Future of Apple With x86

Do you care who makes the processor in your Mac?

  • Yes, I'm a brand whore.

  • No, as long as it's fast and stable.

Results are only viewable after voting.
P

pezagent

Banned
I thought I'd bump this subject up here again because it's somthing that needs to be discussed over and over again in great detail. There seems to be a lot of yip yap about why Apple should or shouldn't get involved with x86, etc. etc, and a lot of great comments have been made.

You should know by now I'm not happy with Apple's business design. One of the reasons I'm bitchin' and moanin' a lot about Apple right now is because they've painted themselves into another corner. The ad campaigns that Apple is launching right now have more to do with keeping Mac fanatics loyal than attracting new buyers. They're doing this to distract the loyal users from switching to PC... which right now is way ahead of Mac in terms of performance and speed. That's just a fact, and we can debate opinion in here forever, but I'm here in New Zealand, and let me tell you something: Lord of the Rings wasn't "made with a Mac." That should tell you somethin' right there--the industries that are still using Windows platforms aren't about to switch over because of a few clever ad campaigns. They need a reliable, dedicated, and FAST system in place, and Mac still isn't ready to deliver. Why? Becuase the damn chips are too slow.

It's not Motorola's fault entirely. The market for RISC processors is really small. IBM is having a great difficulty finding buyers for it.
AMD and Intel have dominated the market. With Motorola's difficulties, IBM is going to be stuck with the burden of delivering this chip to Apple.

Apple is in no position to be waiting around for chips. That's why I've mentioned that there's no doubt in my mind they've already ported OSX to x86 (duh) and are just trying to figure out the strategy of releasing it to the public, breaking up the AIM alliance, and all that jazz. (I mentioned in another post about how Spindler was considering porting the old OS to x86--the more I think back to my Apple history I think they actually achieved it, but Spindler had already lost interest--see Inside Apple)

Here's the deal... if you've been reading anything I've ever posted, you'd know that I'm a Mac(L)User that's been using Apple products for 20 years. I cut my teeth on the Apple IIe. That's my story. I've been very dedicated to the platform and had been waiting forever for OSX to finally get here. Now that OSX is finally here, the damn hardware is too slow. So, that's the only reason I'm really fed up. Ed mentioned I sounded like a born-again Christian comin' in here because I had to be convinced that what I was doing is the "right thing", which in itself is rather creepy... but folks, if Apple doesn't port to x86, where the hell can it go?

Previous posts mention that Risc processing is better, doesn't run as hot, etc, etc. That's fine. LPG is better for the environment, costs less, is more efficient, but people still pump gas into thier cars. Why? It's big business. If you think for one moment that the folks at AMD or Intel are going to stop making faster processors, then please, go to your local community college and sign up for a class in Business 101. The race is over, people. x86 won. Apple will never again be able to compare it's processing power to that of Intel or AMD. They're too far ahead. The fact that rumors have already started within THESE forums should be enough to let you know that the deal-makers are way ahead of us.

The problem that I forsee for Apple, and why I say it's painted itself into another corner, is this: what would happen if Apple was to port it's OS onto x86?

Well, first of all, anybody would be able to put together a machine from scratch, just like the PC world. In other words, you could buy a motherboard, the power supply, the processor, the RAM, the case, and everything else, sit down one evening and viola! Custom-tailored Mac. Just put a copy of OSX on it and away you go.

Now, what would this mean for Apple? Well, now more people would understand that there's no real "disney magic" behind Apple, and sales would probably plummet. Since large corps are already in bed with Microsoft, entering any arena where copy protection is enforced would prohibit Apple from realistically trying out the licensing option again. But then again, they'd have to, becuase people would be pirating the heck out of OSX.

This one has really got me stumped. I'm trying to think of a company that I could draw some CBR from, but I'm coming up blank. Steve really took on a lot when he went back to Apple, and maybe he was the only showman who could bring the Mac back into the limelight, but once again it seems like Apple really hasn't thought too far ahead--the telltale signs for me were the Switch campaigns...Apple is really trying to buy some time...

I imagine that Apple will continue to trickle out products like other manufacturers... upgrades of software will keep the loyalists happy... but I can not see any way that the RISC processor has any future on this planet at all. It's not wise to underestimate Intel... or AMD for that matter.

If you love Apple products, consider the x86 alternative for now, it might be the only way the company has a chance. (I'll tell you what... I'd go back to Apple if I could get dual AMD XP 2100s with it).

