Here's a quick guide to all the POSSIBLE meanings for this. Crazy or not.
Remember we are not talking about what is possible today. We are talking about what is possible in 2006-2007. And we don't know when the parties STARTED whatever change may--or may not--be coming. The contenders (and please add!):
* Nothing at all. Hoax or misunderstanding.
* Apple intentionally plants a hoax, to put pressure on IBM or flush out leaks.
* Apple switches gradually to x86, and all apps must be converted.
* Apple switches to a future x86 chip so fast that emulation can handle current apps whether converted or not.
* Apple switches to x86, with a G4 or G5 included for compatibility for as long as needed.
* Apple puts Intel x86 chips in some Macs, also keeps PowerPCs in other Macs as well. Split product line. Maybe Intel only for laptops, or only for high-end workstations.
* IBM or Freescale allows their PPC designs to be manufactured by Intel.
* Apple's contract with IBM means that if IBM fails to deliver, they must let Apple take the design elsewhere. Intel.
* Intel designs a new PowerPC for Apple.
* Apple uses Itanium or a variation.
* Apple uses a custom x86, not compatible with PC x86 chips.
* Apple sells OS X for Intel and lets anybody make clones again.
* Apple lets a limited number of partners resell Intel Macs the way HP resells iPods.
* Apple sells a dual Windows/Mac line that can run both systems well.
* Intel chips used in some other new way, or in some other non-Mac product. Such as iPods--maybe using Intel hardware DRM to allow subscriptions.
* Some other kind of Intel parntership entirely, such as WiMax.
If any of this is true, the option I really LIKE is Intel PPCs of some flavor. Probably a long shot.
"Jobs basically said no," however, basically means nothing

"Jobs actually said no" would have me more convinced that Jobs wasn't carefully skirting the truth. Apple execs have been known to do that: iMac G5, anyone?