MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative

David LeBer Says:

The transition to Intel will be difficult for Apple, but they’ve conquered similar challenges in the past. What we don’t need is FUD from ill-informed sources (or ones with a personal agenda) like Brookwood.

Both MDJ and MWJ from macjournals do an excellent job of debunking the bone-headed punditry that is often quoted about Apple and the Macintosh.

It is sane, well-considered, and well-written. I’ve subscribed for years and would highly recommend it for any serious Mac user.

Posted on July 08, 2005

R Says:

Perhaps I’m a bit off here, but I don’t see the transition as difficult as some predict.  There will be challenges, but I think that the performance of the new chips is going provide enough wow factor that people will hardly notice.  Also, remember that the chip transition also basically coincides with a new OS release that is going to probably include a few wows of its own.  To me “difficult” seems to better describe the psychological worry of those who actually pay attention to the details of the computer world.  For regular users-- thos who are currently starting to buy Macs again-- most couldn’t care less.

Posted on July 08, 2005

Sam Says:

I think in 1996, the driving force in Windows-land was Windows 95, not Windows 3.1.  For Windows users, it really was a revolution in GUI usability and no surprise it drove sales for a couple years.  Windows, though, hasn’t really had a large leap in GUI usability since.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if Longhorn or its successor improved on Windows as much as Microsoft did in 3.1 -> 95.

Posted on July 08, 2005

Thomas L. Ferrell Says:

There were few problems associated with the transition from the 68k processor to the PPC. Apple did a super job in keeping 68k apps working just fine on PPC Macs. The biggest problem to me was the fact that the first PPC Macs were terribly slow. I recall my little Quadra 630 being considerably faster than the PPC 6100. Thus, there were expectations that were not met and some users hung with 68k hoping Apple might provide ROMs for the 68060, but it never happened, of course. It is always difficult to transition hardware and this transition as with the abandonement of OS 9, was distastfully too fast for the average user and gave opportunities for looking at other platforms. The 7500-8500-9500 line was one of the first to meet the expectations. Some users switched to Windows 95 and then switched back to Macs a bit later when the 7600-8600-9600 Macs came out. These were highly popular and many remain in use today.
On the other hand, Apple’s market share drops might actually be partly related to the many crashes in OS 8.6+ even for vey experienced users. (Who here doesn’t recall ObjectSupportLib, an extension incorporated into the System but still installed by other apps so that huge problems resulted? Or having to manually trash preference filesetc, etc.) A real difficulty was introduced when carbonization began. Menus to developers became a different animal and the Finder had many bugs (I have tons of old MacsBug reports saved from Finder crashes in OS 8.6+.) In fact, it was difficult to copy large number of files to an OS X Mac due to Finder crashes in OS 9.2.2, so even if you wanted to migrate early, there were more hurdles than in the 68k-PPC transition. So Windows 2k became a bit more attractive.
On balance, it does seem to me that the market share is a bit more related to software than to hardware which admittedly has had its ups and downs. If Apple had had a crashless reputation from 8.6-OS X, and the type of backwards compatibility that was done for the 68k-PPC transition, more users would have stuck with Macs (despite the applications gap and the lack of multi-threading in OS 9-). The reduced security concerns of Macs have increasingly given Apple an advantage, but without glitch-free convenient backwards compatibility there is no sw cost savings over switching to PCs. Personally, I do not want to go through another hardware transition, but if the software transition difficulties are minimized, then I see no reason for a drop in market share--quite the opposite in fact. The big concern is what makes sites like MacFixit necessary.

Posted on July 08, 2005

hmurchison Says:

I’ve begun to see Nathan Brookwood’s quotes appearing everywhere but honestly the guy has never said anything that contained any revelations or anything that impressed me all that much. 

The transition to Intel should contain very few bumps and bruises..Unix is a very portable OS and Apple has done little to hamper their ability to take advantage.

Posted on July 08, 2005

ken2 Says:

The fact that Apple has had every version of OS X running on a “Mactel” AND every Apple app as well is a pretty good indication that they have studied this very closely for 5 years and I anticipate that the conversion will be rather smooth for most users.  I don’t see many Mac users moving to the other side, unless they are using a unique app that isn’t migrated.

