a consumer. While consumer may not have clear understanding of all complexities of the Mhz myth, they know that computers must be judged by something and if speed parameter of a system Y is X, while system Z has only 1/2 of X speed, then generally the X should be faster than Z and thus preferred. Isn't it why AMD uses its own speed rating system, which is loosely based on performance and shows which CPUs are faster? While there may be a myriad of other parameters, which influence performance, from front side bus to say, RAID or hard drive cache, arguably raw CPU speed does matter - even if it is mainly a perception).
So, now Macs utilize absolutely standard hardware components, from CD drives to CPUs. This is Good Thing as well.
It will result in
a. faster refreshing of Mac line (in line with CPU progress by Intel), no lags, no stagnation. And CPU speed -on par with the rest of PC world. No gaps. Same CPU speed. Same CPU brand.
b. Standard parts mean lower costs. Always. Thats law of economies of scale - something which is produced in mass volumes- always will be cheaper than similar products produced for a niche market in small volumes.
Now recall, what were main shortcomings (OK, perceived ones) which precluded the Mac platform growth in recent years? Macs always had superior software but were
1. Perceived to be slow
2. Perceived to be expensive
And generally this perception was increasingly correct. If at the end of 1990s (let's leave 1984-1998 - period of ridiculous Mac prices), iMacs were not that much different from other PC in terms of speed and price, by 2004-2005 PowerMacs for thousands dollars could not compete with 299$ offerings of generic companies or say, Dell products in terms of CPU speed and price. Same was increasingly true for Powerbooks. ibooks have been a good value still, but in 1-2 years they inevitably would face same fate as Powerbooks - being relatively expensive and slow.
MacMini was a desperate attempt by the company to eliminate price gap, and still it was too slow - you really can't find a desktop Windows PC offered now with 1.25Ghz speed.
While we know, that hardware raw speed was not the main thing, which made Macs attractive, nevertheless it mattered to general consumers, those who looked at raw CPU speed when making purchases and I tell you that for inexperienced computer buyers, it is one of most understandable characteristics of the system.
Apple tried to differentiate and compensate speed limitations by offering great software and fighting Mhz myth. Software, such OS X, iLife, iWork, professional ones, have been savior of the platform, not its lagging processors and architechture.
However, what use of superior architechture for a general user, if it is expensive and slow? It is not superior then really, at least in economic/business terms.
It may me more elegant but elegance rarely matters for mass market, where price is important.
The move to Intel CPU is, therefore, a brilliant business move which eliminates abovementioned two main shortcomings of the platform: slow CPU and high prices.
I dare to say that Macs will be priced similarly to other Windows PCs and of course, have same CPU speed.
Because it will use standard hardware, it will cost same to produce Dell and Mac (roughly, OK). Now, the most interesting part - Dells HAVE to include Windows XP cost - while Macs not and since Apple produces both computers and OS, it always can reduce OS cost, absorbed in the computer, to bare minimum if necessary (and still have a healthy margin), while the best Dell can do is to try to negotiate lower prices from MS. Which is not guaranteed to happen.
Hence, Macs can be priced low, if necessary. Whether it really will happen, depends on Apple business solutions. High-end Macs will cost same or cheaper than say high-end Dell or Sony Vaio - effectively killing any sales of Vaio desktops (and maybe Dells too?).
AND I am still not mentioning SOFTWARE. OS X and Apple software is absolutely superb. There is nothing which can beat Apple's iLife or iWork in Windows world in terms of elegance, ease of use and price. Apple's video and audio software is superb. Apple's Server OS licensing is extremely competitive.
Which means that Mac will now be BETTER value than any Windows PC for any comparable price without any doubt. I have 3 PC and 1 Mac at home and Mac, while being slowest among them, always made me more productive. I cannot imagine how productive I can be when Macs will be
fastest among my home computers.
And I am still not mentioning one factor, which does matter a lot to general computer users - security.
You see, digital Home means that your favourite songs, your family photos and favorite home videos are stored as digital files on a hard disk. Your family or business correspondence is stored as email archives. Your bank account information is stored somewhere in cache or cookie of your browser. And you want those precious files, precious information, precious videos to be kept intact, secure and away from hackers.
Windows CANNOT deliver it at all. While there were flaws on Mac side, such as iPhoto glitches or firewire drive problems, in general Macs are very secure. Windows world is full of viruses, malicious software and so on. Some viruses or spyware is so bad on Windows side that the only way to get rid of it is reinstalling OS and even then the system gets infected in few days again. There is no absolutely guarantee that your home information is stored securely in Windows. OS X is great OS for such users. Home users is a new growth market, not corporate one which is already saturated. And security of the OS will be decisive factor. Home users may not prefer latest CPU, most elegant design or something else, but security of their digital files DOES matter and will matter so INCREASINGLY. So, OS X clearly a winner in home market.
Lastly, if WINE or some kind of other software will allow Macs to boot Windows games or software (or allow installation of XP and use of it for games), consumers will greatly benefit as well: say Dell can only boot XP, while Mac can boot OS X and play Windows games - which has better value for comparable prices? Of course, Mac. I guess that Windows games will be easily ported to OS X for Intel and probably both Apple and Intel WILL ensure it happens - and then consumers will prefer Macs again.
I meant mainly low-end Macs, such as Mac mini or iMac - after six months, say after Christmas clearance sale of existing low end Macs, we gonna have new Mini, new iBook and maybe iMacs - say mini with something like Celeron 3ghz, iBook with newest single core Pentium M 2.4 Ghz (for instance), iMacs with 3.2 Ghz Intel chips, all with dual boot capability, utilizing say, latest ATI and NVIDIA cards - and with REDUCED prices by 10-15% or more prices - and this hardware/software combo will absolutely scream! In a year, high end Power Macs with new gorgeous design and say, 3.8 or 4Ghz with latest graphic/audio cards will arrive, absolutely great for any kind of video/graphic/ multimedia and for much LOWER prices - this will signal a rise of a new, completely new computing platform. It is not old Mac platform, it is not Intel platform as we know it, it is something hybrid but still running OS X on a best computer hardware available in the world at competitive prices, safe from Windows spyware and screaming fast.
This is a beginning of a new era in computing, dominated by OS X.
It is just my guess, but I already guessed demo of OS X on Intel and OS X Leopard few days ago, when everyone was talking about Intel making PPC chips for Apple
and I was right
Something tells me I may be correct this time as well
Security and Apple software (starting with Mac OS) are the keys.
Top
