Apple won’t stand in the way of people who want to run Windows on its forthcoming Intel-processor Macs. But whether or not users will be able to run Windows directly on the machines is still a mystery. Analysts fear short-term hit to Apple in wake of Intel deal: See sales of PowerPCs suffering if buyers wait until 2006 for Macs with new chips
‘Mactel’ Desktops May Offer Triple-Threat OS
2005-06-15 Apple 66 Comments
See sales of PowerPCs suffering if buyers wait until 2006 for Macs with new chips
That’s definately the case with me! I think Apple will likely succeed with the switch, and in the end it’ll be a good thing for Mac users, but whereas I was wavering before on a Powerbook, wanting to wait more powerful versions than the G4, I’m now definately waiting to see how the switch plays itself out.
The other reason I’m holding out is the cost of laptops dropping… I came across an 15″ HP 1.3 Celeron laptop earlier today for $499 out the door. It’s a Celeron, but still… With laptops breaking the $500 price range, I expect to see Powerbooks drop in price considerably as well. Not Mac Mini prices, but certainly less than $1499 to get into a decent Powerbook.
And while a Celeron with Linux or XP would likely meet my needs for now, I’d really like a Powerbook to compliment my dual 2ghz Mac. 8)=
Mac/x86 story: I’m not dead!
Dead story collector: What?
Readers: Nothing. Here’s your ninepence.
Mac/x86 story: I’m not dead!
Dead story collector: He says he’s not dead!
Readers: Yes he is.
Mac/x86 story: I am not!
Dead story collector: He isn’t?
Readers: Well, he will be soon. He’s very ill.
Mac/x86 story: I’m getting better!
Readers: No you’re not. You’ll be stone dead in a moment.
Dead story collector: I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
Mac/x86 story: I don’t want to go on the cart!
Readers: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
Dead story collector: I can’t take him.
Mac/x86 story: I feel fine!
Readers: Well do us a favor.
Dead story collector: I can’t.
Readers: Well, can you hang around for a moment? He won’t be long.
Dead story collector: No, I’ve got to go to the Robinsons’. They’ve lost nine today.
Readers: Well, when’s your next round?
Dead story collector: Thursday.
Mac/x86 story: I think I’ll go for a walk.
Readers: You’re not fooling anyone, you know. Look, isn’t there something you can do?
Mac/x86 story: I feel happy!
I for one won’t post-pone buying a PPC, especially next year. I’m just hoping for a price cut on a dual Powermac.
Reasons: 1, PowerPC still goes head to head with the other processors on the market. 2, It’s still supported for years with software updates. 3, I love bargans and always shop the clearance rack. 4, The G5 will last me a few years and than I will jump on a another New Mac.
Analysts always get it wrong on the mac anyways. They were wrong on the Windows release of iTunes and just about everything else in the last 5 years with Apple.
I really think Analysts are still breathing the air of the former CEO of Apple and make their prophecies based on that.
I dunno. The only person I know who’s had any opinion on the switch to Intel has been planning to make their next machine a Mac for years, and now that they’re switching to PPC he feels like they’ve sold out… and his next machine is now going to have to be bought in the next 12 months.
Yes, that’s right, he WANTS a PPC computer.
>With laptops breaking the $500 price range, I expect to see Powerbooks drop in price considerably as well.
The laptops didn’t drop i price much… but the drop is specs did… thus allowing a reduction in price.
Since Steve J. re-joined Apple, the company has been very competitive on price. However, they aren’t very competitive on offering the same amount of options you can get as compared to a PCs. This has caused many PC users to compare the PC they want which may have lower specs than the roughly equivalent Mac. The Mac typically comes with more (be it more software or hardware) thus allowing them to justify what many consider to be a higher price… when in actuality, you buy more so you pay more.
Unfortunately, due to the bad processor specs on Apple’s powerbook lineup, their high-end laptops are the really the only product in Apple’s lineup that doesn’t follow that line of reasoning… if only because Apple doesn’t have much choice.