I’m not that worried about market share, especially since PC sales include all the various single app units, like cash registers.  Not a lot of developer revenue available in those.  What counts for me is first profits & net cash, then growth in unit sales and releasing new products - both in the hardware and software areas.

As for looking at history for an indication of how Apple will fare it is important to understand that there are a lot of new Mac users since OS X was released (me included) and we will continue to be more focused on the operating system as the base of our loyalty.  Performance increases can move us to move up on the hardware side, but the Mac experience is what will keep up loyal.

Posted on July 08, 2005

ankhman Says:

I personally think it is always in the journalist’s best interest to build an argument in such a way as to support the way most PC users perceive the Mac (and especially Apple).  This always makes their article more “quotable” in the mainstream press.  I too have seen the 10%, 5%, and 3% market share numbers, but have not seen if these were attributed to a truly independent survey.  It reminds me of the old saying

“There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

- Variously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Alfred Marshall, Mark Twain and many other dead people

Posted on July 08, 2005

Louis Wheeler Says:

An interesting discussion, Dennis.

I must disagree with Nathan Brookwood. It’s not possible to use past events to predict the future, because market conditions change. Often, changes in market share reflect the quality of your competition and the benefits which their products and services offer your customers. Apple could be poised on a great leap forward in market share, but you couldn’t tell that by its history. The question is “Does the Macintosh offer more than its competition?” If so, then its market share will grow.

A tradition way of looking at market share is to use the “pig in the python” chart. The head is the future products and services, the middle is the current user base and the long tail is the legacy users going out to schools still using Mac SE/30’s running on System 6. Ahead of us is the future Intel based Macintosh’s, but the middle of Apple’s chart is lumpy. Roughly 16% of Apple’s Mac OS X user base is using 10.4, 49% is at 10.3, 25% is still at 10.2 and 10% at 10.1 or 10.0. But still, a small percentage is using Mac OS 9 or lower.

Each upgrade to Mac OS X stretches out the middle, but we also see that the python is shedding its skin by dropping its legacy hardware. With the move to Intel chips, Apple will drop support for the Mac Classic Operating System-- the four to five percent still not using Mac OS X. The question is if, by moving to Intel, Apple will gain more market share than that.

I think it will. Why? Because the change opens up opportunities that Apple didn’t have before. Brookwood was right in saying that Apple’s past moves cut into its user base, because those moves were exclusionary. Apple caused its customers considerable pain by moving to PowerPC processors and then Mac OS X, just when Wintel computers seemingly became comparable to Mac’s. The Intel chips eventually got higher clock speeds than the PowerPC’s, and the Windows Operating System stabilized into something usable with Window XP, so Apple lost customers.

Apple was often behind the curve in competing with Wintel; it always had to justify why its clock speeds were lower. As Microsoft and Apple slowly adopted many of each other’s features, there seemed little reason to go through the pains of learning Apple’s differences. The Mac may be more intuitive and natural, but if you changed computers, you had to unlearn Microsoft’s way of doing things. The question is if Apple will provide to Wintel users the inducements to unlearn Windows.

The Windows side of computing is a mess now from all the worms and malware, and many Windows users are unaware of how much better computing is on a Mac. Microsoft’s next operating system Longhorn will try to reduce the holes in its security, but, as Apple learned with Taligent, Pink, Rhapsody and then Mac OS X, rewriting an operating system is difficult. Longhorn will slam shut many of the holes which the hackers use to sabotage Windows, but legitimate programs use those same holes, too. ActiveX is a classic example. Apple can use the confusion produced by this change to gain market share, because it has already walked down this path ten years ago.

Apple has been steadily discarding any reason which might cause a Wintel user not to buy a Mac. Macintosh’s used to be more expensive, but now, the Mac is comparable or lower priced than a Dell. The Mac mini could, and probably will, be made with a Pentium-M chip, but the inclusion of Windows OS would cause its price point to be higher that Apple’s. Intel based Mac’s should be comparably priced to Dell, but will be capable of running Windows. This lowers a barrier to entry; if the move to the Macintosh doesn’t work out, then you can always return to running Windows on it.

