Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacRumors WWDC 2005 Live Keynote Coverage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Stupid posts
Good God! The number of stupid posts on this topic is just frightening.
The move to Intel does NOT mean that it will be an open architecture box. It does NOT mean it will be a PC. Apple are utilising the superior performance of Intel processors (speed, heat, production yield). The rest of the hardware is going to be APPLE designed and Apple specific.
Why is it so hard for people to see this!
You will NOT be able to load Windows on such a computer (other than through some sort of Virtual PC emulation).
Bottom line is that it will be a Mac running OS X and running it a lot better than with the current processors.
So don't be fooled that you can buy a Dell and stick in the OS X DVD and load the software. Apple are not that stupid.
A brilliant move by Apple and with the promise of WiMax in the future from Intel, I can only see upside.
Good God! The number of stupid posts on this topic is just frightening.
The move to Intel does NOT mean that it will be an open architecture box. It does NOT mean it will be a PC. Apple are utilising the superior performance of Intel processors (speed, heat, production yield). The rest of the hardware is going to be APPLE designed and Apple specific.
Why is it so hard for people to see this!
You will NOT be able to load Windows on such a computer (other than through some sort of Virtual PC emulation).
Bottom line is that it will be a Mac running OS X and running it a lot better than with the current processors.
So don't be fooled that you can buy a Dell and stick in the OS X DVD and load the software. Apple are not that stupid.
A brilliant move by Apple and with the promise of WiMax in the future from Intel, I can only see upside.
efoto said:
I always found it weird that PC users LEAVE those stickers on their laptops and whatnot..
efoto said:
you apparantly missed all of this
10:35am PDT - Heres the geekout for developers: Widgets, scripts, Java: theyll just work. Cocoa - Xcode: small tweak, recompile. Carbon - Xcode - a few weeks of tweaking, recompile. Carbon- Metroworks: Move to XCode.
10:37am PDT - Theres a checkbox for builds: Intel, PowerPC that makes a cross-platform single binary.
and this
10:45am PDT - Steve back onstage: Not every application will be Universal on Day 1. A new technology, Rosetta, will run existing PowerPC apps on Intel. Dynamic binary translation, transparent to users. Fast (enough), the slide jokes, that most users wont know.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Well, there's no question Apple is moving more and more away from being a hardware company - between the OS, Final Cut Studio, iLife, iWork and QuickTime Pro registrations and iTMS sales, the profit percentage coming from hardware is likely to keep shrinking.
Still, it's hard to see how they're going to work this, even in a year's time, they still are going to be very reliant on high hardware margins.
OH don't be so melodramatic. Mac heads will still buy PPC macs. There is no reason not to, especially with Rosetta existing on the Intel macs. All our software will still run.Dr.Gargoyle said:"Mac heads" wont pay 3k for a system that has been terminated. Sales will drop to nothing in the coming months.
Mac just died...
eVolcre said:
Well Apple were starting to gain some growth especially in OZ (where Im from) ! Now with the big intel push - Apple have become one of them (the IBMers) so why buy another intel when most people already have one in the house ??? the average Joe will say "can't i just buy the OS" ???
Dr.Gargoyle said:"Mac heads" wont pay 3k for a system that has been terminated. Sales will drop to nothing in the coming months.
Mac just died...
You guys are looking at this from a techhead/mac zealot standpoint. MACS are a SMALL percentage of the total market and us idiots who refresh every 2 mins of macrumors form an even smaller percentage of that. From a business standpoint, sometimes you have to take a short term hit for long term success. You absolutely cannot have blinders on and look only at immediate numbers. Anyone with vision will be willing to take a short term loss IF the long term benefit has a NPV that is greater than the short term loss in sales/profits/revenue. Steve has thought this thing out a lot more than you or me. In business cycles, a short term hit of one year is remarkable. It took Lou Gerster 3 years of agita at IBM before he was able to instill his dramatic change of going form a products based company to a services organization. Turned the damn thing around.
This is going to be a case study in B-School one day, I guarantee it. I just hope it makes it into the curriculum before i graduate next year.
