I just came across an insightful comment posting I made back in November 2003 on Mac Observer, anticipating Apple’s move to Intel
Subject: Read for comprehension…
(11/6/2003, 05:36 pm EST)What Jobs said was, “Right now we don’t see a compelling need to switch processor families.”
Get that: “right now” and “compelling need” — if a compelling need arises, then they can and *will* switch.
Here’s the inside line: Apple already has Mac OS X running on Intel. There’s a whole programming group at Apple put aside to keep development of Darwin/Aqua current for other “processor families.”
But Jobs didn’t say “Intel” because all indications were that he was considering AMD (using the Opteron) as an alternative, now that Motorola is pretty much out of the processor picture. (Notice Mo wasn’t mentioned once?) Yes, IBM is a better partner for Apple — but for how long? Processor development is a constant game of one-upsmanship. The G5 is hot right now, but in two more years, there’s due to be another “breakthrough.” (such as SOI or Hypertransport.) And remember, Motorola had a roadmap, too — but couldn’t deliver on its promises.
With Intel releasing 3+Ghz processors and AMD’s Opteron more than keeping pace with the G5, it still remains to be seen if Apple (and Jobs) isn’t still using the prospective of “switching” as a whip to keep IBM pushing the development cycle.
How’s that for predictive ability?
