06.12.05
Why not both?
This is what I don’t get. Why didn’t Apple, when announcing the new MacTel platform, say that it was adding the Intel chip base to its machines? Why say “We’re going to switch completely!” when they could have just as easily said, “We’re adding Intel chips into the mix. You can expect to see PowerPC and x86 chips from us in the future.”
This makes so much more sense. If Apple sees Intel’s power/watt ratio improve, then great. They ship more Intel-based machines. If IBM/Freescale get the PowerPC to the levels that it should be today, then also great and Apple sticks with the current platform. The key here is that with both Apple has the ability to mix and match, leaping from one to the other as the winds of technology change. Talk about super powers!
The only reason I can think of for going to a full, pull the switch, cross and burn the bridge approach is to scare prompt the developers to get into Xcode and add the Intel-specific portion of the code. (Rather than relying on Rosetta?)
But that seems like a small gain compared to the number of sales that Apple will lose in the next 2 years due to this switch. Fewer and fewer people will purchase PowerPC-based machines as the next generation Intel-based machines get closer and closer to release.
Apple knows this and has even updated the SEC on the fact this switch will cause a significant drop in revenue over the next two years! This just seems like a bad thing. Even if Apple was keeping the ‘switch-back’ in its back pocket in the event that the Intel things don’t go as smoothly as they hope, this seems like the wrong face to present to their income-making customers.
The only silver lining I can see would be ongoing price drops on the PowerPC-based machines in order to prop up the sales. That could lead to some sweet deals on a platform that Apple has already condemed, but will still support for the next 6 to 8 years.