Intel transition: winners & losers

On 08 Jun 2005, at 08:07 , Herouth Maoz wrote:

> Who is going to suffer from this transition to Intel, other than
> IBM, I mean?

Aspyr and Westlake. They may as well pack it in now, I think,
they're dead.

(and it's too bad, really).

At 7:07 AM -0700 6/8/05, Herouth Maoz wrote:
>Who is going to suffer from this transition to Intel, other than
>IBM, I mean? I think the CPU upgrade manufacturers, e.g. PowerLogix, probably
>will. These companies have expertise in the Power architecture, and now they
>have to acquire Intel expertise, without having Apple's extra cash flow to pay
>for dual lines. Moreover, there will probably be less market for the upgrades
>currently on the market, because who wants to invest several hundred
>dollars in
>machines which may not be able to run the latest software in a short while.

There was and is a thriving aftermarket for old Macs, and I expect
this to be more the case for PowerPC Macs for long after the move to
Intel. There was a small but valuable market for the 9150 Workgroup
Server for long after the transition from NuBus to PCI, and there was
a strong and substantial aftermarket for 8600 and 9600 long after the
transition to G3.

The companies that make CPU upgrades for PowerPC Macs will have lots
of business keeping those old Macs running at higher and higher
speeds - as long as they can get processors from Freescale and
perhaps even IBM.

> Who is going to suffer from this transition to Intel, other than
> IBM, I mean? I think the CPU upgrade manufacturers, e.g. PowerLogix, probably
> will. These companies have expertise in the Power architecture, and now they
> have to acquire Intel expertise

How will they survive at all? When you can buy an Intel CPU from a zillion
sources with lots of different cooling options, what's the "value add"
provided by existing Mac CPU upgrade manufacturers?

The local Apple dealer, who will probably have much less sales the coming
year. Apple, with it's big coffers) might be apple to survive that, but
will he?

(Not everywhere in the world are Apple Stores yet...)

--
mare <marepeghole.com>

Quoting Herouth Maoz <herouthspamcop.net>:

> Who is going to suffer from this transition to Intel, other than
> IBM, I mean? I think the CPU upgrade manufacturers, e.g. PowerLogix, probably
> will. These companies have expertise in the Power architecture, and now they
> have to acquire Intel expertise, without having Apple's extra cash
> flow to pay
> for dual lines. Moreover, there will probably be less market for the upgrades
> currently on the market, because who wants to invest several hundred
> dollars in
> machines which may not be able to run the latest software in a short while.

I think in the short term, and out a bit, these companies will actually do
pretty well. If you put off buying a new Mac today to buy an Intel one in a
couple of years then why not upgrade to a new CPU now for less money?

After 2006 if you want to run anything in OS 9 (including Classic I
believe) you
need a PowerPC Mac. Upgrades may keep those chugging along at a decent rate.

The biggest problems going to Intel are that method Apple plans to use to lock
the OS to their hardware. Will this totally shutdown upgrades? Intel platform
typically has lots of upgrade options.

Kevin

> The biggest problems going to Intel are that method Apple plans to use to
lock
> the OS to their hardware. Will this totally shutdown upgrades? Intel
platform
> typically has lots of upgrade options.

Furthermore, are we going to see more processor choices and more frequent
speed bumps? Typically each Mac model has 2 processor choices (PowerMac has
4) and one speed bump or major revision a year. I think with Intel
processors they could offer at least 3 choices in every model and speed bump
twice a year. But will Apple?

Also, Apple has often been criticized for not adjusting their RAM prices
rapidly enough, will the same be true of their Intel processors?

Aspyr and Westlake. They may as well pack it in now, I think, they're dead.

(and it's too bad, really).

Why are they necessarily dead? The only way in which I can possibly see this happening is if Windows is widely run on Intel-based Macs by most Mac gamers, and I just cannot see that happening. Yes, Schiller said a Mactel would *conceivably* be able to run Windows, that Apple would do nothing to stop it if it happened. But they said they would not officially support it, and I doubt it's going to be easy to run Windows on a Mac. You won't just be able to take any Windows install disc and just install it on a Mac. Some people will undoubtedly run Windows on a Mactel, but I can't see this being widespread enough to seriously hurt Aspyr, Macsoft, or any of the Mac game porting companies. Most Mac gamers are not geeky enough to hack their Mac in order to run Windows. The only way Windows on a Mac might become more widespread is if Microsoft released a new version of Virtual PC that made running Windows on a Mactel completely transparent and just as fast as on a PC, or if not Microsoft, some other developer. This could conceivably happen, and if it did, Aspyr and others will most certainly die. But unless a developer makes it really easy to run Windows on a Mac, there's no reason to assume that Aspyr, Macsoft or any other Mac game company would suffer.

Adam

I imagine Metrowerks would not be a winner. 10 years ago, they created
the tools that eased the transition to the PowerPC. Looks like Apple
got smart this time.

--On June 16, 2005 10:46:20 PM -0700 Chik Foo <fcclistsgmail.com> wrote:

> I imagine Metrowerks would not be a winner. 10 years ago, they created
> the tools that eased the transition to the PowerPC. Looks like Apple
> got smart this time.

I can't imagine Metrowerks not updating Code Warrior to produce Universal
Binaries. They had an Intel product at one time so they have some
experience with x86 code.

Apple maybe trying to drive people to XCode but if I were sitting on a huge
Code Warrior project I'd be banging on Metrowerks door for answers if
they'll be producing a x86 Mac version.

on 6/17/05 9:42 AM, Kevin van Haaren wrote:

> I can't imagine Metrowerks not updating Code Warrior to produce Universal
> Binaries. They had an Intel product at one time so they have some
> experience with x86 code.
>
> Apple maybe trying to drive people to XCode but if I were sitting on a huge
> Code Warrior project I'd be banging on Metrowerks door for answers if
> they'll be producing a x86 Mac version.

Except for the fact that Metrowerks sold off _all_ their x86 technologies in
April. They sold their Windows-based IDE and their Mac-based
cross-compilers, lock-stock-and-barrel.

http://www.metrowerks.com/Discontinued/default.htm

So, if MW wants to compete against XCode to create x86 or Universal Binary
Mac Apps, they will have to start again from scratch (which also assumes
they don't have a non-compete agreement with the company to whom they sold
their older technologies.)

Schwieb