Why was Apple developing Mac OS X for the Intel chips while touting the G5 advantages? I’VE BEEN BETRAYED!

Apple was indeed hedging their bets, like any good business strategy dictates. IBM has had problems delivering on what they promised, both in quality and quantity. The name of the game is power, and IBM couldn’t fill the orders. Steve specifically cited the units of performance per watt as a measure of comparison.

At points of time in the past, the PowerPC family was the superior chip. Going forward, that may not be the case. To remain competitive, Apple needs the best chip they can get to sit at the heart of new generations of Macs. Simple.


I DON’T WANT A PENTIUM IN MY MAC!

Stop shouting.

Why don’t you want a Pentium in your Mac? Do you know or care about who makes the chips in your drive controller? Or the name printed on your video card? Or where your heat sink was designed? If you do…well, good for you. All I really care about is having the best Mac possible at the best price. Whose name is on the chip that powers it isn’t important; overall performance and price are.

And who said anything about a Pentium? Another Intel design (possibly even a chip designed specifically to Apple specifications) is certainly not beyond imagination.


Windows will run on the new “Mactel” Macs!

Really? Who told you that? Can we get an interview? It is indeed logical, but not confirmed. Even if true, it could allow much easier and superior emulation for those who need to run a PC program and who now rely on Virtual PC as a stop-gap solution. Apple has brought many different functions into the Mac OS that used to be supplied by third parties. Would an on-board emulation environment be a bad thing, or just one more obstacle removed from those who want to move from the Dark Side?


Mac OS X will run on a PC box!

Ah…no. Phil Schiller has specifically stated that won’t happen. Why do so many credit Steve and his team for being so brilliant is most areas and then believe that they could be so clueless in others? Guess what, folks: they aren’t clueless at all.


When the Mactel’s arrive, there won’t be any reason not to buy PC boxes because they’ll have the same “Intel Inside” and will be cheaper!

Calm down. You’re going to put yourself in the hospital.

I love this one. A Mac isn’t a Mac because of the chip. It is a Mac because of the OS, the design of the machine…the experience. You can put a dress on a cow… (oh, never mind)

As stated above, Apple doesn’t plan to let the Mac OS run on anything but an Apple box.

As to the boxes themselves - consider how Apple’s history of industrial design has left the others in the dust:

• The original iMac – made desktop computers cool looking to the rest of the world.
  
  
• The iMac flat panel – made desktop computers more cool looking to the rest of the world.
  
  
• The current flat panel iMac – the most advanced and irresistible design of all.
  
  
• The G3, G4 and G5 towers – innovative access door to the inside of the machine, integrated handles, etc.
  
  
• The Cube – a Mac ahead of its time; totally silent, small footprint, incredibly cool.
  
  
• The Mac Mini – Guess who’s trying to copy Apple’s latest design already?
  
  
• The iPod – with a market share in the high 80’s, need we say more?
  
  
•  The iPod shuffle – from 0 to market domination in its class in a lot less than six months.

The laughable part is that, for all the efforts to copy Apple’s innovations, no one has done so successfully. “They” always seem to lessen functionality, cheapen it, miss something, or simply lose the soul of the design. A different chip isn’t going to change any of this.

Bottom line: anyone who bothers to pay attention is not going to be swayed to a PC because of the chip.


But someone will write a patch or a port or a hack to get around any restrictions Apple builds in!

Yep, they probably will. So what? That will affect exactly .000001% of the market, because no one who wants to be truly productive on their computer wants to rely on a hack that is unsupported or is likely to break with the next software update.


Will my XXXX (favorite application name here) run on a Mactel?

The announcement was just a couple days ago and the transition is months away. You and the publisher of the application have plenty of time to find out and adjust. Given the description of Rosetta, it seems unlikely that there will be large number of programs that won’t function.


Vendors won’t want to update their applications!

This seems a bit naïve. Vendors are constantly updating their applications, either as part of their next big release or to run on the latest iteration of the Mac OS, with its inevitable improvements and new features. (Remember the flurry of press releases as Tiger came out? Very few of those said, “No change, we run just fine.” They cited new features, either within the applications themselves, or in conjunction with new Tiger features like Dashboard or Automator.)

Yes, this will take some work; some applications will require more of a rewrite than others. However, the change will undoubtedly bring new improvements. Steve is already talking about Leopard, and you can bet that it will be a cat of yet another new stripe…er…spot…er…whatever.


What if vendors won't support the change?

Let's see: Adobe was at the keynote, promising support. So was Microsoft. One of the most complex programs around, Mathametica, was ported in a couple hours. Do you really think that any software publisher of consequence is going to not follow those leads?


But Apple is partnering with Intel!
Why not? Steve has always made it clear that Apple wants to make the best products on the planet. Apple’s history is filled with unlikely alliances, some which even garnered “boo’s” at keynote announcements.  (I remember one Boston Macworld Expo keynote…)

Far more of those have proved positive than not. This isn’t quite a “bet the company” move, but it is an important one, and wasn’t taken on the spur of the moment, or without a great deal of confidence in their ability to pull it off.


No one will buy any new Macs until the Mactel’s come out! Apple sales will suffer!

There is some logic to that; here is some countering logic:

First, any Mac consultant, expert or enthusiast will deliver the same buying advice: if you need the power and features of a new Mac now, go get it now. There is always something better coming down the pike. Putting off buying a new Mac, especially with the demonstrations of Rosetta and the obvious need by Apple to make the transition as smooth as possible, is like saying you won’t upgrade to Tiger because Leopard is on the horizon.

Second, if you are truly concerned about the transition, then you probably aren’t going to want to buy the very first generation Mactel box anyway. That means you’ll want to buy a PowerPC Mac between now and then to tide you over to the second or third generation, when any smoke has cleared from the switch-over.

Third, depending on your timing, there will undoubtedly be some good deals on the PowerPC Macs. No one buying? There are some very good reasons to buy prior to the new chip implementation.


What does all this mean to Mac user groups?

Plenty. Once again, Mac user groups are going to be an important source of quality information and education for Mac users. There are going to be plenty of questions to be answered, and plenty of news to be distributed. New software updates, new products, new OS features and certainly new hardware models are all going to figure in MUG meeting topics over the next couple years.

The future is bright if you know where to look. Don’t get caught up in those who insist on seeing the negative side of things, especially when it comes to the future of Apple. Start thinking now about how you and your user group can contribute to that bright future.

Back to TMC Blog Entries