We shouldn’t assume that Intel will treat Apple in the same way as it does Dell. Intel has been held back by Microsoft, but both Apple and Intel may want to push the computing envelope. Intel may use Apple to promote its fastest and most efficient chips. This would finally put Apple ahead of the power curve.

If the Macintosh, in two years, can be seen as a dual booting system that offers the fastest, most stylish and best computing experience at a comparable price, then Apple will gain many new customers and thus, a greater market share. Why? Because these changes are inclusionary-- they expand Apple’s market share into Wintel’s.

Posted on July 08, 2005

Pete Says:

Nothing I’ve read about the Intel line of chips has impressed me a great deal - perhaps the transition to them will not be all that difficult, but Apple’s main point of differentiation will come down to an OS with a small market share, NOT an OS and superior hardware - so where does that leave the premium prices and how do you differentiate yourself markedly from the competition when you are using the same chipset/hardware as them - what performance gains can be demonstrated when the playing field is almost identical ... I worry that Apple is leaving itself very little room to manouver all on a display of pique from Steve Jobs.

PS. I realize the news probably buried Neo - where is he now? (- forgive me, I went away for a month and came back to the Intel news)

Posted on July 08, 2005

Macaday Says:

Sorry if it is repeating anyhing above, but I believe that many many businesses and consumers would never have chosen Windows if they were aware then of what was to come - ie THE most insecure platform made.

The future for Apple is extraordinarliy good. Their positive spiral of OSX, iPod, iMac and growing preriperal producers and software designers combined with Microsofts introspection and problems with Longhorn will ensure Apple’s re-emergence as a global force able to take on anycomers.

Posted on July 09, 2005

Louis Wheeler Says:

Pete said:
“Nothing I’ve read about the Intel line of chips has impressed me a great deal”

That’s the point, Pete. It’s where the Intel hardware will be in two years, not now. Then too, there is the possibility that Intel will design special chips for Apple.

How will Apple differentiate its products markedly from Dell when they both have the same chip set/ hardware inside? By selling to customers who are not technically oriented and want a computer that is stylish and just works. The computer is the software to these people. It’s a good marketing tool-- sell the sizzle, not the steak-- sell the benefits, not the features. It’s one of the necessities of a mature (or replacement) market. The Model T Ford sold quite well, but eventually, the transportation car market was saturated, and people wanted comfort, elegance and another color besides black.

As the computer market matures, it brings in people who aren’t technology buffs and don’t care what’s inside. Think of these people as the “Sedan set or the Lexis set”; they don’t want the computer equivalent of an uncomfortable “Muscle car.” They don’t want it stripped. Comfort, good looks, reliability and utility differentiate quite a few products, in cars and computers. Linux will have difficulty appealing to these people, but Apple can.

Macaday said,
“But, I believe that many businesses and consumers would never have chosen Windows if they were aware then of what was to come - ie THE most insecure platform made.”

But, Windows didn’t become insecure overnight. Back in 1994, Microsoft made some decisions, reasonable at the time, which came back to haunt them. They had two major user bases: the expert users or technology buffs and the businessmen. The businessmen wanted features, and the technology buffs wanted power. Microsoft tried to give them both. The features promoted bloat, and the power created insecurity. Power without limits, responsibility or accountability corrupts. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Windows NT and XP have good security, but most of its features are turned off, because Microsoft expected the technology buffs to turn on what they needed. A new car might be unlocked at the showroom, but a new car buyer would be expected to lock up everything when he got it home. Apple automatically turns on its security features, because most Apple users don’t know how much power they have under the hood in its Unix command line terminal and don’t care. Microsoft is addressing its security issues; Longhorn will close many security holes, but that will cause enormous headaches with its user base. But, this is just one step toward the kind of security that Mac OS X already has.

But, Apple users should not be complacent. If Apple gains in market share then the hackers will attack it. Apple has been protected by the fact it is a niche market.

“The future for Apple is extraordinarily good. Their positive spiral of OS X, ipod, iMac and growing puerperal producers and software designers combined with Microsoft’s introspection and problems with Longhorn will ensure Apple’s reemergence as a global force able to take on any comers.”