When you compare spec for spec (in both hardware and software) Apple’s computers are most often equal or less expensive than PCs. PowerBook’s are the only exception to that right now, but there is every reason to believe that this will change when Apple goes Intel and brings its powerbook’s processors up to spec.
20″ G5 iMac. Will be on my desk by Friday noon.
Mac is the best. Mac will be the best. Mark my word. With or without PPC/Intel/WhateverYouPutinThem – Mac will be the best. Why?
..and create a nice, convincing campaign so people understand that their PPC hardware will be supported for a long, long time (as long as the normal HW cycle)
Otherwise, the next 4 quarters will be appalling for Apple.
Mac is the best. Mac will be the best. Mark my word. With or without PPC/Intel/WhateverYouPutinThem – Mac will be the best. Why?
Not if you arent a fan of OSX. I would be tempted to buy a Mac to put Windows onto.
When you compare spec for spec (in both hardware and software) Apple’s computers are most often equal or less expensive than PCs
The thing is I don’t want a loaded laptop for $1500. I want a cheap laptop for $600. I would like it to be running OS X but that’s not possible. I don’t want all the extra crap Apple loads on it. I don’t care if they load DVD authoring software worth $200. If I don’t use it then it’s worth $0 to me.
Actually I’m not too skeptical about the switch. But it does remind me of the history of another company called NeXT Computer.
Guess who the CEO of NeXT was?
I am HAPPY that I have a 1GHz iBook (PPC) and a Dual 867 (which I will update before the fall). I will wait to buy a Intel powered Mac.
Since I’m not in a rush, this plays out well (at least for me). When the new Macs arrive the HDs will be formated with HFS(ext) and they will talk easily to each other and Wintels (like now). So, it ain’t so daunting…
Hmm, I wonder, does Windows run on HFS? or are we going to have to use a seperate HD (or partition). Hmm…
LOL — my favorite movie of all time
the PPC will be supported for several years, even after the switchover. besides, I don’t want to buy a first gen intel mac. that’s why I’ll be getting a 2.0 GHz g5 20″ imac in the near future.
2, It’s still supported for years with software updates.
By Apple perhaps, but what about third parties?
I’ve been concidering a Powerbook for quite some time, but I’d like it to be up to date software wise for a few years. While Safari and Mail.app might be fine, how many FOSS-projects will provide fat binaries for G4, G5, x86 and x86-64? (which will probably be the case by 2007)
I don’t really want to suddenly find out that the new DamnGreatApp is only distributed for x86-systems, or that new version of OtherGreatApp will not be released for PPC.
“Guess who the CEO of NeXT was?” And guess who replaced others at Apple, NeXT Exec’s and engineers(who were with apple before next)……………hmm looks like they haven’t done that bad of a job. Apple’s sitting in quit good shape over the last 8 years or so since they been there.
It would be cool to have the choice to dual boot OSX and Windows, but I surely woudln’t buy an Intel Mac, wipe it, and throw Windows or Linux on it, there is no point.
“When you compare spec for spec (in both hardware and software) Apple’s computers are most often equal or less expensive than PCs”
That might apply to some models but not Emacs. I’d love to have one, but there’s no way I can justify spending $800 plus the extra $50 for the RAM upgrade and be at $900 before I know it. No, the software doesn’t make up for the lack of hardware…slow processor, less impressive video card, etc.
anybody has an idea if/when there’s going o be a new ppc powerbook/ibook. the last update of pbooks was in january. in case of ibooks it’s even worse. the inel based are told to be around june so i guess they have to update meanwhile.
There has been a big misnomer about the changeover to Intel based processors for Mac’s:
1) Mac’s will become cheaper-
No they won’t. Apple’s revenue model rests on selling the “experience” integrating both hardware and software. The price point isn’t going down. If they plan on using a newer line of Intel processors, the price point will be the same.
2) OS X will run on commodity hardware (Dell, HP etc…)
Once again, no it won’t. Apple tried this once before with Apple clones and it didn’t work for them. Steve Jobs has been quoted in numerous interviews saying how he hated the “clone” idea, pulled it from the market the minute and that Apple would not release OS X to Dell or any PC manufacturer.
