Switched On - Macintel: Expanding market share via the chic, the geek, and the IT meek
by Ross Rubin 
posted Jun 8th 2005 at 3:23PM
During Apple's bombshell announcement at its annual developer conference that it would be switching the Macintosh to Intel processors, Intel CEO Paul Otellini encapsulated the profound irony – and yet amazing consistency – driving the controversial decision. The chip maker's president showed an old Apple commercial poking fun at how hot early Pentiums ran. When Apple switched to the PowerPC, its story was at least about the PowerPC's superior power consumption as it was about raw horsepower.
Eleven years later and especially after Intel's breakthrough Pentium M, the tide has apparently turned. The PowerPC chip has been portrayed as the Power-Hungry chip – offering enticing enough performance to court all three next-generation game consoles, but falling behind for mobile computing. The PowerPC may have been running out of steam (or generating too much of it) for Apple's notebook plans, but the company still did pretty well with its notebooks. So the looming question is, what does Apple want to do?
In terms of the transition, the proof will be in the portables. For the average customer, longer battery life would be an easy win; CNet recently reported that Intel is working toward providing eight-hour battery life for notebooks within the next three to four years. Thinner notebooks would also seem alluring, but Apple�s PowerBooks are already only about 1-inch thick. Ultra-thin notebooks like Sony�s Vaio X505 are a niche market and manufacturers are more constrained by the thickness of USB ports and hard drives than processors. On the other hand, Apple might have more luck at driving such products with its design-conscious customers and the company has been known to sacrifice a legacy component or two to achieve a new form factor.
Intel processors may also pave the way for a tablet Mac that took advantage of Apple�s obviously underutilized Inkwell pen input. Today�s Tablet PCs haven�t ignited the market, but something like the ultra-mobile that Microsoft showed at WinHEC could be the kind of exciting product that created the next halo effect for the Mac. Whatever Apple has in mind, it seems as though the transition to Intel had to be driven by more than the desire to evolve a faster, thinner notebook with longer battery life. Poor Intel may find itself with no more cool lifestyle concept PCs to show at its annual developer forum. Apple will already be shipping them.
Then there are the geeks who tweak. Apple is sure going through a lot of trouble to court OS/2 users. But, seriously, since the transition to the Unix-based OS X, Apple has won many fans among Unix users who wished to have access to the Mac�s broad and polished software library while retaining access to Unis programs. Intel-based Macs will be a triple threat, capable of running Mac OS, Unix and Windows programs, at least for those who pay the Microsoft tax. Microsoft�s virtualization technology might even enable Macs to switch between Longhorn and Leopard without rebooting and offer versions of Windows bundled with external hard drives for use with Intel-based Macs.
Such versatility stands to open a new chapter for the Mac in an IT environment that continues to fight against the spyware and viruses plaguing Windows yet craves that operating system�s broad application support. On the other hand, it might end up hurting Mac game developers who will be porting games that can already run on Mac hardware at launch.
All this said, one thing Steve Jobs did not address during the keynote was whether moving to Intel will enable Apple to reach lower price points. For corporate users, Intel-based Macs will still probably not be price-competitive with your average Dell bargain box, especially after purchasing a separate Windows license.
Transitions are taxing and the loyal Mac customer base has already been asked to endure too many of them. Yet, while there will surely be bumps along the road to the land of the little-endian, the switch to Intel stands to be the sweetest of the Apple�s three major turnovers. Certainly for new users, the integrated Mac experience should remain intact, although much hinges on how quickly Mac developers support universal binaries. Rosetta may be impressive and sufficient for productivity applications, but PowerPC applications were relatively sluggish even on the 3.6 GHz system used in the WWDC keynote demo.
For at least the next year, though, Apple will be challenged to demonstrate its commitment to its installed base. Although Steve Jobs noted at least twice during his keynote address that Apple will continue to support PowerPC Macs �for a very long time,� Apple could avoid a lot of ill will and perhaps lost sales by guaranteeing that, say, the next two Mac operating systems (Leopard and its successor) will support PowerPC. It�s a small price to pay today to incentivize customers to stick with you through tomorrow.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis at NPD Techworld, a division of market research and analysis provider The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On, however, are his own. Feedback is welcome at fliptheswitch@gmail.com.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jim Rainey @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Has it not occurred to anyone else that this has nothing to do with processors?
