AMD would have been x86 as well.
And yeah, it was specifically x86. It's amazing how many people I got to switch when having a VM available. That market is pretty large. Half the Mac users in this office have to rely on VMs.
Which means that they haven't actually switched - they now run TWO systems at the same time and have to deal with additional complexity and additional problems. What did they gain? Additional costs and more headaches.
VMs are awesome tools for DEVELOPERS. But as a user, if you cannot move to a new platform 100%, then don't even think about a migration. It's not worth it.
About the whole CPU and OS merging story:
Apple only sells a fistful of Mac Pros and they don't even sell servers anymore. In that segment, I'm pretty sure Intel wouldn't even notice it if Apple switched to somebody else.
Mobile CPUs... That's a different story. Apple is a prestigious customer here and most of the Macs that Apple sells are notebooks. Yes, losing Apple would hurt Intel, but certainly not as much as some folks here think. The PC market is fragmented, sure, but that certainly is not a problem for Intel. They don't care if they have to sell to a million customers or only a few dozen as long as most players in the fragmented market use Intel chips. And thus far, they all do. So even talking about a fragmented market here doesn't really make sense. I'm pretty sure Exxon doesn't care much about the fragmentation in the automobile industry either as long as all cars need gas...
The merging of iOS and OS X. Like I've said before, it's inevitable and the next thing to come. It will be interesting to see HOW Apple is going to do it, but it's not a question of IF they will do it. Maybe they'll add a compatibility layer to OS X (like Rosetta) that can run iOS applications. Maybe they are planning iOS gadgets that are powerful enough to run OS X applications in a virtualized environment. Maybe they will "simply" add all the missing OS X APIs to iOS and thus make the platform feature complete enough to become the natural successor of OS X. But at this point: Who knows what route they will take.
Personally, I expect them to close the shop on "old" OS X and use the foundation of iOS instead. iOS is a closed platform, just the thing that Apple loves so much.
On the hardware front, seeing that quad core processors for mobile phones are expected before the end of this year, I'm pretty sure that they won't have to rely on x86/x64 CPUs for much longer. The computing power of the next generation of iPads and iPhones will be sufficient for the average Apple customer, even if those devices have to run software monsters like Aperture or Final Cut. Let's not forget that Apple is a CONSUMER company, and most consumers simply don't need an air craft carrier to go shopping.
Then there is this huge data center and the forthcoming iCloud, that will be an essential component of the next version of iOS and all other Apple software. When you plan to move your customers to the cloud, why shouldn't you also move most of their number crunching and computing power consuming tasks to the cloud as well? Provided that you have enough mobile bandwidth, there is no reason why all the processing has to be done on the mobile gadget or the desktop PC at home. With a billion dollar server farm in the background, you can basically turn an iPad into a remote control for all kinds of powerful software. Basically, that's what Google is trying with the ChromeBooks or what this company is doing that let's you play real PC games on an iPad through terminal sessions.
I think that in the future, a lot of intelligence that used to be on the client device will move to the cloud and with devices that are always online, users won't feel a difference (at least as long as their Internet connection doesn't break down). Local CPU power won't be that important anymore.
I mean the MBA is just an iPad with a keyboard. Anybody want to guess the number of thumbs down votes this post will have by sunrise?
