I did a little writeup on Apple’s move to the Intel x86 architecture over IBM’s POWER architecture for a mailing list I’m on. I’ve heard numerous theories bandied about for why Apple moved, and after a lot of reading and digging, here’s my theory.
On Tue, April 3, 2007 1:10, Rich said: > IMHO, this is probably the biggest reason Apple moved > to the Intel architecture, so programming for the > machine would be easier, and more software will be > available over time. It’s probably also true that > this type of strategy will take years to make any real > gains.
Not quite accurate. Apple has had a version of Mac OS which runs on Intel architecture internally since they began designing Mac OS X in the late 1990’s. It’s been occasionally “released” (leaked) and squashed since then.
The basic problem was financial and supply-chain management. Motorola could not produce the POWER chips (a derivative of IBM’s POWER architecture as part of the AIM — Apple, IBM, Motorola — alliance) in sufficient quantities to keep up with burgeoning demand due to lack of fab time. They also couldn’t produce the chips at a low enough cost. IBM stepped up to the plate in an attempt to keep Apple using POWER-based chips (IBM’s design) with fab time at their under-used fabs. Eventually, Motorola dropped out of the picture entirely, and IBM picked up manufacturing entirely. IBM, however, also could not keep pace with the release of massive numbers of consumer units. Their POWER4 fabrication facilities were sized with the server market in mind (much fewer, higher-margin sales), since IBM uses Intel chips for their desktop lines. Additionally, IBM could not keep up with the pace of advancing chip speeds and diminishing power requirements which Apple wanted.
The curious thing was, IBM had the spare fab capability to handle Apple’s demands. It was available and unused, but the time was scheduled and sold to a company who IBM was not willing to bump in order to provide more chips to Apple. This other company was going to place massive demands on IBM’s fabrication facilities with even more units of POWER4 chips than Apple could project sales of in their wildest dreams, and IBM would not budge on the fabrication projection.
Thus Apple was faced with a problem: 3-month or longer lead times on their processors if they stick with the PowerPC (now Power4) architecture. Intel had been courting Apple for some time. They had spare fabrication capacity due to a falling-out over a major contract with a large company on a next-generation console. With the arrival of IVT — Intel Virtualization Technology — and the lower-power dual-core Pentium M chipsets (now called Intel CoreDuo2), they had a winner. IVT would allow seamless virtualization of the legacy POWER-based Mac OS X applications at nearly-native speeds, and the Pentium M finally had the horsepower to keep up with what the POWER chips could do at similar clock speeds and power requirements.
The bonus to developers was much more of a perk than a requirement. Ultimately, Apple went with the supplier who could give them what they needed to support their stupendous growth after the release of Mac OS X and the iPod; neither Motorola nor IBM could.
And that major competitor, that large company who booked the fab time with IBM, was the same company that ditched Intel for their next-generation console. That company is Microsoft, and the console was the XBox 360.
And now you know… the rest of the story.
I love PCs..
But people who love Macs seem to love macs more. I do often feel as if I’m missing something.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Marketing
It’s all marketing. Mac has begun to succeed by encouraging the idea that Mac users are “cool” and “counterculture”. For 95% of all computer users, there is no drastic difference in ease-of-use between PC and Mac.
— Ben
Mac has begun to succeed
They have just begun? I think they began over 20 years ago…
begun to succeed
What I mean is that the Mac has been hovering at around 5% market share since the early 80s. That market share has been increasing in the last few years because of the marketing I described.
Mac’s first good idea was the iMac, which had the benefit of being “cute” and “cool”. Since then, they’ve surfed on the popularities of “cool” ideas like the iPod, and marketing techniques like the very successful “Mac/PC” ads.
The point I’m trying to make is that Mac’s recent successes have been because of clever marketing rather than technology.
— Ben
Everyone Loves The Underdog
Everyone has a PC, which is synonymous with the evil giant Microsoft and ugly computers which don’t always work correctly and remind most people they don’t understand computers.
Then there is Apple, which is the underdog, cool because it’s the counter-culture. Macs are more reliable because Apple locks them down much more than PCs are. This is a double-edged sword: Less things can go wrong, but also you have less ability to innovate. For 90% of the populace, who all they want to do is surf the web, IM, check email, do some simple multimedia, and do moderate word processing, a Mac is a wonderful thing which provides those capabilities and “just works”. For the rest of us who want to tweak our computers to the max, the Mac isn’t the thing.
It’s funny, because given what I’ve just described to you, you would think that Macs would have the lion’s share of the PC market and Windows would be a niche thing, but the exact opposite is true. I guess in the end, the ability to freely innovate won out over ease of use. But now that hardware innovation is slowing down and software is becooming more important, Macs may make a big dent in the Windows PC share.
My $.02 Weed