In last week's column, I wrote about several
parallels between the launch of the MacBook Pro and the
PowerBook 5300. Apple has been
burnt in the past and should avoid most of the mistakes made in that
initial transition. However, there's more to the Intel transition than
first meets the eye.
The Obvious
When Steve Jobs stood up and announced the move to Intel, there was
one very obvious reason why - the G5. Powerful as the chip was, there
was no way it would find itself in a laptop any time soon.
In the run up to the announcement, I was selling Macs, and every
single day I had to explain to people that (a) I had no secret
knowledge of when there would be a G5 laptop and (b) it was unlikely to
be any time soon because you just needed to take a look at the cooling
system in the Power Mac
G5 to realise this was not a laptop processor.
Apple's sells more laptops than desktops, and their laptops were
falling behind, technologically speaking.
The IBM Factor
When Apple started working with IBM processors, it seemed like a
miracle - Motorola's lack of commitment to developing a G5 had seemed
to doom Apple, and suddenly processor clock speeds were climbing
again.
Then news of the new Cell processor began to filter through, and
also the fact that Microsoft were using Power Mac G5s to develop the
new PowerPC-based Xbox 360.
Surely this was good news, because it showed the industry was
picking up on the design which Apple had been using all along.
Or not.
The PowerPC architecture is great for powerful processing, but not
for energy efficiency. The new PowerPC game consoles would all be mains
powered, and they would sell in far greater numbers than Apple's
computers.
Did IBM invest in fast chips with bulky cooling units stuck with
huge sales guaranteed or low power consumption for a relatively small
customer? IBM's choice was clear.
IBM was committed to the G5 and PowerPC. It just wasn't prepared to
tailor that commitment to suit Apple.
The Move Was Inevitable
So, seeing how critical laptops are to Apple's business, and that
there was no future processor path, it became clear that Apple had to
leave the G5 behind.
Look at Steve's keynote speech - the Intel versions of OS X and
iLife had always existed. Apple had known this day would come and had
been prepared. If IBM hadn't developed the G5, we would probably
already be using Intel Macs, which would have been introduced sometime
after the G4.
IBM only delayed the inevitable by producing the G5.
Used to Changes
Transitions of one kind or another are familiar to Apple. There were
the moves from 680x0 to PowerPC processors, from SCSI to IDE, from
Apple's unique 15-pin video port to VGA connectors, from ADB to USB,
from OS 9 to OS X, from Apple's special ADC plug to industry
standard DVI video connections, and more.
At each change, Apple was accused of losing its uniqueness, yet many
say that today's Mac's are as unique in look and feel as ever they
were.
Windows has many elements of the Mac interface, but the experience
is not the same. This isn't the time or place to debate Windows vs.
Macs, but it's worth noting that the Mac experience is not defined by
the hardware. The hardware is part of it, but it's not the heart of
it.
An Important Message
For years, Apple have been the underdog. Even with the phenomenal
explosion in sales over the last couple of years, market share still
remains around the 2% mark, a point which Paul Thurrott has keenly kept
track of (see
Preliminary Mac Market Share for 2005: 2.28 Percent).
Apple's small market share undoubtedly made IBM choose to invest in
chips for mains powered game consoles instead of laptop CPUs, since
there was much more money in the desktop and console route.
Apple knew that moving to Intel would be controversial, and it's not
a decision they made lightly. Intel chips had been stuck in the 3.2 to
3.6 GHz range for years, but Apple liked the direction the Intel
planning to moving in. That direction was low power consumption and
multiple core processors. More bang for your buck.
We've yet to see how the Intel transition goes, and I'd say we're in
the trickiest part right now. Buy now, or wait and see?
I'd like to see Apple switch all their machines to Intel over the
next six months and dramatically reduce the price on old PowerPC stock,
simply to get the period of uncertainty over with.
But if Apple pulls through the transition in anything like the
bullish form we see it in today, an important message has been sent.
Microsoft Windows is dependent upon the x86 architecture, which is
quite understandable since the processor is the heart of the machine.
But Apple will have shown that they are not constrained by hardware.
They won't make another transition like this one lightly, but they will
have shown the commitment and drive to make it work.
IBM neglected Apple's needs, so it lost them as a customer. IBM
probably thought Apple had nowhere else to go, but they were wrong.
Intel now knows that Apple expects to be taken seriously. And, perhaps
most importantly, let's not forget AMD.
To move from Motorola 680x0 to anything different needed a major
rewrite of everything. To move from PowerPC to another architecture
also needed a major rewrite of everything.
However, to move from Intel to either AMD or VIA hardware - well, it
needs almost no effort by comparison. Intel has a new customer, but if
the agreement turns sour, Apple can quickly move elsewhere without any
of the uncertainty the current transition is causing.
The announcement of the move to Intel was a shock, and the next few
months will hold some uncertainty for Apple. But once we're through
this transition, Apple will be in an even stronger bargaining position.
