Did anyone else feel hoodwinked when the Intel switch was announced ?

[TheShortTimer]

Let’s just hope they don’t back themselves into a corner they can’t escape should sales of their Macs begin to go — and stay — relatively flat.

So true. Hubris has been at the core of many a downfall. No organisation is invincible. Apple themselves are a case in a point.

The memories of the 90s and constantly reading in the computer press about Apple's whopping financial losses remans vivid. Even after Jobs returned and unveiled the iMac, there was still a period of uncertainty before he revived the company's fortunes. I recall MacBiter in his Mac column for Computer Shopper pondering whether Jobs had enough time to turn things around - despite his brilliance and that of his appealing new product.

If they rest on their laurels and history repeats itself, there may not be saviour with the savvy of Jobs.

 

[rampancy]

Some time ago I embarked on this project and really need to finish it.

A poster on ThinkClassic provided a pretty instructive guide on accomplishing this modification.

I've seen quite a few mods for using a 2006-2008 Blackbook case to accomodate a 5,1 or 5,2 motherboard - that was always something I'd wanted to try doing but just never that the time or energy to devote to it. They do look really nice though.

On the subject of the 4,1 A1181 MacBook I was really disappointed when Apple decided to stick with the GMA X3100, and not go with the far more powerful GMA X4500MHD, which was supposed to provide double the performance. I doubt it's capability would have come close enough to the GeForce 8800m GT in the MacBook Pro to threaten its "pro" status. As with many Apple decisions, it was likely to keep costs low and margins high.

It was to be expected that Apple base 'iPhoneOS' on OS X rather than create a new OS from scratch.

There was actually a team lead by Tony Fadall that would have created an OS for the iPhone based on the iPod. I personally don't think that would have been successful in the long run as iOS turned out to be, but it's definitely food for thought.

As for Apple's experience in designing chips, the early SoCs for devices like the original iPhone and iPod touch were manufactured by Samsung, but to Apple's specs. It's likely Apple got the start of its experience in SoC design from it's work with Samsung around this time, and PortalPlayer before them.

They did, but arguably, they passed on it.

IBM announced the 64-bit POWER3 two weeks before Motorola announced the 32-bit PPC7400. Both were designed around the PowerPC ISA.

I would think that Apple passed on the POWER3 for the same reason they passed on the PPC 620; it ran too hot and consumed too much power for the thin and light/portable products they wanted to make. (Plus it was never intended for consumer-level computing products.)

Perhaps Apple would have used it in a product like the Xserve or the Apple Workgroup Server, but who knows if there would have been a sustainable market for it back then?

[An amusing thing is IBM added Motorola’s AltiVec to their PPC750 plans, but ultimately never implemented them, at least in whole, for a finished chip product.]

Ah yes, "Mojave", the rumored cancelled PPC750VX. According to very dubious sources it was supposed to clock at 1.0-1.4 Ghz+ and would have wound up in the iBook (and possibly the iMac?) - the only problem is that by the time the design work had started Apple had already decided to transition both the iBook and the iMac to the G4.

Of all of the PPC vapourware projects that I've seen (one person once spoke of a hybrid IBM PPC CPU that would have had the core of a 604 side-by-side with an x86 core!), that 750 derivative was one of the most tantalizing, as it seemed like it was actually technically plausible. I wonder how it would have stacked up against the 7455, the 7457, or the Pentium M CPUs of the day.

 

[Amethyst1]

There was actually a team lead by Tony Fadall that would have created an OS for the iPhone based on the iPod.

AcornOS — that would be fun to give a spin (no pun intended).

 

[TheShortTimer]

On the subject of the 4,1 A1181 MacBook I was really disappointed when Apple decided to stick with the GMA X3100, and not go with the far more powerful GMA X4500MHD, which was supposed to provide double the performance. I doubt it's capability would have come close enough to the GeForce 8800m GT in the MacBook Pro to threaten its "pro" status. As with many Apple decisions, it was likely to keep costs low and margins high.

Apple committed similarly needless shadiness with the lower-range PPC models by undermining their functionality in order to prevent them from competing with the higher-range products. Simply adding greater features to the more expensive models appeared to be beyond their comprehension.

 

[mode11]

Apple committed similarly needless shadiness with the lower-range PPC models by undermining their functionality in order to prevent them from competing with the higher-range products. Simply adding greater features to the more expensive models appeared to be beyond their comprehension.

They've long had the good/better/best strategy, where the lowest model is spitefully gimped, the mid-range one is the one you'd want, and the highest model is for people with more money than sense (or professionals for whom the cost is justified, if it speeds up their workflow a little).

The lowest model has often been neutered in some way that you can't work around, e.g. a slower bus, older GPU interface, miserly laptop VRAM etc. It doesn't particularly save Apple any money, just pushes you to the mid-range model.

 

[Donoban]

No. I felt something, but it wasn't anger or betrayal.