Apple’s are still going to stay proprietary. Jobs will find some hardware DRM that will lock it to that Powerbook, iBook or PowerMac.
Ironically, Apple will be using an Intel setup with TCPA enabled to make it so that OSX will only run on certain hardware.
I ordered my Dual G5 today. X86 remains a poorer cpu-design even when used by Apple. Hopefully my PM will last me at least 10 years, to me X86 is a long way off.
I doubt anyone would wait for a Mac anymore after those recent developments at Apple. People will simply buy inexpensive ordinary PCs and go with Linux.
Wait a minute… why be worried about FOSS projects providing fat binaries?
If the software is written without processor-specific things like SSE3 or AltiVec instructions and is Endian-Neutral, why worry about a fat binary when you can get a thin binary built from the original FOSS? Wasn’t that supposed to be one of the big sellers of FOSS?
Ok, not every user will have the means to make the appropriate conversions in code that isn’t clean (though you’d think FOSS would be published as clean code, with the many eyes argument) and may not know how to do a build, but someone, somewhere, will do it if there’s much demand for the software.
Sales of computers will hurt Apple until the Intel line is out. But that won’t affect the cash flow. Apple is floating on Ipods.
I am bound and determined to own a 3 Ghz PPC. Lets see if Apple can deliver on this promise.
The only thing I am worried about is if they are going to yank the PPC line the moment they announce the Mintels, or if I will be able to buy a final generation PPC.
Here is hoping.
I’m going to order my ibook next week And I hope I can get a good PowerMac (or whatever it will be at this time) when I can afford it to replace my aging PC (Athlon 1,2, not quite a big setup to do music and graphical edit)
I don’t think people will go the Linux way. There is allready cheap Linux loaded pc, and apart from geek, I don’t know anyone who got one… But I know a lot of recent Mac switchers.
People will be buying Apple hardware like crazy. Why? Because PPC is so superior to x86, I don’t even know where to start explaining it. So, while PPC Macs are still available, they will be selling like hot cakes. And when the time comes to switch, Apple will announce that it was all a joke and they are sticking to the superior PPC architecture until the end of time. Mark my words! The whole switch hoopla is a genius marketing ploy to make people buy more of superior Apple hardware. I predict that by the middle of 2006 Apple will have at least 30% of the desktop and at least 50% of the laptop markets. Steve J is a true genius!
That’s a very entertaining thought, but makes you sound like an analyst on LSD
Think about how much contempt so many people (especially developers) would have for Apple if they tried such a thing! Also, if Apple loyal customers cared about having a PPC and found themselves rushing out to get one before they were supposed to be gone, and also for some reason convinced their families and friends to get them while they last because they’d never be made again, imagine how much egg on face there’d be.
And your numbers are high on crack as well! 30% of the desktop market? You are aware that a huge portion of changing to a completely incompatible system is software costs, right? Not to mention some learning time. As popular s laptops are, and as nice as I hear the Mac laptops are, there’s still those issues as mentioned above, and while Apple would be sitting on a wad of cash as a result if it did happen, well, let’s not go any further….
I like your sense of humor, though
It would however be interesting if IBM suddenly started delivering on the PPC platform and Apple decided to keep PPC as well as add on Intel.
The Intel Macs will appeal to people who want to try OSX but are a bit hesitant in case it doesn’t work out for them. These people could then just install Windows on their Intel Mac if they didn’t like OSX.
Meanwhile, people who appreciate the cleaner PPC architecture would continue to buy PPC hardware.
Now, I’m not saying this is probably but it’s at least a realistic possibility.
PPC may be superior on paper, but let’s face the facts. G5’s are power hungry, hot, and slow, when compared to x86 counterparts. No one is doing ANYTHING about this, not even IBM (IBM focuses on server stuff, which can be hot and power hungry).
IA64 is a much better design than x86, but where is it going? Absolutely no where at this point in time. Alpha, while hot and power hungry, at least made up for it in speed and what happened to it?