Sorry to repeat the topic so soon, but I think it needs to be bumped often. Who knows...
 
I agree with just about everything you've said. Apple hardware is slow but their software is top notch.

One point on contention: I don't agree that moving to x86 means allowing anybody to build hardware. It seems like it would be easy to add some required piece of hardware to the apple motherboard that OSX would require to run properly.

If Apple didn't do this, they would soon learn that people are not willing to pay extra money for a pretty case when presented with a cheap but ugly option.

Anyway, I suspect that Apple will move to the IBM Power4 not x86. However, I don't care. I just want a faster machine and the chip inside makes little difference to me.
 
Originally posted by vanguard
One point on contention: I don't agree that moving to x86 means allowing anybody to build hardware. It seems like it would be easy to add some required piece of hardware to the apple motherboard that OSX would require to run properly.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting point. However, I'm sure there would be an easy way around any type of motherboard alteration. I was also thinking about the fact that there are dozens of motherboard manufacturers for x86 for both AMD and Intel, who supply the chipsets.

I think the scary point I'm trying to make might be that I know that Apple has an OSXx86 running somewhere in their headquarters--that's a given. They don't manufacture the chipsets so they have no say what their software gets put onto. If this were to happen, for example, there's no way Apple would commit suicide by limiting which boards you could put their software on. The REALLY scary thing is the more and more I talk about this whole thing I wonder why Apple is still calling itself a hardware manufacturer when it doesn't really make computers at all, if you get my drift.

Anyway, I suspect that Apple will move to the IBM Power4 not x86. However, I don't care. I just want a faster machine and the chip inside makes little difference to me.
Click to expand...

This is another interesting topic, the Power4 chips. I would like to speculate that Apple is trying desperately to push this option as well but it seems unlikely that even IBM can come up with a viable production schedule that would fit into Apple's business design. Plus we're talking about a whole new bit architechture, which means educating even the early adopters, and I haven't heard enough buzz from this baby to substantiate a business prop (research and business need to be seperated like church and state at all times) any time soon, but I'm sure everybody's workin' on it. AMD and Intel are busy at work on their versions as well, and strategically speaking, I'm sure Wintels already solidified it's position with more than enough businesses to make sure IBM stays out of the picture. (No doubtfire why IBM likes Linux so much...)

thanks for makin' me think...


me... :)
 
Apple's software is certainly amazing, and there is a reason for that, control over the hardware. The Apple OS and software work so well with the hardware because Apple knows exactly what is going into each machine and thus can know exactly how new software will interact with the hardware. This doesn't mean that there are never problems, but it's nice to know that because I have a Mac 95% of the time a new OS or iApp comes out, I'll simply be able to install and be on my way (as long as my system meets the minimum requirements for the program). I may sacrifice a little speed and pay a bit more, but I think for most Mac users it's well worth it.
 
I suggest people read the links in Xaq's post above, a lot o' people talking about IBM's Power4, looks like a promising time ahead... (fingers crossed, and legs);)
 
Originally posted by pezagent
Well, first of all, anybody would be able to put together a machine from scratch, just like the PC world. In other words, you could buy a motherboard, the power supply, the processor, the RAM, the case, and everything else, sit down one evening and viola! Custom-tailored Mac. Just put a copy of OSX on it and away you go.

Now, what would this mean for Apple? Well, now more people would understand that there's no real "disney magic" behind Apple, and sales would probably plummet. Since large corps are already in bed with Microsoft, entering any arena where copy protection is enforced would prohibit Apple from realistically trying out the licensing option again. But then again, they'd have to, becuase people would be pirating the heck out of OSX.
Click to expand...

And the difference between Apple and Be would be........

Nothing, they'd both be out of business. Read my lips - Microsoft WILL NOT let Apple sell OS X on Intel/AMD machines. Why because Microsoft owns all the distribution points and they own the marketing machine for Intel/AMD computer. There's nothing there ... just like Be it's a desert for anything other than Windows software. Also, get ready for the big blow. Microsoft will start producing their own computers and nobody will be able to build for Microsoft either. They want people like me out of business.
 
One very important difference between Be and Apple would be that Apple has a large installed user base and a following among important (and EXISTING) markets. Be's idea was to create the platform for the future without having a past.

The step to open Mac OS X to _any_ PC you can build yourself would certainly widen the reach of Mac OS X - and yes it would be pirated very, very fast.

The question is where Apple is actually making money.