Doesn't this mean that DELL, Lenovo, HP, etc can soon offer a different Operating System when selling desktops and laptops?
It would be a nice alternative, especially if the price of the O/S was well below that of Microsofts.
Just a thought.
JIM
token @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
To #1
Jim,
No, this isn't what this means at all. Apple has stated that Mac OS X will not run any other machine then an Apple Macintosh. No Dell, HP, Lenavo, etc. Besides, if they wanted to ship machines with other opereating systems, there is always Linux. Hey, some of them already are. And talk about beating MS on cost! :)
--token
Calihafan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Token is right... Oppenheimer said ixnay as far as installing OS X on beige boxes... however he also said that there would be no steps taken to prevent people from installing WINDOWS on the x86 hardware... spooky... the ultimate gaming/security rig.
Calih
John @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
There is no benefit to Apple to try and displace Windows in Dell and others. Doing so would mean an end of Microsoft's offerings for OSX. Apple also makes a lot of money off of hardware. Making their OS run only on their hardware will also cut down on piracy concerns. If OSX ran on all Intel based machines the miriad of different motherboards and other hardware would result in a ton of crap drivers that cause the OS to fail. This is what causes Windows to fail the most often. Controlling the hardware they can make their drivers the very best and avoid the unknown to some degree.
Paul @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"Doesn't this mean that DELL, Lenovo, HP, etc can soon offer a different Operating System when selling desktops and laptops?"
No. Mac Clones proved themselves to be a bad idea last time around.
Bruce @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"at least for those who pay the Microsoft tax."
Right. 129$ a year is a tithe, not a tax.
What a maroon!
Tim Shundo @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"Such versatility stands to open a new chapter for the Mac in an IT environment that continues to fight against the spyware and viruses plaguing Windows yet craves that operating systems broad application support."
I'm no computer buff, but wouldn't this switch mean that we (Mac users) will be more vulnerable to spyware and worms and such? >_<
Jayare Cichanski @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I'm happy to see that at least a few people out there can look at the big picture and realize that this is a GREAT thing for Apple. Although the transition might be difficult at first in the end the consumers will be in awe of their new line of Intel Macs. The future of the PowerPC obviously wasn't going in the direction of personal computing and this had to be done now before it was too late. I for one highly doubt that you will see a P4 in a Mac...all Steve kept saying was the FUTURE roadmap of Intel. Everyone needs to just chill out now and wait for Apple to blow us away once again!
Jayson Elliot @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Jim,
You might or might not remember the last time Apple allowed other manufacturers to run Mac OS on their machines. The result was a brief moment of some real competition, with boxes that in some cases undercut Apple on price, and other ones (like Radius) that were just plain BETTER.
I doubt there is a manufacturer out there today that could make a better machine than Apple, but I'm sure there are a lot of companies itching to make one cheaper.
You're right, the Mac OS is cheaper than Windows XP right now, and I think there is a huge market for it on a non-Apple machine, especially in a dual-boot environment.
Unfortunately, there are two major reasons we're not likely to see MacOS running on anything but an Apple box. One, it was Steve Jobs himself who killed the original clones. He's notoriously fanatical about the Temple of Mac OS, and whether it makes (short or long-term) business sense or not, he seems to be emotionally dead set against letting the OS loose. Then again, it's his instincts that helped create Apple in the first place, as well as popularizing the GUI and the mouse; launching the PDA market, not to mention the iPod. So maybe he knows something, even if we don't (or he doesn't) know how he knows it.
Two, a major reason the Mac OS is less expensive than Windows, and the reason it works so seamlessly, is that Apple has a lot of control over the hardware that will work with it.
With only one manufacturer of the computers, and a limited number of peripherals (compared to the Windows and Linux worlds), it's comparatively easy to make it all "just work."
