Apple-Intel: Winners and losers

commentary Every few years, technology companies reinvent themselves. Some businesses do it to survive; for others, pushing the envelope is simply in their blood. Apple Computer is one of few which belong to the latter camp.

So when ZDNet Australia's  sister publication CNET News.com broke the news of an imminent marriage between Apple and Intel -- at the expense of IBM -- my reaction was "it's about time!"

Since 1994, Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors which Apple CEO Steve Jobs described as having a road map that could only deliver about a fifth the performance per watt as a comparable Intel chip.

Finally, Apple has gone straight for the jugular and the move will inevitably result in new victors and casualties in the desktop battlefield. Here's a sample.

Winners (in no particular order):

  • Apple: Market share is meaningless if not translated into profit. Apple has always held this view. But now, the timing is just right to drop IBM.

  • Intel: Pulled off what AMD couldn't. Should rejuvenate its business.

  • Microsoft: In 1997, Microsoft announced its US$150 million investment in non-voting Apple stock. In the short term, if Apple wins, Microsoft wins.

  • Computer users: More choice can only be a good thing. The icing on the cake will come when the cost of a Mac is comparable to a Wintel machine.

    Losers:

  • Linux vendors: What a dampener on the Linux-on-all-desktops vision. The common enemy has always been Microsoft. Could Apple pose a new threat?

  • AMD: It could have been wonderful but alas, beaten to the punch by Intel. Actually, according to Jobs, Apple has been developing all versions of OS X to run on both Intel and PowerPC chips since its inception five years ago.

  • IBM: Does Big Blue see this announcement as a loss?

    In limbo

  • Sun Microsystems: OpenOffice already runs on Mac OS X. When will StarOffice catch up? Also, Sun President Jonathan Schwartz has invited Apple to "adopt Solaris 10 as the underpinning technology of the next generation Mac". Let's see if Jobs bites.

  • PC makers: In future, will Apple allow other manufactures such as Dell to sell Intel-based Macintosh computers?

  • Software vendors: Some of these players will be assessing Apple's move in detail. The possibility of running applications -- including enterprise-class software -- on a new platform should whet their appetite provided it makes business sense.

    If anyone is wondering why it took Apple so long to move into the Wintel space, it's simple: timing. The resounding success of iPod and iTunes has proven that when done correctly, Jobs and the Apple engineers can turn old ideas into a gold mine.

    Did we miss other winners or losers? E-mail us at edit@zdnet.com.au  or talkback below.

    Fran Foo is ZDNet Australia managing editor.

  • Advertisement

    Talkback 7 comments

      Will people please stop tellin ...Anonymous -- 08/06/05

      Will people please stop telling non-sense about Microsoft's investment? Those non-voting shares were part of lawsuit settlement and have been sold a long time ago for huge profit by Microsoft. Google is your friend.

      Well actually it's about time, ...Anonymous -- 08/06/05

      Well actually it's about time, moving onto x86 might actually allow MAC to bring the fight to microsoft's front door, i do however belive they should have stringent compatibility test or limit hardware that can be run on the OS, look to be frank Microsoft has done one hell of a job in creating a sort of common platform for all, but in it's goal to do that they have suffered security, stability and a number of other problems, but you cannot deny the fact that Microsoft can run heaps hardware, thus the problem, Apple on the other hand. not having these problem can succeed where microsoft failed better GUI, speed, stability heck just better usability, but if they do grow to stage where they can challenge microsoft's dominance, both microsoft and apple are going to be in the same sticky end. ( cause apple would need give the typical joe the ability to put funny hardware's in his computer )

      Let's try to consider the foll ...Anonymous -- 08/06/05

      Let's try to consider the following logic (as far as I know the facts):
      1. Mac OS-X is the primary OS for PowerPC (forget AIX, ok?)
      2. Linux is the second prominant OS for the PowerPC.
      3. OS-X stops being developed for PPC.

      Conclusion=> Linux becomes the primary OS for the PPC.
      Possible IBM Action item: promote Linux on PPC (e.g. make sure it runs on all PPC platforms, improve Linux compilers for PPC (i.e. GNU gcc), help PPC-based Macs upgrade to Linux).