Right. Microsoft has plenty to do cleaning up after its past decisions, but don’t sell Microsoft short-- they are great competitors. The thing IS that Microsoft will be playing catchup. Apple keeps putting out new versions of Mac OS X every 18 to 24 months while Microsoft’s cycle has been seven to eight years in creating Longhorn.

If Intel, which has been held back by Microsoft, decides to push new hardware designs then it will have a ready partner in Apple. The x86, IA64 and ADM64 (x64) ISC chips are fast but inefficient; about a quarter of its transistors are used to convert CISC code into internal RISC commands. Dumping that overhead would produce a cooler running, faster processor, but Windows couldn’t run on it. But, as this move to Intel hardware will prove, Mac OS X and its software could be quickly recompiled as a fatBinary for the new chips.

Microsoft would eventually catch up, but it might forever be two years behind the times. Intel would sell the new chips to anyone, but only Apple, and Linux, would be able to utilize them. The Technology buffs, already leaning toward Linux, would pulled away from Microsoft. This would be bad for Microsoft; it would break their monopoly. Not something that would displease Intel.

Posted on July 09, 2005

Tom Ward Says:

re. Louis above - Why would Intel make “special” chips for Apple when Apple would account for only a fraction of its revenue? and re. “where will Intel hardware be two years from now”, one could easily make the same point with regards to IBM’s hardware, particularly CELL and dual core Power PC 970 and beyond ...

Apple has thrown away a major point of difference with the Wintel world - for what? If the Intel transition is a complete failure and “special” chips aren’t forthcoming then what? It’s not like Apple is going to say “IBM is now producing some pretty good stuff, I think we’ll switch back to Power PC - everyone recompile your software again”.

I’m not sure it’s a good thing that the road ahead is now limited by one architecture ... I’m not saying Power PC was brilliant for Apple given IBM’s obvious failures, but now Apple is limited by whatever Intel decides - how much say is Intel going to give Apple when it has longstanding relationships with other companies?

It’s interesting that when both Sony and Microsoft are sourcing IBM chips for next generation consoles, Apple is switching to Intel - it feels like stepping backwards.

Posted on July 09, 2005

Louis Wheeler Says:

“re. Louis above - Why would Intel make “special” chips for Apple when Apple would account for only a fraction of its revenue?”

You are predicating your position on the idea that Apple will be just another customer to Intel like Dell or HP-- a passive buyer of Intel’s chips. But, Apple has never been passive; it has always pushed the envelope in the marketplace. This is mere speculation, of course, but we should be seeing some signs in the next few years.

Why would Intel use Apple as a means of competing better against AMD and for sabotaging Microsoft’s influence? Why shouldn’t it? What does it have to lose?

“re. “where will Intel hardware be two years from now”, one could easily make the same point with regards to IBM’s hardware, particularly CELL and dual core Power PC 970 and beyond ...”

No. Afraid not. Over fifty percent of consumer computers sold now are laptops, but IBM is not pursuing this market effectively. The PC 970 and Cell architectures are both good chips for desktops, but are quite hot; too hot to be placed in a laptop. Apple is much better off going to Intel because of the Yonah chip-- a 65 Nm, dual processor, 3 Mhz chip with a shared 2 Megabit L2 cache that only consumes 13 watts. IBM has nothing in the pipeline to match it.

“Apple has thrown away a major point of difference with the Wintel world - for what?”

The only internal difference, between a Mac and Wintel lately, was the PowerPC processor and the Apple designed chip-set. But, if this point of difference isn’t outperforming Wintel, what good are they? If Apple doesn’t have to bear the cost of designing its own hardware, it can spend the money on software enhancements. The computer is becoming ubiquitous; comparably fewer people each year care what’s inside the box. What matters is that the computer performs, not what the numbers are or who makes it.

“If the Intel transition is a complete failure and “special” chips aren’t forthcoming then what?”

There are too many imponderables here. If Apple is just another consumer to Intel then the marketplace loses competition and we customers will be forced to accept whatever Microsoft chooses to have Intel sell us. I’m not crazy about that idea.

“It’s not like Apple is going to say “IBM is now producing some pretty good stuff, I think we’ll switch back to Power PC - everyone recompile your software again.””

No. It’s hard to go back.

