The article puts forth interesting theories... but I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into them. Specially as the author noted, the quoted sections are coming from people with their own bias.
For example, at one point it was said that
"Apple, not exactly rolling in cash..." Well, this is an odd statement. Apple has had a strong cash reserve on hand for many years. Cash would seem to be the least of Apple's problems.
And the fact that it seemed to be over looked that Apple has been conservative on their inventory since it almost drowned in it's own overstock in the mid 90's being glossed over was a little odd.
Or how was the clone business such a big thing for Motorola? Most of the clones were using 604/604e processors from IBM. Motorola didn't have anything tempting for anyone until they introduced the G4.
And on the topic of the G4... when Motorola wasn't able to meet demand or meet the promised clock speeds (remember that Apple was forced to drop 50 MHz off of each of the PowerMac G4 lines at their introduction), IBM stepped in to help make G4s. It was widely reported that not only were the IBM G4s able to clock at 500 MHz successfully, they were able to be rated as high as 650 MHz.
How did that have anything to do with Apple? The same chip made at two different factories, one can't produce 500 MHz versions while the other can easily exceed 500 MHz. That is a quality control problem that has nothing to do with Apple Computer what so ever. It was totally Motorola.
The author and his sources also seem to avoid the fact that the PowerPC 970 line was originally designed as a transitional processor to move IBM's AIX clients from their 32 bit environments (running on PowerPC 604e and POWER3 series processors) to the 64 bit POWER4 and beyond. IBM added Altivec to the design to bring Apple onboard with the new processor. And when IBM was forced to make a rapid transition to Linux due to the SCO case, their need for the 970 evaporated.
Apple had gotten into the 970 deal based on the fact that IBM had a vested interest in the processor. IBM's interests in it are now gone and they have no self interest in putting R&D into the line.
I didn't think Apple should have used Motorola because they didn't have a vested interest in the G4 and I see no problem in Apple dropping the G5 now that IBM no longer has a vested interest in it. They should not tie themselves to processor lines where they are the only party with a stake in them.
Motivations are a murky business to be playing in... historical facts are far more reliable, and this story misses to many times on the facts for me to take it too seriously.
Of course I have bias too... I like IBM and their technology. I was an out spoken proponent of IBM during the years Apple had tied themselves to Motorola. I wasn't happy that Apple was not using IBM G3 processors faster than 500 MHz because Motorola's G4 line was stuck at that clock speed (IBM had gotten the G3 up past 700 MHz by that point). And I thought that it was risky to tie everyone in the community to Altivec (which was a Motorola technology that IBM had steered away from).
But in the end, business is business, I have been using an Intel processor daily for 8 years now. I don't dislike Intel just because I'm an IBM fan.
And even given that I'm not about to subscribe to this stuff. It is too riddled with inflammatory statements and glosses to lightly over well documented facts. And seems to want to play the
Jobs ego card way too much.
It was an interesting read as far as conspiracy theories go. I have to give it that much.
