Well the object of each comapny is to make as much money as possible for the cheapest cost as possible, it also means expanding and becoming a larger company/corporation. Why stop at 5% user base when you can get 6,7,8 and so on %. Basically there is no limit.
I understand that if Apple would grow too large their backwards compatibility and support would lag but then again Apple already is one of the fastest growing PC makers in US, add to that the success of the iPod and financially they were doing really fine without Intel.
In all reality, Apple's computer business is only gaining marketshare because the second quarter is a very slow quarter for Windows based PC sales and Apple now sells the Mac Mini, which is in a price range they have never entered before. If All of Apple's computers were seeing a large increase in sales then I could buy the "fastest growing" stuff -- because it's basically only the Mini driving new Mac sales it's fair to say that this "growth" won't be sustained into next year.
I work for one company and cooperate with another simply because they are the only one that offers a certain product but that doesn't mean I like to deal with them. It's nice to have options (Steve Jobs words), MS might have supported Intel throughout but MS eversince Windows 95 became just a marketing company swallowing little software houses one by one (Yes i know Pentium 4 and its GHZ was a marketing campaign also but in all reality Pentium 4 was definately a better product than Windows OS)...
But why would Intel prefer to work with someone else? Intel wouldn't care if Windows 3.1 came shipped on their P4 based machines as long as it was selling. Even if Apple took over all of Microsoft's marketshare it wouldn't make Intel another dime because they'd sell the same amount of computers that Windows sells on now.
I bet Intel prefers Microsoft philosophy to Apple's because it's got the possibility for more growth of the PC industry. Bill Gates is the one trying to expand the computer to everyone. It is because of Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, Dell, and e-Machines that the PC industry can sell over 200 million machines. They made them cheap enough where everyone can afford one (or two or three). Apple, on the other hand, has generally chosen to price their machines far outside of what most people can afford. That doesn't encourage growth for Intel. Sure, it makes Apple money but it keeps the number of processors sold to a minimum.
Microsoft is also taking the PC into places where it has never really been before. The Media Center is a perfect example of that. Now people are buying Media Centers for their living rooms, family rooms, and dorms in addition to having another PC in the office or bedroom. Similarly, Microsoft's Pocket PC, Xbox, and Smartphone concepts are bringing Intel processors (and other chips) into places they have never been before. What is Apple doing to get computers and Intel procs (potentially) into places they've never been before? As far as I can see their computers aren't doing much and the only real opportunity for growth is with the iPod. If iPods started carrying Xscales and Intel Wifi chips then that would get Intel products into new markets but Apple's iPod is dwarfed by Microsoft's Smartphone sales and PDA sales.
From all my readings I understand that Intel is more than willing to move past x86 architecture (Itanium was their attemp at that, a bad attempt but at least they tried)...
No they aren't willing to move past X86 and that's the reason why AMD is leading the charge to x86-64. Intel is selling tons of processors on the x86 platform and changing that to another platform (even a relatively small change like x86-64) is just a waste of development dollars unless it brings new sales. In the case of x86-64, Intel is only moving to it so AMD doesn't steal a ton of marketshare from them. That's why the Pentium M isn't 64-bit yet and won't be for a longtime-- AMD's procs are very little threat to the Pentium M so there's no need to keep it on the cutting edge.
The Itanium was Intel's attempt to move the
server world to a new architecture. Lots of severs already use "alternative" architectures so it was worth a shot. Then AMD came along with x86-64 and essientially showed people how great it was to have full compatibilty with all the X86 software (Linux and Windows). Apple's presence in the server world is virtually non-existient so I doubt they'll have any effect there.
Ultimately, Apple provides Intel with a guarenteed 2-4% marketshare growth in the the next few years.
As far as computers go that's all Apple offers. Apple could jump to some new processor achitecture Intel comes up with but why would they do that? How would selling Apple 4 million procs on a new architecture be any better than selling them 4 million x86 procs? It wouldn't.
With Apple they have someone that is willing to experiment together and besides, its never good for one company to be totally dependent on another, as it goes for Intel and MS...
But why? Microsoft isn't going anywhere. You may hate to hear it but Microsoft is by far the best tech company out there with the exception of possibly Dell. Those two companies are the reason why 200 million PC's will be sold this year. Microsoft's support and products are essientially better for the entire business computing segment. They provide almost everything the industry needs and their support is great too. Apple on the other hand makes large jumps (PPC to X86 for example) and has very little backwards compatibilty commitments. Consumers can handle that but businesses with hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars invested in hardware and software can not. They can't afford to switch OSes every year or even every 18 months.
As much as you think Apple is innovative, they aren't. Their business model of getting very high margins from a very small extremely dedicated user base is innovative but it's not one that will make anyone any money except for Apple.
What has Apple done in the past 20 years to make computing more popular or move computing into places it's never been before (this creates massive opporunity for growth)? Absolutely nothing. They seriously tried with the Newton but that was the a failure and a long-time ago.
Microsoft essientailly brought Intel into the PDA market and made them dominate it. Microsoft is bringing Intel into the Cell Phone market. Microsoft brought Intel into the living room with the Xbox and Media Center. Microsoft is going to bring Intel into the automobile market with Windows CE. Microsoft (and some PC companies) put Intel procs on everyone's home. Microsoft brought Intel into the business market. Microsoft is bringing Intel into the digital media market (clickstar, processor DRM etc).
Apple is giving Intel another 2-4% marketshare in the personal computer market (and AMD can't touch it). Possibly, Apple can get Intel into the iPod but I doubt xscales will ever grace non-video iPods (the biggest sellers) because xscales are too expensive for such a simple device.
