I wanna know what the pricing will be like. Is Apple going to slash costs, or is it, as somebody already said "Buy OUR Intel-based computer for $800 more because it runs OS X!" I suspect rather a mix, with Apple hoping they can leverage the iPod cool factor to get people like they've managed with the Mac Mini.
Are you serious? Great software btw, we have it at school (so goddamn confusing though).
Apple'll lose some money in the short run (R&D/Driver Support...etc), but in the long run (IMO) they'll be making more money. I'v eheard good things about apples (stable OS).
They should rename their company to Oranges after switching to X86.
-The Pentium Guy
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
I am most interested in how Apple's stock will do.
But if Apple loses their control of the supply chain/quality management, they are screwed.
But if Apple loses their control of the supply chain/quality management, they are screwed.
Nobody said they are abandoning openfirmware - they still might use their own proprietary BIOS. Even though a "preview" of OS X was announced for vanilla x86 processors, I wouldn't be surprised if the final version only runs on Apple's special hardware.
kamper
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2003
- 5,513
- 0
- 0
Who says that the machine they demoed on wasn't as proprietary as it's going to get? Of course it was a vanilla processor, I don't think Intel will make custom ones just for Apple, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the pieces weren't non-standard.
The really shocking thing is how well they kept the secret. I mean, of course there were rumours but I don't think anybody even seriously considered them until Friday and nobody was sure until today. Jobs has really been rocking the boat lately and he's been really successful. It's easy to picture this as either another step in the same direction or a huge mistake but is it possible that it really might not make a big difference to Apple? (ie. no significant changes to the bottom line. Obviously this is going to be a big change regardless of money)
Computers account for roughly half of Apple's revenue while software is about 7.5%. This isn't like the video game console market, Apple makes money off the sales of hardware, they can't dump that large a chunk of their revenue.
I don't remember which news outlet had it, but one of the articles said that switching to Intel will allow Apple to cut 25% off the cost of their systems. So Apple will be able to compete more favorably against the competition from a price standpoint. I don't think we will see anything comparable to the deals we regularly see from Dell, nor should we, as Apple builds a more refined product, but the days of a $2000 entry fee for a PowerMac should be over in a couple of years.
More than anything, this deal helps Apple in the lowend. There systems are great for Grandma or the non-techie who just wants to surf the web and do some basic computing without worrying about spyware, viruses and hardware conflicts. With Intel, they will no longer have to drop a grand to get one making it more accessible to the people who were more likely to buy one in the first place.
Wish I could trade in my Mac mini for the Pentium M based one. ;|
Also wonder how much the $999 Developer Transition Kit is worth!
Also wonder how much the $999 Developer Transition Kit is worth!
CNet Apple x86 confirmation article
In the article:
So apparently Apple will NOT lose control of their hardware and it will be Apple specific. However, the more intresting thing is that it may be possible to run Windows on say a x86 PowerBook. The possibilties are certainly very very intresting.
In the article:
So apparently Apple will NOT lose control of their hardware and it will be Apple specific. However, the more intresting thing is that it may be possible to run Windows on say a x86 PowerBook. The possibilties are certainly very very intresting.
Actually this opens up opportunities for Apple users to buy more MS software. And this might mean that Apple will be letting users build there own computer, possibly letting AMD in the scene.
- May 13, 2003
- 13,704
- 7
- 81
Okay, I agree they won't die. But they will turn into a software only company. And now, they have to start from ground zero on getting software on the x86 for OSX. Okay, so that puts them about where Linux is. They will gain some, but they don't have the backing as an operating system in the PC world. Just look at RDRAM. Getting backing with the software / hardware companies is what makes or breaks you. It very well might catch on later on, if they can stay alive long enough to actually pull it off. I think dual booting OSX and XP would be interesting, although I might have to get the OSX version of Photoshop, and learn it.
Tas.
Uh, they will still be a hardware company. They are excellent at marketing. With prices being 25% cheaper when they switch over, it will attract customers.
Apple has a highly tuned product. From their LCDs, to the Desktops and Notebooks, they are extremely well built and styled. Lets not forget the Ipod which has been extremely successful.
Apple will sell more hardware after the switch than before.