If the jungle of PC makers out there were all making Mac OS compatible products, we'd see the world of OS X suddenly become a lot less smooth, as driver conflicts, hardware incompatibility, and noncompliant manufacturers caused the Mac's reputation for ease of use its ability to "just work" go right down the drain.
Of course, the Mac OS would still be many of the things it is now - fast, slick, well-designed, robust, etc... but it wouldn't be the same experience as running on an Apple Macintosh.
It's too bad the source code can't be open for Mac OS. I'd love to see a world where only Apple computers could run the "official" Mac OS, but a thousand distros of Mac OS could compete on Intel chips, a la Ubuntu, Knoppix, Gentoo, Linspire, etc. I'd love to see a Yellow Dog Mac OS!
Sean Foushee @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Tim - OS X's security isn't going to change just because of an Intel Processor, and in the same vein Window's security holes aren't due to an x86 architecture. Most of the spyware and malware Windows users suffer through is due to Microsoft's horrible idea of tying IE into the Windows core system instead of developing IE as a standalone app like Safari or Firefox. Apple moving to Intel will do absolutely nothing to the experience we've all come to expect from Apple OSes. However, like Calihafan pointed out, if Apple allows users to install Windows and makes it possible to dual boot OS X and Windows systems on the new Intel-based Macs you're going to find potential customers look more closely at the new macs as a way to continue to use their old software but try out the latest and greatest OS on the market while experiencing all that Apple has to offer as an end-user experience.
The Jeremy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I hope Apple will adopt a "processor agnostic" approach, not just for the consumers but also as a backdoor insurance plan just in case the PowerPC chip line does make a gigantic leap. My version of *processor agnostic* would mean Rosetta converting to-and-fro between x86 (or Itanium/whatever) and PPC. There should be some consumer friendly *compiler*/translator, etc. built as an app that would automatically convert those universal fat binary code over to optimize it depending upon which processor is included in your particular Mac. Taking such an approach would have allowed Apple to retain the G5s in their current desktops while bundling PentiumM chips in the PowerBook/iBook line. It would also be a nice option in the AppleStore to pick whether you want a P4 or a G5 in your PowerMac.
Now, having said all of that, I wish Apple would put their foot to the pedal and adopted PCI Express and actually allowed standard PC video cards to be added to the PowerMacs instead of being charged four times the price of the PC version for a sole pleasure of installing it in your Mac.
Scott Madore @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
It seems pretty clear cut to me! (http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4922) I think that Apple wants a notebook with a Yonah chip! Dual Core Pentium M 64bit, available for first quarter next year. That processor will rock!
Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
The motherboard in the Intel devkit is PCI-express.... shh!!!!!
PXLated @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Tim...No it doesn't mean we'll be more vulnerable...it's the Windows half of the WinTel that causes almost all their problems. OSX will be as secure as it is now for the most part.
OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Tim...
Ironicaly enough the x86 platform itself might have to potential to be MORE secure than PPC. Perhaps someone could confirm or help me out, but aren't both Intel and AMD adding that 'Zero-bit' thing or whatever it's called that is supposed to stop buffer overruns on a hardware level ?
But if you're talking about it in concert with the MacOs It's kinda like putting a patch on a roof that's not leaking. Yeah...it's less likely to leak in that spot, but you'd never know it cause there wasn't any problem in the first place...
Misomina @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
to 6 - Bruce - more like 69 bucks per year and a half ( ed. discount - everybody that asks for one gets it. )
what a moron
Wayne @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
i think Apple's decision is wise from a business and technological stand point. However, the switch to Intel does affect the company integrity and customer loyality. It is basically an acknowledgement of the superiority of the competition. In a good way, it shows that Apple is truly dedicated to make the best product possible. They are not going to be strubborn and struggle with the PowerPC as the technology hits a deadend.
I am currently a PC user looking for a switch very soon (a week) until the Intel news was confirmed. Apple is very vague about any dates and upgrade path of its future line of product.