AND STEVE, IF YOU'RE READING THIS - PM ME IF YOU'RE HIRING!!!!
Soooo.. will the new Intel chip be called the G6?
Also:
From the "Official" press-release:
We'll still have to buy from Apple. OK. Cool. But will it cost a little less? Can we use PC-based video cards? That would be nice. No more high-cost freaking video cards.
Also:
From the "Official" press-release:
We'll still have to buy from Apple. OK. Cool. But will it cost a little less? Can we use PC-based video cards? That would be nice. No more high-cost freaking video cards.
yellow said:
Well come on! It tells you what's inside: that's important. If it wasn't there, how would you know? Man, I can't wait for my own Intel sticker. I hope it's really cool looking like that one on my pal's Dell. Plus, my homemade "Freescale Inside" nametag-sticker is showing its age.
yes- compiled to run, but OPTIMIZED to run?yellow said:
There's gonna be a big difference when these intel Macs come out and people are going to begin benchmarking apps etc!?
Can I coin the term:
"Macintels" please!
nhkader said:
In the long run, I agree. However I think the short term pain may turn out to rather worse than they think.
I can't believe they made this announcement without at least one Intel Mac ready to ship. Not because "I can't wait" but because people who want to buy a Mac but don't want to buy Power need some path to take...
bosrs1 said:
I disagree....Its like buying a Playstation 2 when you know that the PS3 will be released in two months or Buying a program just before it gets upgraded...eg: buying panther just before tiger came out
alandail said:
well then he shouldn't have been yapping on about itunes marketshare, should he?
and it being a dev conference hasn't stopped him in the past.
Macmadant said:Betrayed we have been the end of the mac is near and the rise of mac osx is hear never agin will i use a mac
From a business standpoint, you're the kind of user that I wouldn't mind losing because from a numbers perspective, if I lose you and stand to gain a few more, I'll take the gain. You can't market to every segment out there. You pick and choose. And if the downside is that you lose 'people like you' but stand to gain in some other targeted segment, I'll take the gain. You'r the kind of user I could never make happy, there are a ******** of 'mainstream' users in numbers as compared to the early adopters/tech heads. Steve has to go after the bulk - to grow the company. You can't be successful only catering to a small group of tech heads. At some point you make the decision to go from being a niche/elite company, to going mainstream. And that's what Steve has done, brilliantly I think.
This is great
How on earth can this be bad?
All economic arguments favor going with Intel chips.
Any rational power users will be fine with either Intel or PPC chips. In principle and on paper, I prefer the PPC architecture and altivec. However, in practice it's just never delivered the goods for Apple and never will, since Apple doesn't buy enough chips to influence IBM. I think it's a wash as far as performance is concerned for all but (perhaps) some very very specialized applications.
As far as consumers, they couldn't care less about Intel vs. PPC. They'll buy Macs because they are easier to use, things work better, they own an iPod, the OS is a bit more secure, whatever. Sure, I agree that it's a little harder to differentiate Macs now that the chips are the same. But how many consumers do you really ever think bought a Mac because of the processor?
Personally, I find my Powerbook's 1.5ghz G4 chip to be an embarrassment and I am looking forward to getting an Intel-based powerbook as soon as the second rev of Apple products come out.
How on earth can this be bad?
All economic arguments favor going with Intel chips.
Any rational power users will be fine with either Intel or PPC chips. In principle and on paper, I prefer the PPC architecture and altivec. However, in practice it's just never delivered the goods for Apple and never will, since Apple doesn't buy enough chips to influence IBM. I think it's a wash as far as performance is concerned for all but (perhaps) some very very specialized applications.
As far as consumers, they couldn't care less about Intel vs. PPC. They'll buy Macs because they are easier to use, things work better, they own an iPod, the OS is a bit more secure, whatever. Sure, I agree that it's a little harder to differentiate Macs now that the chips are the same. But how many consumers do you really ever think bought a Mac because of the processor?
Personally, I find my Powerbook's 1.5ghz G4 chip to be an embarrassment and I am looking forward to getting an Intel-based powerbook as soon as the second rev of Apple products come out.
- Status