Of all the jibble-jabble over Apple's decision to switch its computers (and customers) from IBM PowerPC to Intel Pentium CPUs, the first one to strike a chord with me is alexhmit01, who made these comments on slash.dot. That, and some comments from others, are summarized as follows:
* It is hard to compare computers running different CPUs. By using the same CPU/hardware, applications running under Apple's OS X can be compared more easily with those running Microsoft's Windows.
* Apple doesn't have to pay the Microsoft Tax, as do other hardware vendors. This allows Apple to price its hardware/OS combo the same as others, yet make more profit.
* Apple could spread the use of Intel CPUs to other hardware products, including iPod and a ressurected Newton.
* Intel just wants to sell CPUs; IBM may have been worried about Apple intruding on its server business, and hence was limiting availability. (Apple also sells server hardware.) In addition, switching to Intel gives Apple two sources of compatible CPUs: Intel and AMD. (Just had a thot: once the transition to Intel CPUs is complete, Apple buys AMD to further lower its costs.)
* Apple will be able to compete for contracts that specify "x86 CPUs."
* With Microsoft many stumbles of late, this lowers the barrier to people considering the Apple alternative -- which is a lot more mature than Linux for the casual desktop user.
Comments