Nope, Apple will not allow users to build their own, or install OSX on non Apple systems. Though they are leaving the dual boot option open to consumers.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Apple can try to prevent people from running OS X on anything but an Apple Mac, but that will be hacked within a week or so. It doesn't make sense for Apple to lock itself out a potentially huge market for their operating system, though it possibly has to do with a collaborative agreement with MS - Apple stays out of beige box territory, MS keeps making Office for the Mac. Surely Apple informed MS of its intent to move a while back and there had to have been some haggling in the matter. It's quite a shame. Microsoft proved long ago that software is where the real money is, not hardware. Apple could rely on the quality, brand name, and innovations of their systems to sell their hardware. Then they'd have 100's of millions of new potential customers for their software. Charging 129 bucks a shot, imagine if Apple picked up only 3% to 5% of the existing PC market? How many billion a year added to Apple's coffers would that entail?
It will make things much easier for Mac developers since so many have X86 equivalent versions of their apps as well. Eventually there will be no need for dual-platform development paths, but only for the differences in GUIs and navigation between Macs and Widnows. Most likely their development efforts and R&D costs will be lowered. Hopefully that will translate into better response times for quashing bugs and releasing fixes and updates. I doubt we'll see any cost savings passed only though. It may also signal why Adobe was beginning to move away from PPC app development. Maybe they knew this change was coming some time ago?
It will make things much easier for Mac developers since so many have X86 equivalent versions of their apps as well. Eventually there will be no need for dual-platform development paths, but only for the differences in GUIs and navigation between Macs and Widnows. Most likely their development efforts and R&D costs will be lowered. Hopefully that will translate into better response times for quashing bugs and releasing fixes and updates. I doubt we'll see any cost savings passed only though. It may also signal why Adobe was beginning to move away from PPC app development. Maybe they knew this change was coming some time ago?
I think it is very premature to assume x86 Macs will be cheaper. Remember Apple was the only major buyer of PPC chips so Apple was getting a pretty decent deal per chip according to rumors. And of course it looks like the Pentium M will be the hallmark Apple chip at least for the forseeable future and those are not cheap CPUs. Also you have to build in all those extra software bundle that Apple gives you so. In the end it might actually be more expensive to buy an x86 Mac. But only time will tell so we shall see.
As noted earlier, they won't allow OSX to be run on non-macs. So basically the announcement means nothing to the large majority of us. I certainly don't plan to get a prebuilt mac with their paltry software library just so I can use an Intel processor.
Cheaper systems is just about the only reason Apple has for making this move. Apple has been trying for years to get into the lowend. First with the IMac, and more recently with the MiniMac. Apple knows the current market dictates that the most money is to be made in the low to midrange with volume sales. Nobody here knows what Apple was getting charged for G5's and G4's, but that isn't really relevant because IBM wasn't able to deliver the chips in large enough quantities to allow Apple to charge lower prices. If you can sell 2000 of something, but you only have 1000, common sense tells you to charge more to maximize your profits on the limited stock you have.
The simple increase in chips Intel will be able to supply Apple with will allow them to lower the prices even if Intel charges the same or slightly more than IBM charged Apple, due to the fact Apple will have more systems to sell lowering the need to maximize profits on each unit sold.
Also, remember that all the PowerMacs are dual cpu systems (not dual core). I would find it very hard to believe that a single dual core Yonah or whatever Intel will have at that point won't be a minimum of 20-25% cheaper vs what 2 G5's cost Apple now.
Ummm.. my guess? $999 (shipping and tax extra)
Pasting from another thread...
I wrote this on Saturday:
Emulation is not necessary...
I know that Mac OS X ran on commodity x86 hardware with few major problems as of two years ago...my cousin worked at Apple in R&D.
Remember that ALL of Mac OS X is coded/designed to compile with GCC...Darwin already runs well on x86 hardware. FreeBSD runs great on x86.
Any and all developers who use Xcode to do their coding for Mac are using and compiling and debugging their code using GNU compiler tools. In theory, a few changes to the make files is all that is required to have a working x86 binary using GCC.
Using GCC has given Apple freedom to jump hardware platforms...think of the diversity of FreeBSD or Linux.
I'll wager that, if Apple had to, they could go gold with Tiger on x86 in as little as 3-4 months.
Today:
Remember folks...You heard it here first.
I did have inside info, though...