The last few years have brought computers and the internet into almost every youth's home - more than ever before. The OpenSource thought has spread to the world. I've never seen THAT many open-sourced utilities and applications for the Mac before. Yes, there were _some_ things open source for the classic Mac OS, but who really did care? Some developers maybe, but with Mac OS X _everyone_ has access to the developer tools. It's a whole new world out here! Combined with Microsoft killing competition by giving out software for free (IE, Outlook Express) on two platforms and Apple giving out software for free (iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto...), people have started to take 'free stuff' for granted. Everything you want is also available for free. You only pay for software you _really_ like or you _really_ must have for your professional interests.

This is a hard business... People whine about everything that costs money, if they don't want to pirate or pay. Where does that leave Apple if they stop making money with their hardware?

Apple makes premium hardware. You won't get a cheap computer of bad quality from them, ever. Even the cheapest eMac right now is still of good quality and costs a bit more than building your home-brew low-cost PC.

Apple isn't even interested in those users who want to assemble a cheap-ass PC to run a pirated version of Mac OS X with the included iApps.

Apple wants you to drool over the Mac hardware. You drool for a top-notch TiBook, right? Then you'll buy an iBook, maybe even a used one, because you can't afford the Ti. And where does that leave you? Hooked onto Apple. That's the plan, and it's working. Switch.
 
All good points. Yes, the hardware is slower than the Intel options and no, Altivec doesn't make up the difference.

However, as for Apple's survival, you know darned well that Apple has survived the craziest of mistakes, economic slowdowns, pathetic CEOs and consumer loyalty fiascos. People have been talking about the collapse of Apple for fifteen years. It's not going to happen.

Apple's 3-5% is an incredibly loyal 3-5%. It ebs and flows a bit, but Apple can hold on to that number for several years to come. Their extremely smart software company buyout strategy (emagic, Shake, others I can't recall) will position them firmly in the niche hollywood/music area if nothing else.

In the end it boils down to what you use your box for and can it keep up. I've got a pretty nice DP 1 gig tower (former model) and it keeps up nicely in most areas. Jaguar should polish it a bit more. I will never be satisfied until the word "render" is meaningless and everything I do is completely instant, no lag, no progress bars, just "boom, there it is" as Stevo would say. That goal is many years away on any platform.
 
One thing lost in this equation is that Apple is more than just a hardware or software company. They are a design company.

What drives Mac sales, at least consumer sales, more than probably anything, is the unique look of their computers. Let me qualify that: that's what attracts buyers to Macs - what will keep them is OS X.

But Apple is never going to allow its software run on a crappy beige plastic Wintel-like box. Need I point out the whole clone fiasco? Power Computing, anybody?

I agree with the user who said that he doesn't care what's inside as long as it's fast and runs his applications under OS X. I will add to that my own need for a well-designed machine. This includes looks, ergonomics, lightness (in the case of the portable line), durability, and features. The SuperDrive, for example, was a nice innovation.

Imagine how boring the computer industry would have been these last 5 years (or more) without Apple's design initiatives. You had Compaq coming out with its own line of 'flavored' computers/accessories, and now you even see that idea spilling out into portable CD-players and other consumer electronics.

You can bet it won't be long before some Wintel maker puts out their own iMac-like copy. Design sells computers, like it or not.
 
One very important difference between Be and Apple would be that Apple has a large installed user base and a following among important (and EXISTING) markets. Be's idea was to create the platform for the future without having a past.
Click to expand...

This means absolutelly squat :p
Reason ? we ALL have paid good money for our programs, photoshop, acrobat, quark anyway ? I would be REALLY pissed, and so would other mac users, if apple went x86 without ANY compatibility, because we have all invested in our macs, and our software. One of the reasons I did not get a PC 3 years ago when I upgraded my computers, was because I already had A LOT of software on my mac (apart from liking the user experience being a mac user).

Besides, even if the software wasnt a problem, take a look at SGI. SGI has an installed user base, and when they rolled out with x86 machines...running WINDOWS or linux mind you, they went really bad and sold off their x86 division and just worked on their irix division.

apple will FAIL if they go x86, period.
 
comparing sgi to Apple is a _bit_ more off than comparing Be to Apple.

Apple would have one REALLY big advantage on the PC platform: People (ordinary people, the 'you and I' guy) seem to like Apple, whereas they _hate_ Microsoft. They also like Linux, but they can't cope with it. Apple has already _started_ to make Windows users switch to Macintosh. The process is slow, because it does _not_ only involve buying new software, but new hardware, too! It's a two-step process instead of just one. I'm not pro-X86 Apple, but I think if Apple were to plan such a strategic move, it _could_ actually be done.

