Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

exizldelfuego · 06-06-2005, 10:45 PM

Bare with me here while I try and sort out my thoughts on this.

First off: if Microsoft owns anything of Apple, is simply as part of their investment portfolio. Microsoft has absolutely no say in what direction Apple takes as a company. When most people refer to MS owning a part of Apple, they're recalling the deal Apple made with MS several years ago settling a long-standing lawsuit between the two in exchange for MS investing... was it $150 million in NON-VOTING Apple Shares (which was really a good-faith deal, as $150 million was a drop in the bucket to Apple's then $4 billion warchest) and a commitment from MS for Office on Mac OS, which was the really important thing. This marked the beginning of the reemergence of Apple from "the dark years." MS has since sold off their purchased stock at a considerable profit.

Secondly, Apple's not going to stop supporting the PowerPC version of Mac OS X any time soon. I mean hey, if they've kept Mac OS X for Intel going ever since Rhapsody in the late '90s, why would they up and drop OSX for PowerPC when it wouldn't cost so much to keep the development parallel? It's all based on Darwin anyways. So people who have Macs now won't be left behind. People buying new PowerPC Macs won't be left behind. Apple isn't straight-up abandoning PowerPC.

This "switch" is actually quite the blast from the past, and I don't mean just in terms of the "Apple switching to Intel" rumor that has popped up every now and then since the Macintosh's inception. I mean from a strictly NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP point of view (Mac OS X's ancestors). OpenStep, in its prime, ran on four (4) different architectures: 68k, SPARC, x86, and HP-UX (or something like that). And so when Apple bought NEXT and ported OpenStep to PowerPC to become Mac OS X, they initially planned on having an x86 version all along. It got phased out as Apple narrowed their playing field to concentrate on where the money (re: their consumer/developer bases) was really at. So now we learn that Apple has all along been keeping that x86 version up to date. Not a big surprise really, considering that Darwin has been on x86 for a good while now. Just a surprise that the hammer has finally fallen.

Just a heads up from where I'm coming from, back in high school I was the sole Mac Geek on campus amongst all the other WinTel geeks, and was quite the Apple Evangelist. After high school, I stopped caring what other people thought of Apple, all I knew was that I loved them. That being said, the idea that Apple will switch away from PowerPC in favor of x86 (of all things!) is a tough pill to swallow. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, it's one of those things that only time will tell. As it stands, I'll probably buy PowerPC Macs for as long as I can, or until there's sufficient reason not to. Steve Jobs didn't offer enough information about what the new Intel-based Macs would be like to really make an opinion. What he really said was "Hey guys, this is what'll be happening in the next year, and here are the tools that you'll need to start getting ready for it." Which is good. That's what should happen at a developer's conference.

But with news like this, it's so easy to focus in on the narrow, lower-level information (that Apple is switching to x86) that the really really good news is being overshadowed. Right now, when a programmer creates an application, they're making it for Mac OS X on PowerPC. What Apple's getting them to do is not so much getting them to stop making it for PowerPC and instead make it for x86, but Apple's getting them to stop making assumptions about the processor and instead rely just Mac OS X. Apple has said that PowerPC still has a place in Macintosh, and that they will still be coming out with new computers which will have PowerPC brains. It's just that they're going to be coming out with x86 Macs as well. Therefore developers will need to rely on the tools Apple gives (Xcode) in order to make their binaries compatible with whatever architecture any copy of Mac OS X might be running on. Therefore they're taking Mac OS X back to its NEXT roots by making it a flexible, multi-platform OS.

In any migration, actually moving the OS to something else, while no trivial task, is probably the easiest for any company because that can all be managed and handled within the business. The real difficulty is convincing your developer base to shoulder the burden of the switch to get their apps on the new whatever, and then also to get the consumer base to switch over as well. And while Apple seems pretty adept at this (having done so many times over the years), I believe this is ultimately a step which will make the developer/consumer concerns a thing of the past. By getting the developers to program for the OS and not the processor (where they make their code using the provided frameworks and let the compiler worry about the processor), the developer will never again have to worry about migrating their code from one base to another. They'll just need a little bit more QA time to make sure everything runs smoothly on each architecture. And the consumers could care less because all their apps will just work on any machine, so long as that machine is an Apple computer running Mac OS X. This means that in the future, when new and better chips come out from a different source, Apple can decide whether or not it's something worth incorporating into their product lines without having to concern those outside the company in the decision.

So while the news is that Apple is switching to x86, something I approach with some trepidation, the really big news here is that Apple is making a move to become the most flexible computer maker in the market. It's not that they're switching to Intel chips, it's that they're paving the way for the ability to incorporate ANY chip they might want into their product line, with Intel chips serving simply as the catalyst.

The days of Apple's hardware stagnations at the hands of its chip suppliers are soon to be a thing of the past. If four years down the road Intel plateau's while some new up-and-coming chip is offering promise, Apple can build a machine around the new chip. Imagine the possibility of Apple's product lineup, five years from now, with a Mac Tablet running Mac OS X for ARM, a Mac laptop running Mac OS X for Centrino, a PowerMac G6 running Mac OS X for PowerPC, and an Xserve running Mac OS X for SPARC. Setting the feasibility of supporting all these architectures aside, the point is that the POSSIBILITY is there for it. And that's really encouraging.

A lot can happen within two years. And while Apple right now may be saying that they're transitioning from PowerPC to x86 (as in phasing out PowerPC), I fully expect them to keep PowerPC Macs around in machines where it makes sense. The "phasing out" intonations are really there to ensure that the developers step in line. I forsee being able to buy Macs from Apple where I'd have a choice of PowerPC or x86.

