Too little too late? The PPC970 is just as fast as anything Intel is currently shipping and the clock speed has increased more quickly than Intel has managed lately. I'd rather be looking at a dual core 2.5GHz than a single core 3.0GHz processor, wouldn't you?
Which products Apple moves to Intel first is clearly an area for debate, but it's the laptops where Apple has most significantly fallen behind. Centrino based machines offer much better performance than the G4 without using too much power. With laptops now accounting for 50% of sales, Apple was forced to look elsewhere when Freescale and IBM both failed to keep up with Intel. The Mac mini is a bit gutless, but 1.0 products are usually not the best value. The iMac G5 would be great if it didn't overheat. There's really no pressing need for anything there except lower warranty repair costs. In the towers Apple has a very strong performer albeit a pricey one. Asking people to pay more for an iMac in an aluminum box (the last single 1.8 tower) than one with a 17" LCD was clear evidence that Steve still puts too much value on expandability and shows just how much Apple pays to have such fancy cases.
I think Apple will transition completely to Intel for reasons other than processor performance. It's clear that "security" proposals from Intel and Microsoft will be accepted by corporations eager to keep outsiders and whistle blowers from leaking internal documents. Whether it's best for customers or not, Microsoft and Intel will get their DRM into your computers and they will ultimately determine what you can and can't do with them. If Apple's machines don't have the same digital rights management built in, they will be denied access to "secured" networks, thus completely shutting them out of the enterprise. The 1984 commercial is coming true. The only difference is that Big Brother isn't being played by IBM and the hammer thrower is now sitting in the second row just as entranced as the rest of them.