In short, a better design doesn’t mean anything if no one is doing anything with it, meanwhile its competition is wiping the floor with it, even though the design isn’t as good.
Get the point?
> $800 plus the extra $50 for the RAM upgrade and be at $900 before I know it.
800 + 50 = 900?
G5 – slow?
“800 + 50 = 900?”
As soon as you add sales tax…
X86 will need another 2 years to beat the G5.
“We think there will be a small cottage industry on hacking [Apple hardware] to run Windows on it,”
If the hardware wasn’t based on intel it would make a lot more sense to replace “Windows” with “Linux”. Then there’s the irony that windows may be locked out from running on an x86 platform, albeit a special one.
What would be really interesting, is if Apple’s deal causes the monopoly on desktop pc’s to shift from Microsoft to Apple.
I’ll be interested to see what happens to this whole speed issue after the switch. Apple has put an immense amount of work into heavily optimizing their OS and applications to work on PPC hardware, and they are going to have a lot of work to do in order to get the x86 version of their OS up to speed. I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if the first version of OS X/x86 ends up feeling slower than the OS running on technically slower PPC chips, simply because many PPC optimizations will actually slow down a program on x86 chips, and vice versa – we all remember what happened with the port of Halo to OS X was like, right?
Let’s hope they can pull it off. Apple (barely) pulled the transitio from 68k to PPC, and I’m still a bit concerned, considering what happened when NeXT and Be when they switched from PPC to x86. I imagine it will be a much more difficult transition. At least they have a bit of a headstart, what with there being Darwin/x86 and the code for OPENSTEP/x86.
Personaly I along with many prefer the PPC platform but as long as they are running to hot to make it into the ibooks and powerbooks apple has to make a change.
and the PPC in clock cycles is no where near where X86 is though you can’t measure performance purely based on clock cycles. However I think the average consumer see’s the X86 clock cycles as much faster therefore in their mind it is faster.
PPC is much better in my opinion.
There is more to it then that:
its a round up of the G5 and x86 CPU’s, and guess what the g5 does not win in every catogory. what a shock, and this ‘move’ to intel, is more about the pentium M, then anything abd the ‘future’ roadmaps, didnt anyone watch the wwdc keynote?
for a laptop CPU the pentium M, wipes the floor with the g4.
and guess what there is no g5 laptop, probly never will be beucase it runs to hot,
and next year pentium M dual cores are going to be comming.
this is what apple needs fast development, and apple will be able to get the systsm baord chipsets,CPU and network card all from intel,
plus, intel has much more in the pipeline…
this is a very very good move for apple, the only thing they will take a hit on is altivec – software. but thats kinda small, and i am such they have some kind of plan for that too.
2 years in some alternate reality where the Opteron doesn’t exist?
Us: Now that’s what I call a dead story.
News: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!
News: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! Big-Blues stun easily, major.
Us: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That story is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Enough! ….My own personal experience is that people are talking about delaying. They don’t care so much about CPUs, but they do care about longevity, and they’re convinced Apple’s “by 2006” rant was and is a bad omen for the current PPC line up.
I don’t agree with this, but I do think Apple deserve bad sales because they totally misshandled this imho. Anyone who buys a Mac now must be either “pinin for the Fjords” or nailed to the pirch.
By 2006 Apples PPC machines will be no more! They will cease to be! ….expired and gone to meet their maker! …a stiff! Bereft of life, they’ll rest in peace! If you don’t nail them to the perch they’ll be pushing up the daisies! Their metabolic processes are now ‘istory! …off the twig! …kicked the bucket, …shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-ARCHITECTURE!
are you claiming that the Intel EM64T will not be out by then?
The Yonah (what Apple will most likely switch to on the desktop) is particularly incredible if you consider what it is: a direct descendent of the Pentium Pro. The two are seperated by more than 10 years. The latter has 20x as many transistors and will be built on a process nearly 10x smaller (600nm vs 65nm). Yes, Yonah’s caches are larger, its FSB is faster, it’s pipeline is a bit longer, and some buffers are a bit deeper, but it’s still the same basic 10-year-old architecture, right down to the almost identical execution core. That’s phenomenal longevity for a CPU design.