      I seriously question the remar ...Anonymous -- 08/06/05

      I seriously question the remark that AMD are a loser in all this. Its been well proven that AMD's processor line outperforms the competition and are known for good value for performance, especially in the gaming pc market. Also just resently new data proved that both the powerpc chips and intel 64bit chips dont quite match that of the new AMD Opteron 64bit cpus in the workstation and server department.

      Its my opinion that AMD are actually in the best position, focusing on what the cpu is built for, cpu power, and doing so at prices that make me laugh at intel and their everchanging socket line up and perverted push for the BTX layout to only better their own lack of design genious that comes out of AMD.

      losers: AMD? pffft!

      What a pile of rubbish! > I ...Anonymous -- 09/06/05

      What a pile of rubbish!

      > If anyone is wondering why it took Apple so long to move into the Wintel space, it's simple: timing.

      Wintel stands for Windows + Intel. Apple will ship Mac OSX, not Windows. So, how exactly are they now in the Wintel space? They are only in Intel space (i.e. they've just become another clone PC manufacturer). Why would anyone bother buying an expensive Mac PC, when they can get a better one from well established PC manufacturers?

      > What a dampener on the Linux-on-all-desktops vision.

      I'm sorry, what? What is the reason for Linux to not run on new Macs? Hey, it's going to be just another PC, after all. And Linux runs on those just fine. And no, Apple won't allow Mac OSX to run on anything but Mac hardware - they said so. It's been reported by no other than Dan Farber of ZDNet. So, how is Apple getting into this imaginary Linux desktop space (which, frankly, doesn't even exist yet)?

      > OpenOffice already runs on Mac OSX. When will StarOffice catch up?

      To what end? To capture 1% of 1% of desktop market share? I hope you aren't serious. OSX is at present a completely unimportant OS for StarOffice. It'll get there is Apple pulls the numbers. We'll see about that. Commodity market (i.e. PC market) is not very forgiving.

      > IBM: Does Big Blue see this announcement as a loss?

      I'm sure they are crying like babies right now. Maybe those pesky things like XBox 360, PS3 and new Nintendo come as a bit of a comfort. You think? No, those things don't have the volume of Macs. No money for poor old IBM. Sniff, sniff... ROFL!

      I think Apple will lose. Intel ...Anonymous -- 12/06/05

      I think Apple will lose.
      Intel chips are not reliable.

      This could result in a very in ...Anonymous -- 29/06/05

      This could result in a very interesting two team race - Microsoft and AMD as one team and Apple and Intel as the other.

      The long building disenchantment of Microsoft with Intel has been obvious for some time, especially in the recent 64 bit Windows fiasco.

      2 years ago AMD had powerful, practical working 64 bit processors that were sporting features that Intel has only just managed to implement. Intel messed up several plans at 64 bit, and then created a chip that runs 32 bit code so slowly that an average P3 machine would beat it!

      Why don't Intel learn from history?

      When the Pentium Pro came out, it was a pure 32 bit processor, emulating all 16 bit instructions. The operating system of the time was Windows 95, which had about 60% 16 bit code in the operating system and nearly 90% in applications. This opened the door for Cyrix to capture a huge amount of the desktop market with a processor that flew through 16 bit code and was passable at 32 bit code.

      Now 64 bit arrives and Intel do the same thing with 32 bit - emulate it.

      No wonder Microsoft decided to side with AMD, and this is probably what made the timing right for the move of Apple towards Intel - or was it the other way around?

    Add your opinion

    Latest Videos

    Sponsored content

    Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

    Blogs

    • Suzanne Tindal IT: Govt's cost-cutting bitch
      The government needs to stop looking at IT as a necessary evil or the place to remove costs when the Treasurer comes calling.
    • Array Can complaints on mobile content be cut?
      On 1 July this year the new Mobile Premium Services Code was introduced. It sounds like it's had a good impact, but is it enough?
    • Array NZ farmers: Bleating about broadband
      As we know, farmers are such bleaters. They bleat as much as the four-legged woolly things in their paddocks. If it's not the weather, it's the strength of the dollar! Nothing is ever right. Likewise with rural broadband.
    • More blogs »

    Tags

    Back to top

    Featured