IBM essentially gives two excuses: First, the Apple PC market wasn't large enough. Complete BS. IBM isn't a small naive company. They did their due diligence. They had Apple sales figures and projections before the agreement took place and knew precisely what they were getting into. Second, cost. Again, complete BS. Besides the reasons noted above, their cost couldn't have wavered from projections unless there were major technical problems on their end requiring additional resources (expenses) to resolve. Frankly, if that were the case, that's their problem. But I see IBM has made no such admission.
The fact is, IBM made promises and they didn't deliver. The G5 updates have been nothing short of miserable, barely enough just to sustain the Powermac line since the it took the G5 badge. IBM promised a 3ghz G5 a year after the introduction of the 2 ghz model. It's still a no-show. No G5 of any kind for Apple laptops. All things being equal, had IBM actually kept it's end of the bargain, then their excuses might seem more worthy of attention, but it plainly obvious that they didn't. IBM is just employing a little game of misdirection. Shift attention away from it's pathetic performance with the G5, and simply exploit the general perception of Apple's low market share in hopes that everyone will just accept that familiar sounding song and not bother to closely examine how IBM actually performed under the deal. Analysts note that the impact for IBM is negligible because the Apple's G5 "only" accounted for 2 percent of the output from it's NY plant. Gee, that's interesting. What was the other 98 percent doing while Apple had to publicly postpone the introduction of G5 iMac for months due to the shortage of IBM's G5 chips? Yes, as another poster said, IBM is just playing games now.
Regarding the Intel vs PPC issue, it's a no-brainer. Apple biggest challenge going forward wasn't choosing a new CPU vendor, it was too assure software compatibility for both PPC and Intel. Apple has a reputation as being a smart company, and the plan they've come up with is effectively bulletproof. If there was a major problem, you would have heard about it by now from the developers, all of whom are conveniently gathered under one roof this time and thus easy to poll. Apple's major software providers have all come forward and signed on to the plan. In fact, virtually NONE of the software developers has come forward with a story that Apple's switch has presented major obstacles for them going forward. Thats a major (and thus far, hugely overlooked) achievement for Apple. Most of the attention has squared on the somewhat ironic fact that Apple is switching to Intel processors
Well, seeing how IBM did such a thorough job of screwing the pooch, it isn't all that ironic, as we'll see soon enough. The "osborne effect" is another issue that's dead on arrival. First, it assumes that Apple has pre-announced a product that has such tremendous appeal that it's entire computer line will be overlooked in anticipation of it. Apple hasn't announced any future products, in fact, they remain steadfastly tight-lipped about future products as they always have. Second, the switch away from PPC processors assumes that Mac buyers purchased Mac's because of the PPC processor. The fact is, blasphemous as it may sound around here right now, no one really cares about the processor. Most consumers don't even understand how a processor works, much less understand it's role is inside the computer (the megahertz myth). What consumers do care about however is the computer they buy - the box that they pay for, turn on and use everyday. I think any honest Mac user will admit that it's the combination of the OS, software, style, and machine speed (however the user may quantify it) that make up the reasons for buying an Apple box. If the OS is Mac, and the machine is fast, then it's all good. And that's where Apple wins.
All Apple needs to do with it's next hardware update, whether it's PPC or Intel, is to provide something that is roughly 20 percent faster than the machine it replaces. That's pretty much what they've done in the past and if they continue to do so, no one is going to care about what company makes the CPU inside or is going to complain.
But what about the "superiority" of the PPC design? Well, it is. Everything Apple said about the PPC is true. If I were in the market for a new computer and Apple happens to update with a faster PPC model, I'd buy it with no second thoughts. I got a faster computer than the one I had before. Good for me.
So what about all of that PPC goodness when Apple makes the switch to Intel? Two words: Moore's law. Intel has repeatedly stated the company is steadfastly committed to adhering to Moore's law. On the other hand, the G5 has only recently wheezed to 2.7 ghz, still no 3 ghz G5 and counting after a year after IBM announced it's birthday. In this case, Moore's law works decidedly in Apple's favor. When IBM's and Freescale's PPC runs out of gas (if they haven't already), along comes Intel to save the day and picks up the slack. The bottom line is the Apple customer always gets a faster Apple box, and the Intel vs PPC argument isn't going to stop it.
