Replies

That's a fascinating consideration. But I wonder whether the XBox 360 will actually be much less expensive than Apple's bargain basement machines and therefore attract OSX users. XBox 360 is expected to start somewhere around $400 (pricing hasn't been released yet -- probably to keep Sony off-balance). That isn't much less than the Mac Mini. Plus, you're not gonna be able to convert an XBox 360 without having somebody modify the physical hardware. It's not like you can do it completely with software (heck, anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it -- MS is very keen on raising the bar against mod-chippers). Still, very fascinating. We'll just have to see what Jobs has to say.

An even more interesting question (as you suggest) is what the Mac faithful will have to say, if Apple does in fact turn to Intel (which I'm skeptical about, to say the least). They've been bashing Intel hardware for years as low-grade crap (unjustified, IMO). If Jobs opens the Apple world to Intel, there's going to be a lot of crow on the menu for Mac fanatics.

I agree that Apple should have made this move years ago. They would have been able to leverage the economy of scale inherent in having Intel, AMD, and countless other hardware designers working for you without paying them a dime. But, no, Jobs and all the other effete snobs at Apple did a great job of shooting themselves in the foot and relegating themselves to the miniscule "education market". It remains to be seen whether Apple could move from being a dedicated hardware company to being a partner with the many Intel/AMD-focused OEMs.

Yes, it is all very interesting. While you make a good argument that a $400 Xbox isn't much different than a $500 Mac Mini, keep in mind that a $350 Xbox (price I've heard rumored) could provide two distinct features, Xbox + OSX, and the fact that MS will be pumping enough of them out to essentially flood any potential OSX market with compatible hardware. Whether OSX support could be done with software only is another good question, but the Pear PC project does (apparently in violation of Apple's license) allow OSX to run on Intel via software only, and Apple hasn't shut that operation down yet either because they can't or don't care to. But if code exists to run OSX on Intel right now, seems getting OSX to run on a PPC system could be much easier.

I'm surprised you're skeptical about the move, seeing as you agree they should have done this long ago. Jobs should have never trusted IBM, after all the animosity he stirred up for them back in the 80's, and it actually made me call his credibility into question when he did it. I was an Apple salesman for MicroAge back then (part time, commission only), and we were fed a steady diet of Jobs' jabs at IBM. Bottom line looks like IBM just strung him out long enough to leave them in this lurch, until something they thought was better (lunix) came along for their processor line.

If it does happen, I don't know if the Mac folks that have been pis poring Intel hardware all this time will eat crow though. I think this whole rumor mill episode has made it obvious a lot of them hate Wintel more than they like/trust Apple and Jobs. As I said above, if Apple does announce a clean break from IBM's chips, and Jobs gets jeered on stage, I expect IBM to rush out PPC desktop that runs Linux, and try to snatch up those that fall into that camp. The only thing that would probably stop that from happening would be IBM, who could look at it and say there's just not enough of a market for PPC desktops to justify it, although if there's anyway that IBM could launch a PPC/Lunix unit, they'd love to, just ask Nick Danger who has predicted huge gains for such a device starting over in China. Jobs vision has historically been to provide both hardware and software, in a proprietary format that locks customers in, and even if he switches to Intel that is the philosophy he natively brings. However if he announces that is what they are now going to do, simply change the chip to Intel, he runs the risk of looking desperate, a chump who fell for IBM's tricks and is now crying to Intel.

My guess if/when he announces it, he'll come out guns blazing against IBM, accuse them of undermining Apple, and announce some sort of partnerships with other vendors like HP to expand the Apple product line into new markets, something that couldn't be accomplished without going with Intel. He'll probably have an Intel prototype chip on display running the current Tiger in emulation mode faster than his current G5 can do.

At least that's what he should do, if he doesn't want to risk losing those customers during any proposed transition. Anything less, he could have a riot on his hands based on the anti-Intel propaganda that's been fed to those people all these years. And the fact that some of them don't want Apple to grow in market share, else they feel less "special". Or who knows, your gut could be right and it's all a sham. I just can't help not to think it is going to happen, when I'm reminded of things like these.

But I wonder whether the XBox 360 will actually be much less expensive than Apple's bargain basement machines and therefore attract OSX users. XBox 360 is expected to start somewhere around $400

Yeah, but the Xbox has 3 3.2GHz PPCs versus a single 1.25/1.4GHz in the Mini. Even at $500 I'd pick up at least one if they could run OS X or Linux (which as you note Microsoft will try very hard to prevent).

An even more interesting question (as you suggest) is what the Mac faithful will have to say, if Apple does in fact turn to Intel

Some will be upset, most won't care. I agree that some have an irrational dislike of Intel due to their ties to Windows, but the vast majority would prefer an x86 Mac running OS X to a PPC box running Linux or Windows.

(which I'm skeptical about, to say the least)

Same here. The end result of Macs running on x86 is neutral or positive, but I don't see a way to get there that doesn't cause Apple a huge amount of pain. But maybe I'm not thinking different enough, we'll see in 18 hours.