My question is whether it is wise for me to purchase a powerbook right now. I am new to PowerPC so I don't know how the specs, of say, 1.5ghz stack up against a Pentium M 1.5 or P4 3.0ghz. Help me out here guys. =)
Jayare Cichanski @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
To 17 - Wayne - I'd say if you were looking to switch that soon then just go ahead with it. Your not going to see any Apple laptops running Intel chips for at least a year and a half to two years. If thats all the life you were looking at getting out of your portable then do it. I bought a 17" PB completely decked out with 2GBs RAM less than a month ago, and it will be more than enough for me to survive until say a dualcore Intel Mac notebook finally sees the day of light. You should at least spend that time getting accustomed the Apple way of things so why not buy yourself a 15" PB and go to town with Apples suite of programs for the next two years. If you need anything specific answered feel free to ask again here and I'll do my best to answer you. Hope this helps though.
Mikey @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
#17...
I want to know the same thing.
Terry @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Jayson (#9) what you're describing sounds a lot like the current state of Darwin, the Open Source version of OS X (or at least that's how I understand it) I know it's been compiled for multiple processor types for a while now.
P.S. I loved Permission! What a small world... I now feel old realizing the issue in my bathroom is from 1997...
Robert @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
It won't be difficult for Apple to support their PowerPCs with the next two OSes as the kernal needn't change and their programming environment can automatically compile the binaries. New 3rd party hardware drivers are another matter.
OS @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Since when are tokens right?
Scott-O-Rama @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Okay, everybody seems to have their own opinion about this, so I wanted to share my two cents. It's too long to post here, but I discuss it on my blog. You can read it here: http://www.scott-o-rama.com/2005/06...s_blog_entry
Leave a comment to let me know if you agree, disagree, or have another insight.
Thanks!
chudgoo @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Funny that no one found it ironic when Apple chose IBM to replace Motorla as their chip supplier.
Does anyone remember the days when the two software choices were "IBM compatible" and "Macintosh"???
The Jeremy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
What about the Altivec instruction set? If Apple was able to broker the deal to transfer Altivec from Motorola/Freescale to IBM to use for the G5 (PowerPC 970), why can't Apple just broker a deal with Intel for the instruction set to use in the new Intel chips? I can't see Freescale turning down an offer because eventually, Apple won't be buying anything from them and thus a cut on future Intel sales should be sufficient enough...especially if those instructions were used on all Intel x86 products. It seems like a giant step backwards in giving up Altivec, and a potential coding problem.
Seems it would be better to simply include a G4 chip with Macs in addition to an x86 during the transition years. Somehow, taking a modern Intel processor and emulating G3 speeds with it for the majority of the software sitting on the store shelves does not sound that appealing in the meantime. But that's just me, and I could be wrong.
mike @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
"at least for those who pay the Microsoft tax."
Right. 129$ a year is a tithe, not a tax.
What a maroon!
------------------
The MS tax referred to all the shit you had to get to make up for Windows. No such 'costs' exist on a Mac.
You make it sound like MS is giving away system upgrades. They're not. Since 2001 Win Xp has gotten a shitload of patches.. and SP2.. (which was basically a way to get people to upgrade to XP in the first place.. which hasn't happened)
Apple has released IMPORTANT system UPGRADES (ie. Tiger ~ Longhorn), in addition to the free security updates (which.. on a Mac are SLIGHTLY less frequent ;))
Zero viruses on a Mac. How much would you pay for that peace of mind, hmm?
doraemon @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
zero virus on a Mac, just because just 5% uses Mac.
I don't see why someone should build a virus for a so little market. Apple grow up and you'll see as many viruses you want.
Eli Perkins @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
hows a dual processor powermac with a 2.7 G5 and a 2.7 x86 sound to anyone? things could get fun with that one... but thats prolly would never happen...
Jim M @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Almost none of you "get" the economics of the business. Microsoft is a huge company compared to Apple, so is Dell for that matter. They could both undercut Apple in pricing in a heartbeat. The reason that Apple will not allow their OS to run on generic hardware is that they know it would precipitate a price war which they would lose. Microsoft would of course pull the plug on Mac Office too, thus guaranteeing the demise of Mac in the business and educational markets.