It would however be interesting if IBM suddenly started delivering on the PPC platform and Apple decided to keep PPC as well as add on Intel.
That’s an interesting thought, and as long as developers are going to be forced to create fat binaries for a number of years anyway, I suppose it’s doable.
Of course, Apple would need a helluva good reason to continue supporting 2 architectures. I’m not really sure they have one now. I suppose if IBM or Freescale or one of the other licensees came up with some really spectacular implementation of the PPC, they’d consider it.
Unfortunately, I don’t see it in the cards today. But, hey, anything could happen.
The date isn’t exactly 2006. What Steve said was Laptops by 2006 and desktops by 2007.
The 1st laptops will be based on Pentium M (next generation) and the desktops will be based on something like Yonah (a 64bit Pentium M based design).
Apple is not switching to the current x86 chips on the market, but rather the next generation. Apple has no plans to use any of the Pentium 4 netburst based chips (the current developers platform is but these are leased only ($999) and to be returned when finished).
My big question is: How are they going to keep you from running on standard x86 hardware? Darwin already runs on standard x86 hardware and Mac OS X is mostly just a GUI running on top of Darwin. If you modify Darwin to boot on your system (including drivers, etc, …), then you should be able to just copy the Mac OS X binary objects into your /System direcroy (I know I’m missing some objects) and manually start the GUI. The only way I can see them OS X from working is to have the GUI system verify the hardware; a VM system like VMware or ZEN could fake this also.
I don’t plan on re-selling the iMac anyways so its no big deal.
I literally just bought my 1st Mac (iMac G5) the Friday of the weekend the CNET article was released. I’m using it right now and am really happy with it. I don’t plan on re-selling the iMac anyways so its no big deal.
If users put off purchases of Macs until 2006 when the Mactel is due, that will affect Apple’s earnings and their stock price. I hope Apple doesn’t announce any delays between now and then.
The intel chips will have the DRM tech on it which Apple can use to lock OS X to their chips.
Anyone can play the waiting game. It doenst’ have to be waitin for Apple to switch to x86. You might want to wait until Siggraph (Aug) or Macworld SF (Jan) to see if Apple has new PowerPCs..or whatever. If you constantly wait for the next best thing, you will always be waiting. Some people just need to face the fact that what they buy today will be obsolete within months. For Apple machines, sometimes that takes 6 months or a year.
If anyone says they are going to wait until 2006 for a MacTel laptop.. or 2007 for a MacTel desktop, then Apple wasn’t losing their sale anyhow because those people just aren’t serious about buying and are just window-shopping.
Any G5 desktop or Powerbook you buy now will be long supported by Apple and will be obsolete the moment that Apple releases more speed bumps. Since this x86 switch isn’t supposed to happen until mid-2006 at the earliest, and not completed by end of 2007… you can bet there will be speed-bumps for PowerPC along the way.
I figure if my 4 year old laptop is stil supported under Tiger (2000 G3 Pismo).. then any Mac I buy today will be supported at least until 2009.
“The 1st laptops will be based on Pentium M (next generation) and the desktops will be based on something like Yonah (a 64bit Pentium M based design).”
“Yonah” will be the next generation Pentium-M dual-core with a 64-bit extended instruction set, not a real 64-bit processor. It’s for consumer or middle class laptop. The professional and high class Pentium-M processor will be “Moran”, a Yonah evolution with Hyperthreading enabled longest pipelines ad truely 64-bit instruction set.
For desktop the next processors will be “Sossaman”, for entry-level small business server and middle class computer. For high class desktop there will be “Conroe”. Both will be based Moran-like processor.
– Yonah for iBook and Mac mini.
– Moran for PowerBook.
– Sossaman for eMac (if there well be again) ed iMac.
– Conroe for PowerMac.
For Xserve the next generation Xeon will be a good choise.
People will be buying Apple hardware like crazy. Why?