Edit:
I didn't want to say too much before...But I saw OS X running on Intel stuff in 2003 with my own eyes. It seemed to run great. At the time or a little earlier, Apple was seriously considering x86 prior to the commitment to manufacture and, then, release of G5 powermacs. How far or close they were to going Intel then...to that I could only speculate so I won't bother.
Replying to Software porting concerns: You guys are also still making too big a deal out of the software porting problem. There are numerous large oss software codes that literally compile and run without issue on x86 and PPC without any code changes.
If anything, small developers (shareware) won't care about recompiling because they distribute by download predominantly.
Larger developers like Wolfram or Adobe will be minorly inconveinenced but, I'm sure are they really happy about the change because future development (post transition) and code management will be so much easier. Adobe, et al will probably just distribute new x86 OS X media to registered PPC customers who request x86 binary's and ship both OR fat bi's in new releases.
For one, MS Office for Mac will run much, much faster on Intel/OS X because the VB engine won't be encumbered by emulation overhead.
I wrote this on Saturday:
Emulation is not necessary...
I know that Mac OS X ran on commodity x86 hardware with few major problems as of two years ago...my cousin worked at Apple in R&D.
Remember that ALL of Mac OS X is coded/designed to compile with GCC...Darwin already runs well on x86 hardware. FreeBSD runs great on x86.
Any and all developers who use Xcode to do their coding for Mac are using and compiling and debugging their code using GNU compiler tools. In theory, a few changes to the make files is all that is required to have a working x86 binary using GCC.
Using GCC has given Apple freedom to jump hardware platforms...think of the diversity of FreeBSD or Linux.
I'll wager that, if Apple had to, they could go gold with Tiger on x86 in as little as 3-4 months.
Today:
Remember folks...You heard it here first.
I did have inside info, though...
Edit:
I didn't want to say too much before...But I saw OS X running on Intel stuff in 2003 with my own eyes. It seemed to run great. At the time or a little earlier, Apple was seriously considering x86 prior to the commitment to manufacture and, then, release of G5 powermacs. How far or close they were to going Intel then...to that I could only speculate so I won't bother.
Replying to Software porting concerns: You guys are also still making too big a deal out of the software porting problem. There are numerous large oss software codes that literally compile and run without issue on x86 and PPC without any code changes.
If anything, small developers (shareware) won't care about recompiling because they distribute by download predominantly.
Larger developers like Wolfram or Adobe will be minorly inconveinenced but, I'm sure are they really happy about the change because future development (post transition) and code management will be so much easier. Adobe, et al will probably just distribute new x86 OS X media to registered PPC customers who request x86 binary's and ship both OR fat bi's in new releases.
For one, MS Office for Mac will run much, much faster on Intel/OS X because the VB engine won't be encumbered by emulation overhead.
A couple other things to consider and be happy about (if you like OS X):
Mac games are going to get a lot better...porting and/or co-development of games for OS X will be much easier. Say goodbye to platform performance penalties like the float to integer conversion snafu.
Graphics cards, sound cards, etc. will hopefully be plentiful for Macs and graphics drivers will be much better.
The WINE project for linux x86 should be become very popular on OS X in the coming months/years...so many windows apps may be usable on Mac with no additional commercial software purchase required. Also, I can imagine MS Virtual PC for OS X turning into more of an official install of MS designed/optimized winXP libraries for OS X. Even if MS doesn't do something like WINE on acid...VMware may decide to do a x86 vmware workstation release for OS X.
Or someone may come up with a means of hacking VMware to trick OS X to installing on VMware...of course, the desktop rendering performance would suck do to lack of 3D acceleration.
Mac games are going to get a lot better...porting and/or co-development of games for OS X will be much easier. Say goodbye to platform performance penalties like the float to integer conversion snafu.
Graphics cards, sound cards, etc. will hopefully be plentiful for Macs and graphics drivers will be much better.
The WINE project for linux x86 should be become very popular on OS X in the coming months/years...so many windows apps may be usable on Mac with no additional commercial software purchase required. Also, I can imagine MS Virtual PC for OS X turning into more of an official install of MS designed/optimized winXP libraries for OS X. Even if MS doesn't do something like WINE on acid...VMware may decide to do a x86 vmware workstation release for OS X.
Or someone may come up with a means of hacking VMware to trick OS X to installing on VMware...of course, the desktop rendering performance would suck do to lack of 3D acceleration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter