Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 24th Jun 2003 15:32 UTC
I was present at Apple's WWDC yesterday and witnessed one of the historical moments in Apple's history, the introduction of their 64-bit platform. Am I impressed? The answer is complicated. I was happy to see Apple moving on and deliver. But I would have expected nothing less from a 4 billion tech company who had the need to catch up with the "other" platform, the 32-bit PC. You all heard by now what's new in yesterday's press releases and news coverings. But here is a wrap up of the first day of the conference and a commentary on what Apple really announced yesterday, underneath its surrounding distortion field.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'd guess it's two catagories. First there are the Mac advocates who will buy whatever the top of the line is (even on thin credit), and then there are the commercial users who need $3000 systems.
The first catagory are already committed to the Mac.
How many of the second group will "Switch" based on these systems? I don't think many. Apple has had a performace edge in the past (with 604 chips at around 120MHz, old days) and it didn't make a big difference then. My judgement based on that (and other history like the failure of DEC's Alpha) is that fractional speed differences are not sufficient to change history. I think people will keep buying x86 (and its progeny) until something can beat them by _multiples_ ("twice as fast", "three times as fast") at the same price point.
So I think the bottom line is that even if this performance advantage is real, it is not at the right part of the market (the consumer desktop), and it isn't quite large enough anyway.