No they won’t. Nobody sane would buy a dying line of hardware. Or, do you think that developers will really bother with fat binaries for years from now? Yeah probably the same as let say move from 8.1 to 8.5 or 8.5 to 9, or 9 to OSX (and there even high percentage of applications that run on specific OSX version only).
Nobody sane spends moneys on something you know it will die out in a year. Doing this for a home user is maybe still understandable (but not likely, Apple won’t have sudden flow of new games in one year or application users were used to), but manager that would make such foolish decision would simply had to be a moron.
Because PPC is so superior to x86, I don’t even know where to start explaining it.
Yes, that’s right, but as long as all PPC features as vectorisation and others are used. And even that is connected to the fact of how long the vectorisation use is (how big your calculations are, for example video can use this better that Sound, sound better than dtp, dtp better than desktop). This is the reason why desktop wasn’t faster, but Photoshop was.
So, while PPC Macs are still available, they will be selling like hot cakes.
No, read my first answer.
And when the time comes to switch, Apple will announce that it was all a joke and they are sticking to the superior PPC architecture until the end of time.
No, it won’t.
The only way Apple could continue PPC line approach is to go with Cell (at least considering current CPU that are being produced). But, that would be the worst mistake Apple could make.
Cell will be used in let’s say PS3, TVs, Phones, computers. You can’t sell the same performance, but as highly overpriced as Apple is selling.
Why should Apple sell the same Cell?
Apple just wasn’t big enough to get special treatment with Cell. Remember, that Cell is ment for much more than computers
Mark my words!
You better stop being stoned all the time. Real life might surprise you sometimes
The whole switch hoopla is a genius marketing ploy to make people buy more of superior Apple hardware.
Or you could call it last resort. Remember this little history lesson:
1. Apple was always the first to call MHz myth as false
2. Apple was always praising PPC and now sudden change
3. Apple couldn’t afford PS3-Cell-price fiasco so they suddenly changed their mind about MHz and PPC myth
4. Apple moved on Intel, why Intel? On one side if they don’t succed Intel is a sure buyer for Apple, price of desktop is the same. Remember that Intel is epensive
Where does this lead?
1. Apple is low performance platform. From Intel, AMD and Cell, Intel is the weakest. Both Cell and AMD are 64-bit (and if not by long time then by default, and Cell does PPC like optimisations by default). Intel is still dreaming about 64-bit and so far the only Intel 64-bit CPUs are used for servers. Desktops as expensive as that are very hard to sell.
2. You can expect MS to start anoucing Cell based Windows are in plan. Their XBox is already PPC based
3. Since Linux will be the first to make on Cell, you could expect that Cell will make as primary Linux platform. Just as Opterons were treated as first. Personaly, I hope that i386 support will stay just as tertiary option after PPC and 64-bit. It is time for Intel to die or start making quality hardware.
4. All tests you’ve seen between In tel and Opteron were 32-bit based, at least I haven’t seen 64-bit based one. And they preformed equaly. Intel in its best and Opteron in its worst (32-bit is not Opterons native mode)
5. Figure it out for your self
You can’t expect that Intel will start making faster CPUs suddenly. Quality of Intel is dropping now for a long time, just as quality of AMD is rising. I for my self have stopped selling Intel based hardware for one year now, and never looked back. Guess what, I don’t sell Macs.
I predict that by the middle of 2006 Apple will have at least 30% of the desktop and at least 50% of the laptop markets. Steve J is a true genius!
You predict wrong. Apple will not gain even 0.1%. More like loose. And no, Steve is not a genius, but I admit he is good. Otherwise I can’t explain how Apple succeded with this foolish Apple fame.
Cell isn’t fit for desktop usage.
Intel has stopped dreaming about 64 bits:
“X86 will need another 2 years to beat the G5.”
The G5 has just merely been *competitive* all this time. What do you base your claim on?
“1. Apple was always the first to call MHz myth as false
It is false. MHz for MHz, PPC *IS* faster than x86
“2. Apple was always praising PPC and now sudden change”
Because of the future roadmap, not because anything that was not true in the past or present.