So what I say to Apple is: "Stay a separate platform. But if you want to take MS head on, take them HEAD on. Make them look like what they are: A software company grown too big to do real innovation. Make the switch to Mac OS X on PC as _easy_ and _cheap_ as possible. Bring on the biggies (Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, nVidia, ATi, HP, Canon, Epson) before MS knows what hits them."

Nothing with half a heart. Stay or walk. Boldly.
 
I voted for "No, as long as it's fast and stable." as in "No, as long as it's fast and stable AND Mac OS 9 will still run on it."
 
uuuummm...no!
Compariang apple to SGI makes A LOT of sense.
Both would be selling x86 machines and both would be selling those machines without an M$ OS, and both machines DO have a lot of pre-existing users. The only advantage is that SGI using linux had already the software to bundle with the OS, a lot of software, however their x86 division went south, and they sold it off.

Linux people are JUST AS enthusiastic as mac people about their platform and they, like us, believe in the merits of their platform. We, as mac users, are enthusiastic, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that we would support apple if they were to change on us and go x86, all of our software would go to the waste can! When we decided to upgrade, we would also have to upgrade our software (if it were available), even if we did not want to!

Take a look at Rhapsody! People who first developed for Rhapsody systems came from the x86 OpenStep world, HOWEVER when you take the final tally of programs made for the x86 and ppc versions, the PPC compiles OUTNUMBER the x86 programs ona 2:1 ratio!

the developers made their choice. If the developers had had it the other way, today our macs would be on x86 already!
 
Nothing, they'd both be out of business. Read my lips - Microsoft WILL NOT let Apple sell OS X on Intel/AMD machines. Why because Microsoft owns all the distribution points and they own the marketing machine for Intel/AMD computer. There's nothing there ... just like Be it's a desert for anything other than Windows software. Also, get ready for the big blow. Microsoft will start producing their own computers and nobody will be able to build for Microsoft either. They want people like me out of business.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken, M$ can't really stop Apple from doing that if they want to. I'm betting Intel wouldn't sell their processors to Apple, but I'm sure AMD would be more than glad to be Apple's supplier, a breath of fresh air in the competition with Intel. M$ owns the marketing machine because it's the only one for that platform right now, were Apple to sell an x86 version of OS X, it would prove to be a big marketing machine of it's own, it's every PC user's wet dream to install OS X on thier x86 machine.

About porting in general, I believe it's very possible Apple may go x86, but I'm sure they will keep enough control over the hardware to stop any Joe Schmoe from buying some parts off eBay and building their own OS X box.

I personally hope they switch to the Power4, from what I've read it seems a much better option than any x86 chip...don't get sucked into the clock speed bandwagon, it does matter, but only to a point, not as much as Intel and AMD would like you to think in comparison to even our current G4's. The G4 chips just haven't moved up in speed enough in comparison, so x86 is gaining an edge.

If Apple does go x86, I really can only see it as a marketing scheme to help persuade current PC users to switch, and really I think it will work. Like I mentioned before, it's every PC user's wet dream to run OS X on an x86 box. I say go for it Apple. Would I buy one personally? That's another question alltogether... Mabye they'll only go x86 in the comsumer line and put Power4's in the pro line? Then I'd go for the Power4 box. ;)
 
If Apple where to port the OS to an x86 machine, and tightly control the hardware, then, they would be doing fairly much what they are already doing but with a slightly better marketed chip. Do you think Apple's own x86 hardware would be much cheaper than today's crop, I doubt it.

The thing in favour of the pc world is the ability to build your own spec (although this can prove to be a bad point as well). So, half the attraction for pc users to port to OSX on a PC would be lost, because to many customers (particularly consumers), Apple's x86 hardware would be just too expensive.

The scenario would be if a) OSX is portable to ANY pc:

Joe Public: $129 for OSX, I'll give that ago on my machine.

Scenario b) Apple controlled hardware:

Joe Public: $1800 for a PC with OSX, nah... maybe one day.
 
If Apple were so sure sure it making money from software only - which it isn't, because that market isn't _that_ easy - they could release OS X for Wintels for 59$ and live a life as an operating system and application developer company.

This would happen anyway, even if Apple still sold computers, because if Mac OS X and the software you're using would run on a plain-vanilla PC, you _would_ be tempted to buy cheaper hardware, wouldn't you?

