Posted by Ryan Walker
0 commentsI started to write up a little something yesterday about Apple’s announcement of the switch to Intel processors. It wasn’t very good, so I scrapped it.
I’m still in shock. After mocking Intel processors for so many years, it’s really hard to say “Yeah! This is a great move!” Personally, I don’t think that Intel’s current offerings are particularly good. G5 processors match or outperform P4 processors despite the 50% GHz difference.
But when I read what Steve said yesterday and let it sink in a bit, I can grudgingly acknowledge that it might be a good move, and here’s why. First off, while Mac desktops are still going toe-to-toe against Wintel desktops in the performance arena, Intel has done a better job of getting their power consumption and heat production down, so Wintel laptops are still advancing while Mac laptops are still stuck on G4 chips. I haven’t looked at any cross-platform performance comparisons lately, but I’m prepared to concede that a 3GHz P4 Sony Vaio laptop is faster than a 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook.
Now, consider that laptops are half of the PC market these days, and IBM/Freescale’s inability to miniaturize the G5 becomes a huge problem. We were supposed to have 3GHz PowerMacs and G5 PowerBooks by now, but we don’t.
Next, think about IBM’s motivation. IBM just signed up Microsoft’s XBox, Sony’s Playstation, and Nintendo’s Revolution for PowerPC production. Game consoles comprise a huge market, much larger than Mac sales especially when you consider that each XBox will get, count ‘em, three PowerPC processors. PowerPC’s also go into embedded systems. IBM and Freescale already have a huge market for PowerPC processors. Apple is the only personal computer manufacturer in that mix. So, Apple’s needs do not mesh well with IBM and Freescale’s development plans. Considering how much it costs to develop new processors, it doesn’t make sense for IBM or Freescale to pump money into designing processors just for Apple. Apple could pay them do continue development, but why should they when they could switch to Intel chips? Continuing development would be continuing expense. Switching only costs them once. Sure, Intel chips are most expensive per unit, but they should still be cheaper than paying upfront for processor design and development for each new generation of chips.
Also, there are a few other less compelling bits to think about. There’s the old “if you can’t beat them, join them” cliche, which does apply here. Apple is trying to convince people to switch from Windows to Macintosh, but the processor architecture is a barrier. People ready to ditch their old PC’s are weary of switching to Macs because they’ll lose all of their licensed applications. If the new Mac can also boot Windows, licensed software will no longer be lost. They could just reboot the machine into Windows and still use it. Another less compelling issue, is the egg on Steve Job’s face. He declared that 3GHz Macs would be shipping by now and we’re still not there. Steve may be fed up with IBM (already was with Freescale) and ready to take his business elsewhere. A third bit to think about is the iPod. It is conceivable that Apple has been planning this transition since the switch to Mac OS X, but has not been in a financial position to carry it out. Now that the iPod is a blockbuster product and analysts are fairly universally singing the praises of Apple, they are finally in a position where a one to two year dip in computer sales won’t put the company into a death spiral.
My friend Pete Priel sent me this eWeek article which has some additional insights about Apple’s potential motivations and some intriguing ideas about potential implementation (hint Windows running side by side with Mac OS X, potentially with an integrated GUI?). Another friend, John Engler blogged his own more neutral thoughts on the topic.
Finally, I’d like to make a couple of things clear. First off, I have no inside information on any of this. I’m speculating about some of this, and digesting press releases and articles for the rest. Second, I’m not thrilled about this switch, but I can live with it. Third, I still don’t really like Intel, so don’t expect to see many Intel Inside desktops appearing any time soon. (I think there’s a saying like “love is fleeting, but hate lasts forever” or something like that. I don’t hate Intel, but my dislike still has some life left in it.)
Posts Feed