“3. Apple couldn’t afford PS3-Cell-price fiasco so they suddenly changed their mind about MHz and PPC myth”
Now you are trolling. They didn’t change their mind at all. They looked at the future prospects for these processors with the future prospects of PPC and realized that the future prospects of PPC weren’t as good as x86. I cringed when Steve made the announcement… not because I thought it was a bad move, but because I knew that there would be people like you that would try to spin it in an effort to support past arguments that supported PPC.
“4. Apple moved on Intel, why Intel? On one side if they don’t succed Intel is a sure buyer for Apple, price of desktop is the same.”
Sigh… Whatever Mr Cringely
“You predict wrong. Apple will not gain even 0.1%. More like loose.”
Every trend seems to disagree with that theory. Apple has grown 300% faster than the x86 PC industry which shows that people are more interested in Macs than ever before. Why would that suddenly change?
Those PPC macs are dead on arrival. Two years from now they won’t even be supported. Apple will not support old tech, they’ll abandon it just like they have before. Sure some people want the myth of PPC, but very few.
Apple will have a very difficult time matching price on Intel. The top of the line Mac is $3K, there’s nothing that’s worth anywhere near that on Intel, not even close. Plus nobody wants those slow CPU speeds anyway. Even if nothing else happens, and the same Mac sells at the same price, the CPU speeds will be twice as fast as they are on the current models a year from now. It’s worth the wait.
Even the least tech savy users understand that buying a Mac now means buying a boat anchor. Plus those who are dying for a PPC Mac will be able to pick one up a year from now for next to nothing. Used prices have already started declining, and they’ll approach nose dive speeds about the time the new Intel Macs go on sale.
In my opinion, Apple needs to speed up the relase of its Intel boxes. I have no more interest in PPC boxes as the tech is going to be obsolete. And, I don’t want to wait for almost 2 years for a new Intel box but I have no choice.
Maybe a future apple-intel fusion?.
I’ll say it bluntly : that’s pure nonsense. You’re more or less saying that Apple will stop supporting PPC the day it’ll sell its first Intel computer. That’s ridiculous. How many years do you think the Intel machines will need to be just 50 % of the Mac installed base. And how many years to make the PPC machines an irrelevant minority ?
PPC will be supported for years.
If i ever had two cents to my name, i wanted to by a mac just for the fact that it was PPC based. I figured if OSX made me want to vomit, i’d put linux on it…
screw x86. it needs to die, but won’t because of the holy “backwards compatabile” factor.
hell, I even heard a rumor that AMD runs RISC at the core and uses what amounts to an x86 translator (like i said -> rumor. not sure if there’s any truth to it.)
All x86 CPUs since the Pentium, IIRC, do this. x86 instructions are fetched and decoded into micro-operations before execution. The G5 does this as well with PPC instructions.
> Those PPC macs are dead on arrival. Two years from now they
> won’t even be supported. Apple will not support old tech,
> they’ll abandon it just like they have before. Sure some
> people want the myth of PPC, but very few.
You mean, just like Apple did ship the Classic environment included up until Panther? That’s what, about 10 yrs after the switch to PPC?
As long as PPC support is just a checkmark in XCode away it would be hazardous for a Mac software developer not to ship universal binaries. When you don’t expect that Mac sales will suddenly double mid-2007 a 50/50 ratio of PPC (15-20 Mio. in use now = OS X installations) vs. Mactel will only appear by 2010, maybe a bit earlier and I would expect a 10/90 ratio not before 2012-2015. From that time on it might become commercially viable to optimze and compile for Intel cpu’s alone, otherwise the software vendors would lose the respective amount of revenue, which I’d rather is not an option for everyone(no-one?!)…
My next Mac will most probably be an iMac G5, either the current one or after the next speed bump (2.3-2.5 GHz?). It even sounds sexier than “iMactel Yonah”.. IMvHO 😉
And so I do not think that Mac sales will drop dramatically until 2006, maybe not exactly increase, but that’s about it.
I think the Osbourne effect is only slightly worse than the compliment (without a name I assume) which is where you switch direction too suddenly and really annoy everyone who has only just purchased.
