Apple and Intel x86
Wed, 2005-05-25 15:18 — jrearick
So, the topic comes up again. Apple May Use Intel Chips. Anytime this comes up that Apple is talking with Intel or AMD people get all excited that Apple will be porting to x86 and Mac OS X will be available on the same hardware Windows is. People think Apple will be abandoning the PPC plaform for their systems. This happens every year or so. Examples: 9/2002, 3/2003, and I'm pretty sure there was one in 2004, and now the current Reuters report.
There can be several reasons Apple would be talking to x86 manufacturers other than looking to move the Mac or port OS X. These are for devices or just to get a better deal from their current vendors.
If Apple looks interested in using Intel chips for the Macintosh, that may give IBM and Motorola an incentive to lower the price on the PowerPC chips, even though Apple really didn't have an interest in going with Intel anyway. Though, I really doubt this is the case. This is a pretty shady tactic and I assume it is not something that would be smart to do with a vendor who is a close part of the design and manufacturing process, especially given to somewhat long relationship Apple and IBM have.
The other reason Apple could be looking into Intel chips is for a different device. Some (perhaps all?) AirPort branded base stations use AMD processors. Perhaps Apple is thinking about switching these to Intel chips, or perhaps Apple is planning on releasing another product that uses Intel chips, but we don't know what that product is yet. Intel also makes a lot of controller chips for things like PCI E and the xServe RAID.
Now that I have gone over why Apple would be working with Intel, how about all that discussion of Apple porting OS X to x86? This is something that would almost never happen. Here's why.
The really big reason Apple won't do this, is because Apple is in the business of selling computers not software. Apple's bread and butter are in the profit margins they make selling the machines, not from the software development. Granted, Apple does make some kick-ass software like Final Cut Pro, Logic, and the iLife suite, not to mention iTunes and the iTunes music store.
Back in the early to mid nineties (when Steve Jobs wasn't around) Apple decided they would be able to license the Mac OS to other hardware developers like UMAX. Because of this, Apple lost a lot of computer revenue which almost killed them. This was an experiment that went really bad, and something I don't think anyone would like to try again, especially in a market dominated by Microsoft.
Some have speculated that Apple would switch processors and still closely control the hardware, so that there really isn't much difference between what we have now with PPC and just replace the processor. They say this is possible because OS X can be very portable. They already have the Darwin core of OS X available for the x86. The problem with this is that it would require another transition for developers to deal with. It was hard enough to do the transition between Mac OS 9 and X. It was even harder doing the 68k to PPC jump.
Even though Apple has successfully done a processor change with 68k to PPC, changing from PPC to x86 would be even worse. Emulation for legacy apps will be terrible (as seen by Cherry OS or PearPC), plus the developers would be upset having to do another transition. Right now Apple can't afford to piss off developers. It is never a good idea to piss off developers.
I hope that this explains a little bit why I don't think Apple will be switching to x86 based Macs. Now, when there is another rumor Apple is doing this. I have my arguments laid out here, and I may modify them a little be to update them.
There can be several reasons Apple would be talking to x86 manufacturers other than looking to move the Mac or port OS X. These are for devices or just to get a better deal from their current vendors.
If Apple looks interested in using Intel chips for the Macintosh, that may give IBM and Motorola an incentive to lower the price on the PowerPC chips, even though Apple really didn't have an interest in going with Intel anyway. Though, I really doubt this is the case. This is a pretty shady tactic and I assume it is not something that would be smart to do with a vendor who is a close part of the design and manufacturing process, especially given to somewhat long relationship Apple and IBM have.
The other reason Apple could be looking into Intel chips is for a different device. Some (perhaps all?) AirPort branded base stations use AMD processors. Perhaps Apple is thinking about switching these to Intel chips, or perhaps Apple is planning on releasing another product that uses Intel chips, but we don't know what that product is yet. Intel also makes a lot of controller chips for things like PCI E and the xServe RAID.
Now that I have gone over why Apple would be working with Intel, how about all that discussion of Apple porting OS X to x86? This is something that would almost never happen. Here's why.
The really big reason Apple won't do this, is because Apple is in the business of selling computers not software. Apple's bread and butter are in the profit margins they make selling the machines, not from the software development. Granted, Apple does make some kick-ass software like Final Cut Pro, Logic, and the iLife suite, not to mention iTunes and the iTunes music store.
Back in the early to mid nineties (when Steve Jobs wasn't around) Apple decided they would be able to license the Mac OS to other hardware developers like UMAX. Because of this, Apple lost a lot of computer revenue which almost killed them. This was an experiment that went really bad, and something I don't think anyone would like to try again, especially in a market dominated by Microsoft.
Some have speculated that Apple would switch processors and still closely control the hardware, so that there really isn't much difference between what we have now with PPC and just replace the processor. They say this is possible because OS X can be very portable. They already have the Darwin core of OS X available for the x86. The problem with this is that it would require another transition for developers to deal with. It was hard enough to do the transition between Mac OS 9 and X. It was even harder doing the 68k to PPC jump.
Even though Apple has successfully done a processor change with 68k to PPC, changing from PPC to x86 would be even worse. Emulation for legacy apps will be terrible (as seen by Cherry OS or PearPC), plus the developers would be upset having to do another transition. Right now Apple can't afford to piss off developers. It is never a good idea to piss off developers.
I hope that this explains a little bit why I don't think Apple will be switching to x86 based Macs. Now, when there is another rumor Apple is doing this. I have my arguments laid out here, and I may modify them a little be to update them.
Twitter Updates
RSS
Comments
A look back now, and addressing the reasons:
Apple bread and butter is in making computers - I'm pretty sure there will be hardware devices on the Apple Intel machines that will make it more difficult to run OS X on generic Intel boxes (though reports are saying the dev models do not have such protection)
For the part about pissing off developers, I think Apple really surprised people with how they will be handling it. Rosette emulation for PPC code seems to be much better than anticipated, plus Apple has made it insanely easy to port applications. Though, I'm sure there are developers out there who would rather not have to do a switch or keep track of different universal, PPC, or Intel binaries as time progresses.
We'll see in the next 2 or 3 years how well this move will be for Apple. Good Luck.