“I’m not sure it’s a good thing that the road ahead is now limited by one architecture ... I’m not saying Power PC was brilliant for Apple given IBM’s obvious failures, but now Apple is limited by whatever Intel decides - how much say is Intel going to give Apple when it has long-standing relationships with other companies?”

That is one way to think about it. Then, Apple would have no special relationship with Intel and would be forced to sell what everyone else is selling. So, it would have to compete on its software’s features and benefits.

“It’s interesting that when both Sony and Microsoft are sourcing IBM chips for next generation consoles, Apple is switching to Intel - it feels like stepping backwards.”

Yes. But that is predicated on the idea that x86 chips are inferior. Technically, they are-- compared to PowerPC. And Microsoft is keeping them that way. Several times, Intel has tried to move beyond the x86 instruction set and Microsoft held them back-- Itanium is a good example. Microsoft uses AMD to keep Intel under control. Recently, Microsoft forced Intel to swallow their pride and purchase the ADM64 instruction set. I don’t think Intel is taking that lightly.

Posted on July 10, 2005

Tom Ward Says:

Thanks for the comments Louis - I guess only time will tell whether this is a good thing for Apple.

Posted on July 10, 2005

Juanxer Says:

Actually, I think Apple’s biggest gain in adopting x86 is letting someone else (Intel at first, someone else perhaps once the initial contract expires) do chipset development, as we’ve seen how painful it’s been for Apple to produce each generation of its chipsets. In fact, Apple will liberate a lot of resources currently allocated to developing “boring” underlying technology bits: they can delegate all in-the-box development to Intel and concentrate on custom-developing products such as the iPod.

The savings ought to be significant. I hope they translate into better pricing.

The only thing that intrigues me is how easy will ve for PC hardware developers to target the x86 Macintosh. There are tons of very interesting little PCI things out there for PCs that one would like to be able to install into a Mac.

Posted on July 10, 2005

Roger Says:

Keep in mind that MS is not JUST building a game consol. MS is tied down by a Windows requirement to support older business applications. This will not be a requirement on the Xbox. MS is creating a whole new platform. This is leaving Intel holding the bag on a outmoded computing platform and losing sales one the new platform; Sony is doing the same.

Apple is small but important to Intel’s innovative future because HP and Dell are stuck to Windows and havn’t a mind to ennovate anyway. Since Apple’s needs became secondary to IMB, Apple has found a new suiter in Intel. This is big kids. There is some huge and wild things that are in the oven and a lot cakes will rise and fall before the meal hits the table.

Posted on July 10, 2005

Louis Wheeler Says:

I think the move will be good for Apple: the pro’s out weigh the con’s.

I don’t know, anymore than anyone else, what will happen. But, it’s fun to speculate. What sent me thinking about this was that something felt wrong about Intel’s welcoming Apple aboard speech at WWDC. What was Intel getting out of the move? About as much as you said, Tom. But, what possibilities are opened up for Intel?

Intel is on top of the chip market now, and wants to stay that way. But, AMD is pressing hard and Microsoft is favoring AMD. Intel needs to compete on speed and price and couldn’t with AMD. It was forced to sideline the Pentium 4 and drop back to Pentium III designs. Pentium M is an updated Pentium III.

On the far horizon, China stands as a major competitor; recently, a new fab there created a prototype Pentium III clone running at 600 Mhz. That may not sound like much, but the fab is a modern design. The chip is a 240 NM process chip, but within ten years, the fab will be at 45 NM or lower. Intel has responded by looking into building a $4 billion fab in India. The way I see these moves are that Intel can see the handwriting on the wall; it needs to innovate as much as Apple does.

How could Intel safely use Apple? By producing processors that could run Windows, but would run Macintosh software faster and cooler. How? Intel could design chips that can bypass the CISC x86 or x64 conversion hardware and shut down those transistors. Heat loads would drop a quarter for the same chip. Apple software could be recompiled to run on the internal RISC commands. It would immediately make x86 and x64 instruction sets obsolete without disturbing the sales of those chips to Dell or HP. This could give the Mac a quarter faster speed advantage over its competitors at the same wattage. Why would Intel do this? To aid Apple? No. To hurt ADM and Microsoft? Yes.

It’s far too soon to know whether Intel intend to go down this path. I don’t expect either of them to announce it early if they do.