06-06-2005, 10:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
exizldelfuego Crazy Location: Seattle, WA	Bare with me here while I try and sort out my thoughts on this. First off: if Microsoft owns anything of Apple, is simply as part of their investment portfolio. Microsoft has absolutely no say in what direction Apple takes as a company. When most people refer to MS owning a part of Apple, they're recalling the deal Apple made with MS several years ago settling a long-standing lawsuit between the two in exchange for MS investing... was it $150 million in NON-VOTING Apple Shares (which was really a good-faith deal, as $150 million was a drop in the bucket to Apple's then $4 billion warchest) and a commitment from MS for Office on Mac OS, which was the really important thing. This marked the beginning of the reemergence of Apple from "the dark years." MS has since sold off their purchased stock at a considerable profit. Secondly, Apple's not going to stop supporting the PowerPC version of Mac OS X any time soon. I mean hey, if they've kept Mac OS X for Intel going ever since Rhapsody in the late '90s, why would they up and drop OSX for PowerPC when it wouldn't cost so much to keep the development parallel? It's all based on Darwin anyways. So people who have Macs now won't be left behind. People buying new PowerPC Macs won't be left behind. Apple isn't straight-up abandoning PowerPC. This "switch" is actually quite the blast from the past, and I don't mean just in terms of the "Apple switching to Intel" rumor that has popped up every now and then since the Macintosh's inception. I mean from a strictly NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP point of view (Mac OS X's ancestors). OpenStep, in its prime, ran on four (4) different architectures: 68k, SPARC, x86, and HP-UX (or something like that). And so when Apple bought NEXT and ported OpenStep to PowerPC to become Mac OS X, they initially planned on having an x86 version all along. It got phased out as Apple narrowed their playing field to concentrate on where the money (re: their consumer/developer bases) was really at. So now we learn that Apple has all along been keeping that x86 version up to date. Not a big surprise really, considering that Darwin has been on x86 for a good while now. Just a surprise that the hammer has finally fallen. Just a heads up from where I'm coming from, back in high school I was the sole Mac Geek on campus amongst all the other WinTel geeks, and was quite the Apple Evangelist. After high school, I stopped caring what other people thought of Apple, all I knew was that I loved them. That being said, the idea that Apple will switch away from PowerPC in favor of x86 (of all things!) is a tough pill to swallow. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, it's one of those things that only time will tell. As it stands, I'll probably buy PowerPC Macs for as long as I can, or until there's sufficient reason not to. Steve Jobs didn't offer enough information about what the new Intel-based Macs would be like to really make an opinion. What he really said was "Hey guys, this is what'll be happening in the next year, and here are the tools that you'll need to start getting ready for it." Which is good. That's what should happen at a developer's conference. But with news like this, it's so easy to focus in on the narrow, lower-level information (that Apple is switching to x86) that the really really good news is being overshadowed. Right now, when a programmer creates an application, they're making it for Mac OS X on PowerPC. What Apple's getting them to do is not so much getting them to stop making it for PowerPC and instead make it for x86, but Apple's getting them to stop making assumptions about the processor and instead rely just Mac OS X. Apple has said that PowerPC still has a place in Macintosh, and that they will still be coming out with new computers which will have PowerPC brains. It's just that they're going to be coming out with x86 Macs as well. Therefore developers will need to rely on the tools Apple gives (Xcode) in order to make their binaries compatible with whatever architecture any copy of Mac OS X might be running on. Therefore they're taking Mac OS X back to its NEXT roots by making it a flexible, multi-platform OS. In any migration, actually moving the OS to something else, while no trivial task, is probably the easiest for any company because that can all be managed and handled within the business. The real difficulty is convincing your developer base to shoulder the burden of the switch to get their apps on the new whatever, and then also to get the consumer base to switch over as well. And while Apple seems pretty adept at this (having done so many times over the years), I believe this is ultimately a step which will make the developer/consumer concerns a thing of the past. By getting the developers to program for the OS and not the processor (where they make their code using the provided frameworks and let the compiler worry about the processor), the developer will never again have to worry about migrating their code from one base to another. They'll just need a little bit more QA time to make sure everything runs smoothly on each architecture. And the consumers could care less because all their apps will just work on any machine, so long as that machine is an Apple computer running Mac OS X. This means that in the future, when new and better chips come out from a different source, Apple can decide whether or not it's something worth incorporating into their product lines without having to concern those outside the company in the decision. So while the news is that Apple is switching to x86, something I approach with some trepidation, the really big news here is that Apple is making a move to become the most flexible computer maker in the market. It's not that they're switching to Intel chips, it's that they're paving the way for the ability to incorporate ANY chip they might want into their product line, with Intel chips serving simply as the catalyst. The days of Apple's hardware stagnations at the hands of its chip suppliers are soon to be a thing of the past. If four years down the road Intel plateau's while some new up-and-coming chip is offering promise, Apple can build a machine around the new chip. Imagine the possibility of Apple's product lineup, five years from now, with a Mac Tablet running Mac OS X for ARM, a Mac laptop running Mac OS X for Centrino, a PowerMac G6 running Mac OS X for PowerPC, and an Xserve running Mac OS X for SPARC. Setting the feasibility of supporting all these architectures aside, the point is that the POSSIBILITY is there for it. And that's really encouraging. A lot can happen within two years. And while Apple right now may be saying that they're transitioning from PowerPC to x86 (as in phasing out PowerPC), I fully expect them to keep PowerPC Macs around in machines where it makes sense. The "phasing out" intonations are really there to ensure that the developers step in line. I forsee being able to buy Macs from Apple where I'd have a choice of PowerPC or x86.