Maybe the PowerBooks and iBooks would still have the same appeal (or even more), but equipping a small company with, say, 5 PowerMacs is much more expensive than equipping them with 6 or 7 noname PCs. If only the design of the machines differentiates them (and yes, maybe one or the other speed difference), Apple's hardware business would vanish over time.

And I don't think Apple feels ready for this, and I must say that I like the fact that I'm using an Apple machine with an Apple OS and some nice tools Apple is giving with them for free. It just wouldn't be the same thing any longer, apart from the fact that we would start to see problems that just don't exist in 'our' world. Like hardware manufacturers writing device drivers that kill other hardware manufacturers' drivers for _their_ hardware.
 
Originally posted by fryke

This would happen anyway, even if Apple still sold computers, because if Mac OS X and the software you're using would run on a plain-vanilla PC, you _would_ be tempted to buy cheaper hardware, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

This is historically true when Apple faced clones and they lost their shirt. They simply can't compete against more nimble and in one case better engineered products (remember Motorola) even when they controlled the design.

Originally posted by fryke

Maybe the PowerBooks and iBooks would still have the same appeal
Click to expand...

The only thing that saved their butts during the clone years. I do think they are making some right moves including the $199 Family OS X Plan. And daily using and installing Win XP, Win2K, Win98, etc. They just simply can't compare to Mac OS X. Just compare the difference in hardware and software installation alone is worth the price difference. Especially at the low end look at the difference, you get WindowsXP Home edition (which can't connect to anything other than ISPs), 1.8 GHz P4, 128 MBytes RAM, 20 GByte Hard drive, integrated Intel graphics all in a Dell 4500S. At least with a low end PowerMac you'll get Mac OS X, dual processors, one hell of lot better video card. So no way in hell are you gonna convince me that'll beat the low end PowerMac.
 
What many of you are missing is a fundamental aspect of the economy - one that goes beyond big business to the biggest of small business. Microsoft is dependant on Intel/AMD, and Intel/AMD is dependant on Microsoft. Neither would be able to succeed if the other simply ceased to exist at this point in time, at least without drastic modifications. But the one market that they are BOTH collectively dependant on remains unmentioned. The retail market. And as much as people seem to think Microsoft rules the world and is going to prevent Dell from selling PCs with another x86 OS (and hello, have you MISSED the whole antitrust trial? they've got a breakup order over BROWSERS, ignore the OS) .... Microsoft does not rule retail.

.... Wal-Mart does.

And Wal-Mart, six or so months ago, announced a plan to start selling generic PCs without an operating system installed on it. It was a price roll back plan in the Wal-Mart style - the Windows license costs the user money he doesn't realize he's paying, so sell him the PC without the license. Wal-Mart is probably the only company in the world too big for Microsoft to bully, and they alread don't like MS.

If Apple made an x86 version of OS X, it would sell like a brushfire. It would also cripple the hardware market - because as much as I appreciate the style and elegance of my ibook and my G4 tower, I simply cannot imagine paying TWICE as much for them.

Can we talk components though? What if Apple went to the x86 system (and assume that's an underlying port - OS X has to remain the same, so software needn't be replaced again) .... the reason AMD and Intel components are so cheap is because of the huge market they reach, the same reason the components in current Macs tend to be more expensive. Look at Apple laptops vs. PC makers - the prices are damn near identical at the top and the bottom of the usable line. Because mobile components are expensive for everyone, and the "mobile P4" raises laptop costs where the ability to use the standard G3 lowers it. It breaks even.

If Apple could capitalize on cheaper components, they could make cheaper PCs. And they're -going- to sell the OS. Piracy rules, but software companies still make an incredible amount of profit on good products.

If Apple goes x86 it has to be head on, because MS will not stop them from selling their products, or finding a hardware home for them. That would be a suicide blow for M$ in terms of the antitrust trial.

So either go Power 4, or go x86. But whatever you do.... go hard, because three to four years from now when my dual ghz is reaching the end of it's life, I still want to use a Mac.

Will Apple die? I don't think it possibly can.... we're too loyal. Not if they play it safe. But playing it safe will never let it thrive.... so they've got to take the chance.

I disagree with the conspiracy theories that OSXx86 is already made, or anything absurd like that. It's too great a risk until the decision is made whether or not they're really going down that route. Because everyone -knows- it can be done. They'd just have to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top