Something is also screwy about the Tanglewood /Tukwila chip which was taken over from HP and due out in 2007. It is a porting of the Pa-RISC processor to Intel hardware. It’s assigned to the Itanium line of server chips, but it would make one hell of the workstation. The costs could come down if they made enough of them. What is the point of creating a chip as fast and efficient as Pa-RISC just to slow it down with a x64 CISC instruction set? But, Intel isn’t saying much about it yet.

Janxter, Look into Red Box on the old Rhapsody operating system before it became Mac OS X and Apple had to adopt Carbon to keep its developers from fleeing; it was designed as a Rapid Development System for both the Mac on PowerPC and Windows on x86. I don’t believe Apple has given up on this idea just when it can finally be implemented; Xcode 2.1 has much of this capability.

Another idea to look at is “WINE for the Mac” where you can run Windows programs inside the Mac OS X environment. It is too soon to tell about any of this, either. Apple would be foolish to say much yet.

Posted on July 11, 2005

Juanxer Says:

Mmmm… ArsTechnica’s Hannibal does an “ArsInsider” here, and it is a rather worrying one:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/343002724731/r/343002724731

Posted on July 11, 2005

Gary Bennett Says:

Ironically, far and away the biggest hit to market share that Apple Corporation ever took was a result of not providing a transition.  When the Macintosh was introduced, it was absolutely incompatible with the Apple II — incompatible with the II+, the IIe, the IIc and most importantly with the Apple II GS — that segment of the Apple II market that was most interested in maintaining a quality GUI environment.  The technical problems of compatibility would have been no greater than were tackled and solved later with the Power PC, Intel (or perhaps even with Mac OS X); the result would have been a reasonable chance of bringing on board something like 25 % of the personal computer market (and more than 50 % of the educaion market), far higher than any numbers the Mac itself has ever achieved.
Unfortunately the Apple corporate structure was a very sick and twisted culture when the relevant decisions were being made; and most Apple II users (and especially schools, who cannot afford these kinds of games) ended up going PC.

Posted on July 14, 2005

Jay Random Says:

There were perfectly good reasons for the lack of an Apple II -> Mac transition. Number 1 on the list was the horribly primitive state of colour monitors at the time. A dot pitch of 0.4 mm was considered exceptionally good. The biggest selling point of the first Mac was WYSIWIG — one perfectly crisp pixel equals one point — and the colour monitors then available to the mass market could not have provided that experience.

There’s also the little issue of binary incompatibility between the 6502 and 68000 instruction sets. Emulators were still a pipe dream at that time. Yes, Apple could have designed a machine with colour graphics and a 6502-compatible CPU. They did, in fact; it was called the Apple IIGS. It sold well, but it was a dead-end architecture, and once the Mac II series came out it was obvious that the cheap graphics and slow processor of the IIGS had outlived their usefulness. Millions of IIGS systems were in fact sold to schools by the early 1990s. The ‘sick and twisted culture’ had very little to do with it.

Now as to Mactel: Paul Otellini is no fool. He would rather sell chips to Apple than to Dell, HP, or Lenovo. The market for vanilla PCs is thoroughly saturated now. There are only two compelling reasons to upgrade your computer: to add cool new media-centre features, or because the old one is broken. Dell relies almost entirely on the latter reason; Apple is driving hard with the former. What Intel must be hoping is that every $1000 Mactel sold will cannibalize the sale of a $500 Dell, and Intel will get their cut of the profit by selling higher-performance chipsets.

What Apple knows — retailers can bear this out — is that their sales have been strictly limited by the trickle of chips that IBM and Freescale have been able to supply. Does a G5 2.7DP cost enought to build to justify a $3000 price tag? No, but Apple can sell every chip it can lay its hands on at that price. Economics 101: the price system as a rationing device. Intel has an effectively unlimited fab capacity. If one more Mactel sold means one less Dell (let’s hope), then Intel still ships the same total number of chips.

With the supply bottleneck removed, there’s no reason Apple couldn’t return to the days of 10 to 15 percent market share. Apple can’t do that with IBM, no matter how low the price of Macs is or how well they’re marketed, because IBM just won’t supply them the quantity of chips they need.

Posted on July 15, 2005