Apple users don't realize they are small potatoes in the tech world. IBM looked at Apple marketshare as compared to the tens of millions of game consoles to be sold and the choice was obvious about who they would support.
When new processors are introduced by Intel, Apple will be way back in the pack. What will be Apple's volume ranking as a Intel customer... maybe 10th?....even Acer sells more computers than Apple. Mark my words, new Intel processors will always appear on Dell machines first. You think Intel wants to lose that account?
Also, it is very much an open question if MS will allow Longhorn to run on Apple hardware, see their latest comments on their Hypervisor plans for clues to their position on that little matter.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
It's quite simple: Jobs has been positioning Apple, for the last 5 years, to compete w/MS directly on the desktop.
During this time, Apple has diligently been developing OS X into a fully-functional and featured desktop OS, while simulataneously insuring that the APIs remained portable enough to allow switching to another architecture at a moment's notice. Add to the OS the full complement of third-party apps (all written to said portable API), and you have an OOtB drop-in replacement f/Windows.
Regarding Apple's efforts to keep OS X on their propreitary Intel implementation: I can assure you, it's all for show, though Jobs et al would never admit it. They can't, for to do so would be to encur the full and direct wrath of MS's competition. As it stands, they have Plausible Deniability on their side regarding their future plans to compete wMS. Jobs KNOWS Apple cannot keep people from reverse-engineering any HW/SW protections that are implemented; indeed, he's counting on it. In any case, about the only place in the world where such limitations would have even a shadow's chance of being enforced is in America anyway (DMCA). Sooner or later, SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WILL get OS X running on beige box HW. Hell, we'll probably even seen some fool running it on a P60 or something! Any restrictions placed on OS X WILL have to be lifted eventually. Again, Jobs et al know this and have PLANNED for it.
I know people will dismiss what I've said here, but I guess time will tell, won't it? :-)
Jayson Elliot @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Terry - thanks for the nice words about Permission magazine! It's always good to hear from the original readers.
You think you feel old? How about me, I had already been doing the magazine for 5 years by '97! (I like that it's still in the bathroom, though. Heh.)
Drop me a line and I'll send you a free copy of the new one, since you're old school. Use one of the email links on the Permission website (click my name here).
Cullen @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
ive got to say this is one of the greatest threads ive read on engadget. congratulations, guys, no ms bickering and intelligent advice instead. keep this up :x
Bruce @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Come on cult members. 129$ a year is a tithe to the cult. For what? More security holes in the open source applications?
The released another big batch of patches today for the half finished 10.4.1.
Wait until the hackers start paying attention like they did with Firefox. More holes that IE had in 3 years in less than a year.
The same will happen with OS X.
NoPCZone @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Couple of Items-
1- Nobody on any site seems to have addressed what effect this is going to have on Mac OS SERVER software and the Intel-inside X-Server.
2- Expect the first shipping Intel Macs to be a showcase for Intel's newer technology.
3- My bet is that instead of the plain-old BIOS chip in the developer MacIntels we will be seeing EFI. In case you want to know more check this link:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
4- Final bet- I bet you will see an Intel-equipped PowerBook by MacWorld SF in January 2006. By January Apple should have the OS, bundled apps, iLife, iWork and Pro Apps ready. Why not offer your highest margin customers the first chance to fly?
artnow @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I'm waiting for that stupid hacker prediction to come true. Only the braindead think hacking is about market share.
Intel in a powerbook - that's what hacks me off. So now instead of a new powerbook this year I must wait till late 2006 or more likely '07 for a beta model and 2008 or '09 for something really good?
Steve - that is where the pain is. Not sure I will wait... and I'm core faithful.
Michael @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
doremon, it's not the small market share, there was a contest held for anyone who could write a successful virus for mac, as far as i know no one claimed the prize.
when OSX came out from what i know there was another contest for anyone who could hack the OSX box unsecured, no firewall, i believe the price was 25 grand, and no one claimed it because no one could do it. it's the rock solid defense of unix that keeps it safe. not the small market share
uberunknown @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
as for comment #30 - Simple economics would also preclude Apple inacting a price war of its own - for productivity suites. Apple has a nuclear option in expanding iWork with better-than MS office-type apps for what - maybe $99? Heck - throw it in for free in Macs and charge $299 with volume incentives for PCs (yes- port it to PCs- like bringing the iPod to Windows). Then years after the install base increases for iWork, charge $79 for it or $129 with iLife '08.
