Commentary--WWDC 2005 Kicks Off Today with Steve Jobs' Keynote--Will the Intel CPU Rumor be Confirmed?
When the rumor of Apple moving to Intel CPUs surfaced again recently, we wrote that we thought it was highly unlikely but, if true, it would likely address immediate concerns for lagging PowerBook performance due to G5 heat issues and longer-range desktop performance since the dual G5s and iMac G5s still do very well in the performance department. We stated that we really don't care which CPU Apple uses to maintain performance (capability as well as speed) because Apple's value is primarily in its software, hardware innovation and hardware design. We also noted the potential negatives in the cost of software transition and user-base reaction to at least partially "giving in" to the dark side. We dismissed the latter, since the dark side is really Windows not Intel, but not the former.
Well, in the ensuing two weeks our thinking on software transition has been modified some by a number of published revelations on the portability of Mac software to other CPUs and our own recollection of the mid-90's transition to the PowerPC CPU. At that time, our workhorse Mac was a Quadra 700 running Mac OS System 7 on a 25MHz Motorola 68040 CPU and our home Mac was a Quadra 605 running the same OS on a 68LC040 CPU, i.e. a 68040 with no floating point component.
When the new Power Macs arrived on the scene, we watched with interest as some of our colleagues switched to them. The much-rumored slowdown in software compiled for the older 68xxx CPUs was without merit--it was a virtual wash given how much faster the PowerPC was. Since instability did not increase either, we plunged in and outfitted our Quadra 700 with a PowerLogix PowerPC CPU upgrade and "ditched" our Quadra 605 for a Power Mac 7100 (actually we still have both). Later problems with the initial versions of Mac OS System 7.5 notwithstanding, the transition from 68xxx to PowerPC was fairly seamless from both software and hardware perspectives.
The major loss in Apple's market share around the same time was due to almost exclusively to the introduction of Microsoft's Mac OS rip-off, Windows 95, and the huge price gap that had developed between off-brand PCs and Macs. It was not the CPU transition as suggested by some. The transition to the much faster PowerPC actually helped to conserve Apple's market share, perhaps even saved Apple's enterprise toe-hold at the time, as it ran the initial Connectix VirtualPC Widows emulation software with acceptable performance. And, until the G4's performance hit a flatspot at 450-500MHz, the PowerPC's performance reigned supreme in the realm of desktop computers. The transition in CPU was, indeed, a very good thing so we are not particularly concerned about another.
Has a similar point in history been reached again? Motorola spun off it's CPU business as Freescale which makes Apple's PowerBook, iBook and Mac mini G4 CPU. Without mama Moto's largess, Freescale has to focus on areas that clearly promise high profitability. Do they include a computer CPU, one with dual cores? IBM is also becoming more focussed on areas of higher profitability, divesting itself of its PC business and winning big time in the huge game machine CPU market. How adaptable are the IBM game machine CPUs to Macs, how committed is IBM to its server hardware business and how adaptable will be their future CPUs to Macs?
Is Apple's CPU business with Freescale and IBM headed for marginalization in the scheme of things? If so, would Apple edge into using Intel CPUs by replacing the aging Freescale G4s in the PowerBooks, iBooks or Mac minis or in all three lines? Or will it be in something new like a real consumer tablet Mac or an innovative Mac PDA? Then, what about the iMac G5, Power Mac G5 and Xserve G5 with their IBM server Power4 derivative CPUs with the potential of the Power5 and multi-core CPUs on the horizon? Our mind boggles at the many possibilities.
There is a corollary to the CPU issues--what about graphics card GPUs? Can Apple's market share continue to support a separate line of graphics cards? Wouldn't an Intel CPU chipset assist Apple financially or technologically in being able to more easily exploit the innovative edge of graphics hardware which is poised to explode in the near future? With Apple's successful penchance for innovation and design versus the PC world's built-in inertia and with Apple's terrific software graphics in Mac OS X, Apple could become THE trailblazer in the use of graphics hardware, hardware that would eventually end up in the masses of computers, rather than a small sideline that is too frequently a step or so behind in hardware.
We don't pretend to be able to answer definitively any of these questions. The persistence and growth of the recent rendition of the rumor about Apple adopting Intel CPUs in some way in the near future has given us cause to think more broadly and seriously about the possibility. We are more inclined to believe that such a propitious moment for Apple exists than we were just a couple of weeks ago. And, because of the iPod's success, Apple does have the cash to do it. We don't want to hype the rumor but if Apple embarks on the Intel route there may be potential opportunities, so we will applaud the decision excitedly as confirming those opportunities.
If so, will it be announced today? We have no sound foundation upon which to speculate. We have only several big news institutions writing that it will be and some potentially confirming idle chatter picked up recently in several after-hour establishments around Silicon Valley. In a few hours we will all know for sure...stay tuned! [Bill Fox & Brian Nakamoto]
Saw something? Send a tip
The archive ran on reader tips. What did you see, where, and do you want the credit?