Friday, June 03, 2005
Well, I guess we have to take this Intel thing seriously now
It was more or less ignorable up until this point. Despite a whirlwind of rumors, and Intel's senior management even stating openly that they'll never give up on the idea, all this talk of Apple moving to Intel processors was just a bunch of downstream fodder -- until now. CNET, you see, is reporting it as a done deal.
Now CNET is not exactly a bastion of accuracy and respectability, and in fact, strangely enough, CNET was once (and may still be) part-owned by Intel, which just makes it weird that CNET is the one who appears to be "breaking" the story. But with CNET coverage comes widespread attention (their story will likely run verbatim in the NY Times tomorrow), and so this will now be the topic that fills nearly every inch of every relevant website and column space for the next forty-eight hours, both within and without the Mac web itself. So let's play along, shall we?
Most folks hear the phrase "Mac on Intel" and they immediately assume that you're talking about putting Intel's current x86-based processors, the same ones used in Windows PCs, into Macs. Is that doable? Sure. But would it be pretty? Not by a long shot. You're talking about taking not only MacOS X, but every piece of software you use, and throwing it onto a processor architecture that none of it has been optimized for. It has nothing to do with compatibility, Mac-Windows, or any of the other nonsense that folks can't seem to keep their minds away from whenever the words "Mac" and "Intel" appear in the same sentence. What this is actually about is the fact that while Windows (and the Windows versions of applications) have been written specifically over the years to take advantage of the x86 processor, MacOS X (and the Mac versions of applications) have been written specifically to take advantage of the PowerPC processors that Macs have run on for the better part of the past decade.
Well, it's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. It shouldn't be surprising that you'd take massive initial speed hits across the board. And that's a really bad thing, considering Apple's only reason to move to x86 processors would be to gain speed, not lose it. You're talking about a complete re-write of MacOS X, from the ground up, if you want it to perform acceptably fast. Rumor has it that Apple already has this in its back rooms and keeps it maintained and fully up-to-date. But is it really feasible for Apple to release an alternate version of Tiger just weeks after launching it in the first place? This, it would seem, would be the absolute worst time to be talking of changing processors. Of course, the CNET story says that it's not going to begin happening for another full year, so I suppose it's possible that Apple is planning on releasing an x86-based MacOS 10.5 system in mid-2006, but it just seems weird to be announcing such a move on the heels of the Tiger release.
And the MacOS is just the start. We're talking about applications that you use every day, many of which Apple does not make and thus has no control over, possibly becoming absolute kludges on an x86 architecture...and worse, some of them perhaps not working at all. Sure, third parties would have a full year to re-optimize the next Mac version of their applications for x86, but considering just how long it took some of these clowns to move from OS 9 to OS X, a year doesn't seem like hardly enough time.
In fact, when I think of living through a transition from PowerPC Macs to x86 Macs, only one word comes to mind: ugly. Ugly enough to make the transition from Classic to OS X look like a walk in the park. Ugly enough that I can't imagine it, and frankly, don't want to.
And I don't think it'll happen.
Here's what I think will: Apple has been trying for years now to find a company that will actually take it seriously when it comes to producing PowerPC processors in large enough quanitities. Motorola was so awful that Apple once went eighteen months without being able to raise its top of the line Megahertz, so Apple instead looked to IBM to procude the G5, and there was much partying and celebration over the fact that IBM was taking the PowerPC so seriously and that there was some new trillion dollar fabbing plant and what-not. But it turns out that while IBM has in fact taken the PowerPC processor seriously, it just hasn't taken Apple seriously. Microsoft needs G5's for use in the xBox, IBM trips over itself to make it happen. Apple needs G5's for use in Macs, IBM says sorry, we just can't seem to build many of them.
It would seem that IBM played Apple for a fool, using its deal with Apple as bait to sell the PowerPC architecture to bigger fish who wanted it, with no real intention of giving Apple what it actually needed. And of course, it would appear to be approaching the point where it's time for Apple to look elsewhere. Apple doesn't need to change to a new kind of processor, it just needs to find a company that's willing to take serious the task of producing the kind of processor Apple is already using.
So the logical next step is for Apple to get its PowerPC processors from Intel. Yeah, you heard me right.
Of course, Intel doesn't make PowerPC processors, but that one minor detail could be overlooked if Intel were to simply begin making them. Is that even possible? Well, Intel more or less invented the chip industry, so from a technical standpoint, there's little standing in the way. The real question is whether Intel would be allowed to. Apple didn't choose Motorola and IBM as its previous suppliers by picking them randomly out of a hat; as it turns out, the PowerPC architecture is owned jointly by -- you guessed it -- Apple, Motorola, and IBM.
