[fryke]

First: I've learned we shouldn't make definitive statements about intel Macs running Windows. But more importantly: Don't bet any money on "how much slower and more bloated Windows really is". If the Macs can run Windows natively, this will basically be the first time we shall see Mac OS X and Windows being run optimised on the same hardware. Mac OS X - mostly in the UI - does a _lot_ of things that don't exactly make it fast. Make it good, comfortable, nice - whatever. But not necessarily quick. Also even with Safari, Camino etc., webbrowsing is still lacking in speed compared to IE on Windows. Etc., etc. - But I don't think we should care too much about that.

I agree that Apple will have less problems once they're using the same processors. They can talk about Mac OS X instead of the PowerPC. They can focus. That'd be good. Unless Apple will still not learn to update their machines more quickly, that is. If you go to the computer store and see dual core 4.0 GHz intel machines, but the "current Macs" are using 3.6 GHz chips of the same family, because uncle Steve wants to wait with the announcement for just a month or two longer, then that game is lost again. The situation with IBM and Moto was more comfortable, I guess, because Apple actually had to tell those to produce faster processors. Direct competition is good. But only _for_ Apple if Apple is ready to _be_ competitive.

I also wonder if we'll be able to buy any processor upgrade out there. Because that way, you could buy a first generation intel "PowerMac" (if it'd be called that) and replace the processor(s) with newer ones of the same family later on yourself. Much cheaper than replacing the whole Mac, of course. It'd also mean that people would keep their Macs a little longer, though. We'll see how that plays out.

But back on the topic of the thread (please?): I somehow hope that Apple would do specific licensing. For example, Apple could let Sony sell subnotebooks running Mac OS X, if Apple doesn't care for that market (they didn't create a subnotebook, ever...). And they'd make money from the OS X license sold with those, of course, and should Sony really sell a lot of those subnotebooks, Apple could still rethink after one or two years. I think Apple's in the great situation that other computer makers would actually _love_ to "sell Macs" - at least as an option. I don't think Sony, Toshiba etc. are actually 100% behind Windows.

The fault in letting PowerComputing and others create Mac-Clones in the 90s was that those were allowed to create very similar machines that _directly_ competed with Apple. And after all, a PowerMac 8500 or 9500 wasn't exactly a "work of art" considering its design. They were badly serviceable towers is what they were. PowerComputing offered ugly towers, too, but theirs were a little faster and cheaper at the same time and offered access to the motherboard without having to almost _break_ the motherboard.

Such licensing can have very strict limits and _still_ be interesting for Sony, Toshiba, Dell (gasp!) and others. Apple could tell them very specifically which markets it doesn't intend to work in and let others be guinea-pigs. Apple doesn't want to have their own media center PC (haven't gone there _so_ far...), well: Let Sony create it. And give them a one or two year contract that you can take back, should you decide to cater for that market yourself. Hmm... Interesting times coming up sometime next year (and in the future)...