If there were Mactel based laptops or desktops being released today, this month, or even this year, what happens to all those people who have just purchased a ppc. Also if that was the case, the “Osbourne effect” would be in full swing immediately. Sales figures would plummet overnight. As we get closer to the transition I expect sales to decrease proportionally anyway only to surge when the new hardware arrives. (Assuming the company still exists)
The osbourne effect is probably related to how far out you telegraph a major change in direction. Not far enough and *everyone* will wait, too far and developer uncertainty will cripple both platforms.
I think Apple is handling the transition better than could be expected. I think the leaks were timely and softened the blow. This wasn’t a “Luke, I am your father!” moment.
I’m more worried that PPC is now dead and there won’t be any new PPC designs. If thats the case then in 12-24 months Apple’s hardware lineup will be no more impressive than Commodore’s. Having left IBM out of the loop until very late we can assume this is what will happen.
the holy “backwards compatabile” factor
There is no backwards compatibility issue on MacTel. There is no prior history. Intel can make a chip anyway they like it [if they so choose].
I’m probably not going to buy a PPC Mac anymore unless I get a great deal. If the prices dropped like a brick I would be sorely tempted though. I’m also not worried about having to keep it for a few years, it’s not going to be a problem after 4 to 5 years and I never resell my computers. After 4 years your erstwhile hot machine can’t compete with the state-of-the-art low-end machines anyway.
Apple will in all likelihood see it’s sales tank. People will be waiting for the new machine. It’s the natural thing. Of course that doesn’t mean Apple will go bust. They’ve bridged far larger gaps with far less outlook on positive news than they do now.
Was a time where you had to actually fear that there wouldn’t be an Apple Inc. left [not that some people would be sad about that fact], but that is not what is happening here.
I’m not convinced prices won’t go down. They should. They should come down significantly and lower the treshold further. This should definitely have a positive impact on market penetration but that will also depend on how fast the current apps are made ready to be run on the new chipset.
Conversely, something may go horribly wrong and it can all end in tears. I’m hoping it won’t.
Well, since there a millions of apple ppc-systems out there I think software companies will ship their software for them. Why wouldn’t they? And also it’s probably quite easy to compile for both PPC and X86 in xcode if you have thought about it from the begining.
I personally think the shift of Apple is wise.Although i’m a happy Linux adept/control freak it’s very likely Apple is going to sell even more mac’s.
The vast majority of their clientele isn’t the geeks and has never been.Apple would do good this time if they would decrease the emphasis on Intel inside and would bring instead the increase in raw performance more into the spotlight.That’s good to market and understood by the target audience.They couldn’t care less what’s inside if they can be more productive and continue to get the same comfort and service deal,style as they got with what’s going to be fast beyond.All what’s likely to be experienced with the new breed of mac’s is better performance over allmost the whole spectrum (not so sure what could beat for instance the sheer bandwith of the powermac dual G5 2.7GHz,perhaps a dual xeon).The 64-bit Intel Xeon Processor MP with an 8MB L3 supports a multi-processor platform with a dual system
bus; this creates a platform bandwidth with 10.6 GB/s,(Still only half of what the fastest power mac today has).
Most buyers (and not talking heads) don’t really care what’s inside when the overall package lives up to their expectations.Combined with an atractive OS and good partnership from (a) major chip(s) firm(s) especially the laptops could make a significant impact on the overall market.So to put an early end to a otherwise neverending story the revenue will certainly not drop to say the least.
Why? Because my current Rev A 12″ Pbook doesn’t have a Superdrive and doesn’t really have the power to do video-encoding. I’ve just moved to the UK and this time I don’t want to just have photos to send home. I want to send home short videos “mini-docs” to give family and friends a better insight into what’s happening in my life. If my Pbook won’t cut it, then I want an iMac – and now, not in two years time.
The opportunity cost of waiting for the Intel shift can be significant and too high to justify waiting for some people. I’m one of them.
this is the worst thing apple can do…Please believe me, DO NOT buy any apple products for a while
(waits eagerly with money in hand for the stock price to drop before rebounding and making him RICH)