So could Apple license the PowerPC to Intel without needing the permission of the other two companies? That's probably something for a lawyer to answer. Motorola's so damn aloof and stupid that Apple could probably license the PowerPC to Intel without Motorola even figuring out what was going on for another decade or so -- but seriously, I don't think Motorola would much care. For one thing, Motorola's chip unit was spun off into its own company, Freescale, and for another, Freescale probably has no expectation of ever getting Apple back as a customer anyway, considering how awful it was the last time around. So this leaves IBM in the way, and considering how heinously IBM has screwed Apple so far, you have to figure IBM must be in violation of some agreement or promise somewhere down the line, and giving Apple permission to license the PowerPC to Intel might be a good way for IBM not to get sued.
So why would Intel want to go to the trouble of building a processor just for Apple and no one else? Just ask Intel: "We will never give up on Apple, we covet them as a design win." Intel made that statement yesterday, by the way. And the implication is Intel simply wants to be able to brag that its chips are used within Apple computers. You know, the one brand of computer that for the past twenty years has avoided Intel chips like the plague, finally embracing them, giving Intel the power to claim that it has more or less conquered the entire computing universe. If reaching that goal means the "Intel chips" being used in Macs are the same ole PowerPC chips that Apple has used forever, then so be it. The Windows-using world will only hear that "Apple has switched to Intel" and won't even hear, much less understand, the fact that it's more or less a facade.
And besides, if the PowerPC architecture is as profitable as IBM seems to think it is, then for all we know Intel might be wanting to break into the larger PowerPC market. Do you think Microsoft would sleep better at night getting the PowerPC chips for its xBox from IBM or Intel? It could be that for all of Intel's recent courting of Apple, much of it might have to do with the fact that Apple presumably holds the keys to get Intel into the PowerPC game. Let's face it, the PowerPC has always been the better processor, it's just that it's always been produced by companies that do a lousy job with it.
The x86 processor has been dead technology for so long it's a rotting corpse. Think about what all the PowerPC could become, for both Intel and Apple, if placed in the hands of Intel. It could be that Macs will start coming with "Intel Inside" sitckers on them, and the only thing it'll signify is a change in brand name. If the Apple-Intel rumor is true, then as wacky as it sounds, this is my best guess as to what it actually means. Anything else would just be...ugly.
It was more or less ignorable up until this point. Despite a whirlwind of rumors, and Intel's senior management even stating openly that they'll never give up on the idea, all this talk of Apple moving to Intel processors was just a bunch of downstream fodder -- until now. CNET, you see, is reporting it as a done deal.
Now CNET is not exactly a bastion of accuracy and respectability, and in fact, strangely enough, CNET was once (and may still be) part-owned by Intel, which just makes it weird that CNET is the one who appears to be "breaking" the story. But with CNET coverage comes widespread attention (their story will likely run verbatim in the NY Times tomorrow), and so this will now be the topic that fills nearly every inch of every relevant website and column space for the next forty-eight hours, both within and without the Mac web itself. So let's play along, shall we?
Most folks hear the phrase "Mac on Intel" and they immediately assume that you're talking about putting Intel's current x86-based processors, the same ones used in Windows PCs, into Macs. Is that doable? Sure. But would it be pretty? Not by a long shot. You're talking about taking not only MacOS X, but every piece of software you use, and throwing it onto a processor architecture that none of it has been optimized for. It has nothing to do with compatibility, Mac-Windows, or any of the other nonsense that folks can't seem to keep their minds away from whenever the words "Mac" and "Intel" appear in the same sentence. What this is actually about is the fact that while Windows (and the Windows versions of applications) have been written specifically over the years to take advantage of the x86 processor, MacOS X (and the Mac versions of applications) have been written specifically to take advantage of the PowerPC processors that Macs have run on for the better part of the past decade.
Well, it's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. It shouldn't be surprising that you'd take massive initial speed hits across the board. And that's a really bad thing, considering Apple's only reason to move to x86 processors would be to gain speed, not lose it. You're talking about a complete re-write of MacOS X, from the ground up, if you want it to perform acceptably fast. Rumor has it that Apple already has this in its back rooms and keeps it maintained and fully up-to-date. But is it really feasible for Apple to release an alternate version of Tiger just weeks after launching it in the first place? This, it would seem, would be the absolute worst time to be talking of changing processors. Of course, the CNET story says that it's not going to begin happening for another full year, so I suppose it's possible that Apple is planning on releasing an x86-based MacOS 10.5 system in mid-2006, but it just seems weird to be announcing such a move on the heels of the Tiger release.