See the simple economics of it is that Apple has a flexible position now than it did between the years '97-'02. That is why they let expire the agreement with Microsoft. That is why they could gamble with the PPC970 while keeping Intel boxes warm in a Cupertino lab. Apple aligning itself with more standard PC configurations while still differentiating the design with something way more compelling than a Dell will guarantee continued customers. As long as Apple can continue its complete differentiation with all the other PC makers, then the Mac ecosystem will continue to flourish.
Apple commands nice profit margins while increasing their user base. And will continue to do so with the switch to Intel. That is simple economics.
doraemon @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
#36
25 grand? when? where?
I'll do a virus for mac no problem.
I just need a little file that delete all system fonts.
I did one time on panther and the mac crashed very bad. I had blue screen at the restart. Cool.
if there're people can hack the nasa website, I think there are people to make good viruses for mac. The problem is nobody care having publicity in this small little world.
I bet there aren't viruses for silicon graphics computer and not many for linux.
Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
Apple went through a few other transitions that no one seems to acknowledge here, but that caused a great deal of pain and hurt sales--minor ones, like the hockey puck mouse, more significant ones, like the early eradication of the floppy drive, and monumental ones, like the I/O shift to USB and firewire. I was an Apple Higher Ed rep during all these transitions, and got more grief about them (particularly the floppy drive issue) than about the switch to OS X. Everyone knew that Apple _had_ to switch to OS X. Not everyone believed Apple had to eradicate the floppy drive so early. Similarly, I'm not sure SJ made the case, at least not as persuasively as he could, that Apple's switch to Intel is absolutely necessary.
The availability of PowerPC chips has always been a nagging issue for Apple. All of us in field sales were aware that OS X led "a double life," as a "just in case" scenario, though there was never any official communication about this. It would be poor business sense to rely on a single vendor for anything, especially something so important as a CPU. Steve Jobs presented the matter fairly: this was the "just in case" scenario. I do find it ironic, having delivered hundreds of presentations on the benefits of RISC over CISC, and having had thousands of conversations explaining that clock speed on PowerPC and on Intel isn't compatible. But many of us, myself included, actually pushed for the shift to Intel a number of years ago because of that very issue. Solving the clockspeed issue will make Apple far more competitive. The average user, even in the higher ed market, doesn't want to put the time into educating her/himself on the difference between RISC and CISC and why simple clockspeed comparisons between the two are wrongheaded.
The switch to Intel opens up some other interesting possibilities as well. I should state that I left Apple shortly after the transition to OS X; I have absolutely no inside knowledge. But the Intel move does invite speculation. Many have mentioned the possibility of OS X running on other boxes, a la Microsoft. This notion has been debunked by Apple. Others have noted the possiblity of installing Windows on an Intel Mac. Phil Schiller has said this would be a possibility for some enterprizing individuals, though it wouldn't be supported by Apple. But there's another possibility that I haven't seen mentioned: that Apple itself license Windows and ship PCs in a new line of computers that are not "Macintoshes." (After all, Jobs himself has defined a Macintosh as the software.) Before you dismiss this as insane (and it may very well be) consider the potential advantage to Apple: skyrocketing sales in hardware. I don't think Apple will ever compete with Dell on price points, but I can assure you there are enough PC users out there who are willing to pay a premium for Apple's elegant industrial design to make this an enormously profitable venture (probably multiplying its hardware sales by at least four, though that seems like a modest forecast). Would this mean that Apple would abandon OS X? Absolutely not. In fact, PC sales would give Apple the added revenue necessary to actually mass market OS X and give Windows a run for its money.
Andy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:16AM
I think the best thing that could happen with the new chips is that a Rosetta type program let you use windows apps in OSX with little to no slow down. I know its like virtual PC in a way but with this the programs would run just like any other app. Just my .02