Apple's Next Moves
The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple executives have been holding discussions with executives for Intel. According to other published reports, Apple has twice in its history considered moving its architecture to Intel CPU’s. Obviously, if the Wall Street Journal’s report is true, Apple may be considering it again. I interpret that to mean that IBM is having trouble moving the PowerPC platform up to and beyond 3 MHz, and Apple is looking for some way to keep up with the x86 community in terms of speed. It also means, if true, that megahertz do matter; and that Apple is thinking of joining them rather than thinking differently. If it had been doing the latter, even if it has decided to move to the x86 platform, it would be talking to AMD vice Intel.
Apple’s move to the x86 CPU would make me more hesitant, not less, to buy Apple branded computers. (I’ll get into the things that would worry me about it shortly.) But if Apple is serious about making this move, it is not aimed at us current Mac users but at the horde of Windows users in an attempt to make them more comfortable about switching. The idea that OS X and Windows both run on the same hardware make the prospect less scary. It would also transition Apple from a computer hardware company to a software company. As unlikely as that might seem, this lines up with a report on MacNN’s website that reveals that Jobs wants to take back computing from Gates. Yet, if that’s what fueling this, it may be a fit of ego that could ultimately cost Apple what it has now, i.e., a growing base of people who are looking for something different.
If Apple uses a x86 CPU,the only thing to differentiate its products from Dell will be its sense of style and design, which might be enough if Apple is willing to compete with Dell in price. Certainly, Apple could not stay with its current price points, not unless it was willing to write its own epitaph. My guess is that Apple hardware would become much less important, and, like it or not, Apple would be forced to transition to a software company.
Such a move would bring Apple “head-to-head” with Microsoft. Apple could try to avoid it by equipping their x86 driven machines with a boot rom that OS X would check before it installed. The OS would refuse to run if it didn’t find it. But such a move would alienate the consumers they’re trying to entice. One thing that is great about Windows is that you can run any version of Windows on any hardware that will meet its system requirements. Not true today for any Apple OS. Apple would quickly find its expanded yet more money and freedom conscious user base in revolt; and that would leave Apple holding both the hardware and software bag with no way to get rid of them.
OS X’s underpinnings do make it a more secure operating system than the current versions of Windows. Still, I have to wonder if Apple’s switch to an x86 architecture would not make the OS more susceptible to viruses, shareware, and worms. I’m not a coder, so I could be wrong; but, logically, it seems it would take less effort to port malicious code to various versions of x86 operating systems (vice PowerPC operating systems) since the machine code would be all the same.
On the plus side, my guess would be that Windows emulation software would run significantly faster than it does today, perhaps making it possible to run even heavy duty Windows 3D games on the Mac OS. That would be a huge draw and eliminate one of the reasons why people stay on the Windows platform. Including me.
That aside, I’ve spent a small fortune to buy Mac versions of most of my software. If Apple moved to x86 anytime soon, I would not convert a second time. It would definitely limit, if not entirely eliminate, any purchases of new Macs in the future. My damage might be limited if Apple convinced its third-party vendors (like Adobe) to make conversion upgrades less expensive, but I would still have to have pretty strong reasons and the financial resources to pull off another switch. At this point in my life, that certainly is not guaranteed.
I never thought I'd say I hope it doesn't happen, but I don't see how it could be good for Apple or those of us who have invested so much in Apple's current platform.
Apple’s move to the x86 CPU would make me more hesitant, not less, to buy Apple branded computers. (I’ll get into the things that would worry me about it shortly.) But if Apple is serious about making this move, it is not aimed at us current Mac users but at the horde of Windows users in an attempt to make them more comfortable about switching. The idea that OS X and Windows both run on the same hardware make the prospect less scary. It would also transition Apple from a computer hardware company to a software company. As unlikely as that might seem, this lines up with a report on MacNN’s website that reveals that Jobs wants to take back computing from Gates. Yet, if that’s what fueling this, it may be a fit of ego that could ultimately cost Apple what it has now, i.e., a growing base of people who are looking for something different.
If Apple uses a x86 CPU,the only thing to differentiate its products from Dell will be its sense of style and design, which might be enough if Apple is willing to compete with Dell in price. Certainly, Apple could not stay with its current price points, not unless it was willing to write its own epitaph. My guess is that Apple hardware would become much less important, and, like it or not, Apple would be forced to transition to a software company.
Such a move would bring Apple “head-to-head” with Microsoft. Apple could try to avoid it by equipping their x86 driven machines with a boot rom that OS X would check before it installed. The OS would refuse to run if it didn’t find it. But such a move would alienate the consumers they’re trying to entice. One thing that is great about Windows is that you can run any version of Windows on any hardware that will meet its system requirements. Not true today for any Apple OS. Apple would quickly find its expanded yet more money and freedom conscious user base in revolt; and that would leave Apple holding both the hardware and software bag with no way to get rid of them.
OS X’s underpinnings do make it a more secure operating system than the current versions of Windows. Still, I have to wonder if Apple’s switch to an x86 architecture would not make the OS more susceptible to viruses, shareware, and worms. I’m not a coder, so I could be wrong; but, logically, it seems it would take less effort to port malicious code to various versions of x86 operating systems (vice PowerPC operating systems) since the machine code would be all the same.
On the plus side, my guess would be that Windows emulation software would run significantly faster than it does today, perhaps making it possible to run even heavy duty Windows 3D games on the Mac OS. That would be a huge draw and eliminate one of the reasons why people stay on the Windows platform. Including me.
That aside, I’ve spent a small fortune to buy Mac versions of most of my software. If Apple moved to x86 anytime soon, I would not convert a second time. It would definitely limit, if not entirely eliminate, any purchases of new Macs in the future. My damage might be limited if Apple convinced its third-party vendors (like Adobe) to make conversion upgrades less expensive, but I would still have to have pretty strong reasons and the financial resources to pull off another switch. At this point in my life, that certainly is not guaranteed.
I never thought I'd say I hope it doesn't happen, but I don't see how it could be good for Apple or those of us who have invested so much in Apple's current platform.
posted by Andy Foster at
8:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home