And the MacOS is just the start. We're talking about applications that you use every day, many of which Apple does not make and thus has no control over, possibly becoming absolute kludges on an x86 architecture...and worse, some of them perhaps not working at all. Sure, third parties would have a full year to re-optimize the next Mac version of their applications for x86, but considering just how long it took some of these clowns to move from OS 9 to OS X, a year doesn't seem like hardly enough time.
In fact, when I think of living through a transition from PowerPC Macs to x86 Macs, only one word comes to mind: ugly. Ugly enough to make the transition from Classic to OS X look like a walk in the park. Ugly enough that I can't imagine it, and frankly, don't want to.
And I don't think it'll happen.
Here's what I think will: Apple has been trying for years now to find a company that will actually take it seriously when it comes to producing PowerPC processors in large enough quanitities. Motorola was so awful that Apple once went eighteen months without being able to raise its top of the line Megahertz, so Apple instead looked to IBM to procude the G5, and there was much partying and celebration over the fact that IBM was taking the PowerPC so seriously and that there was some new trillion dollar fabbing plant and what-not. But it turns out that while IBM has in fact taken the PowerPC processor seriously, it just hasn't taken Apple seriously. Microsoft needs G5's for use in the xBox, IBM trips over itself to make it happen. Apple needs G5's for use in Macs, IBM says sorry, we just can't seem to build many of them.
It would seem that IBM played Apple for a fool, using its deal with Apple as bait to sell the PowerPC architecture to bigger fish who wanted it, with no real intention of giving Apple what it actually needed. And of course, it would appear to be approaching the point where it's time for Apple to look elsewhere. Apple doesn't need to change to a new kind of processor, it just needs to find a company that's willing to take serious the task of producing the kind of processor Apple is already using.
So the logical next step is for Apple to get its PowerPC processors from Intel. Yeah, you heard me right.
Of course, Intel doesn't make PowerPC processors, but that one minor detail could be overlooked if Intel were to simply begin making them. Is that even possible? Well, Intel more or less invented the chip industry, so from a technical standpoint, there's little standing in the way. The real question is whether Intel would be allowed to. Apple didn't choose Motorola and IBM as its previous suppliers by picking them randomly out of a hat; as it turns out, the PowerPC architecture is owned jointly by -- you guessed it -- Apple, Motorola, and IBM.
So could Apple license the PowerPC to Intel without needing the permission of the other two companies? That's probably something for a lawyer to answer. Motorola's so damn aloof and stupid that Apple could probably license the PowerPC to Intel without Motorola even figuring out what was going on for another decade or so -- but seriously, I don't think Motorola would much care. For one thing, Motorola's chip unit was spun off into its own company, Freescale, and for another, Freescale probably has no expectation of ever getting Apple back as a customer anyway, considering how awful it was the last time around. So this leaves IBM in the way, and considering how heinously IBM has screwed Apple so far, you have to figure IBM must be in violation of some agreement or promise somewhere down the line, and giving Apple permission to license the PowerPC to Intel might be a good way for IBM not to get sued.
So why would Intel want to go to the trouble of building a processor just for Apple and no one else? Just ask Intel: "We will never give up on Apple, we covet them as a design win." Intel made that statement yesterday, by the way. And the implication is Intel simply wants to be able to brag that its chips are used within Apple computers. You know, the one brand of computer that for the past twenty years has avoided Intel chips like the plague, finally embracing them, giving Intel the power to claim that it has more or less conquered the entire computing universe. If reaching that goal means the "Intel chips" being used in Macs are the same ole PowerPC chips that Apple has used forever, then so be it. The Windows-using world will only hear that "Apple has switched to Intel" and won't even hear, much less understand, the fact that it's more or less a facade.
And besides, if the PowerPC architecture is as profitable as IBM seems to think it is, then for all we know Intel might be wanting to break into the larger PowerPC market. Do you think Microsoft would sleep better at night getting the PowerPC chips for its xBox from IBM or Intel? It could be that for all of Intel's recent courting of Apple, much of it might have to do with the fact that Apple presumably holds the keys to get Intel into the PowerPC game. Let's face it, the PowerPC has always been the better processor, it's just that it's always been produced by companies that do a lousy job with it.
The x86 processor has been dead technology for so long it's a rotting corpse. Think about what all the PowerPC could become, for both Intel and Apple, if placed in the hands of Intel. It could be that Macs will start coming with "Intel Inside" sitckers on them, and the only thing it'll signify is a change in brand name. If the Apple-Intel rumor is true, then as wacky as it sounds, this is my best guess as to what it actually means. Anything else would just be...ugly.
Comments:
Post a Comment