In 2006 I was two years in to a 14.5 year job and the PowerMac G5 the boss had bought was a year and a half old. My own Mac (then, a TiBook 400) had been a Christmas present. It's not until December 2009 that I'm actually buying my own Macs.

My first Intel Mac was 2013, the first Intel my then boss bought for work was also 2013. I did not fully convert to Intel for my own personal use until May 2020.

So, basically, when Apple switched to Intel I shrugged. Whatever.

I did laugh though. Apple had spent years publicly shaming Intel and now they were using Intel chips. It taught me a good lesson when I started buying the iPhone. Apple only cares about Apple and they'll say whatever they think people want to hear to sell you something. Just like any company. Now Apple still makes (IMO) a better product, but nowdays that's not saying much anymore.

I'll stick with Apple until they themselves force me out.

This post entirely typed in on a 2009 MacPro, which makes it 15 years old.

If we don't give ourselves permission to change our minds we will become stuck.

Kudos for Apple having the balls to admit they were wrong.

 

[eyoungren]

Kudos for Apple having the balls to admit they were wrong.

I can handle Apple admitting that.

But it'd be interesting to know just what Steve Jobs felt. Because Apple was Steve and if Apple changed it's mind, that means Steve changed his mind first.

And Jobs was never really interested in admitting he got anything wrong, let alone discussing it.

 

[mode11]

It takes a special kind of brass neck to tout the superiority of PPC one year, then go on stage the next and not only announce a transition to Intel, but emphasise how much of an improvement it is over PPC. Luckily, SJ had absolutely no shame, and the Apple faithful were a whoopin' and a hollerin' by the end of his presentation.

Of course the transition to x86 was the right move. I'm not sure how much 'balls' it took though, given Apple had little choice. With desktop PPC dying, the only other option would have been to close down the Mac.

It helped that Macs were about to get a lot faster, and have the option to boot / virtualise Windows for apps and games too. Plus, by using mainstream hardware, we could finally concentrate on what really made the Mac special - the OS - rather than kidding ourselves that Mac hardware kept up with PCs.

 

[Dronecatcher]

It takes a special kind of brass neck to tout the superiority of PPC one year, then go on stage the next and not only announce a transition to Intel, but emphasise how much of an improvement it is over PPC.

My analogy is - imagine driving a Volkswagen and there’s a Toyota driving work colleague who goes out of his way to tell you what a bad car you have, quotes selectively from car review magazines to emphasise your stupidity for driving a Volkswagen and makes this his main topic of conversation…for about seven years.

Then, one Monday morning he turns up to work in a new Volkswagen and proceeds to boast how it’s the only car for him and how Volkswagen are clearly a superior brand…

 

[B S Magnet]

It helped that Macs were about to get a lot faster, and have the option to boot / virtualise Windows for apps and games too. Plus, by using mainstream hardware, we could finally concentrate on what really made the Mac special - the OS - rather than kidding ourselves that Mac hardware kept up with PCs.

Indeed.

And the OS was special… until it no longer was special.

::insert my usual CF whinge here::

 

[mode11]

My analogy is - imagine driving a Volkswagen and there’s a Toyota driving work colleague who goes out of his way to tell you what a bad car you have, quotes selectively from car review magazines to emphasise your stupidity for driving a Volkswagen and makes this his main topic of conversation…for about seven years.

Then, one Monday morning he turns up to work in a new Volkswagen and proceeds to boast how it’s the only car for him and how Volkswagen are clearly a superior brand…

Yes, it could leave one feeling like a bit of an idiot if you'd been listening to a Toyota salesman, and repeating to others how much better Toyota engines are.

I guess it depends on where your interest in Macs lies. If you're primarily a fan of macOS, then whatever gets you better performing hardware is fine, and you likely recognised that whatever SJ said on stage was just sales guff anyway. But Macs have always had premium prices, and you'd be forgiven for feeling like a mug if you'd spent big on a PPC Mac shortly before the transition was announced. And even worse later, when support was abruptly dropped.

2019 MP owners may feel similarly about the AS transition. Though given the cost of those machines, most are likely just business assets, being deprecated over a few years anyway. Freelancers with them are likely bummed out though, as they get no GPU upgrades, future support or upgrade path, and their value will shortly fall off a cliff.

 

[Dronecatcher]

For me the technical reasons don’t matter - we know logically Intel was the way forward but it’s just as you said, the “brass neck.”

We know it’s part of the “never admit you’re wrong” Jobsgeist from Apple but I prefer people I can trust - those who aren’t afraid to tell you something you don’t want to hear…that’s probably why I’m poor and aspiring Job-heads are coining it in

 

[mode11]

“never admit you’re wrong” Jobsgeist from Apple

I get that a big part of the appeal of Apple is the veneer of 'perfection', the 'it just works' etc. But there are times when the refusal to admit fault looks at best an insult to your intelligence, and at worst, fraudulent.

The butterfly-keys in the 2016-2020 laptops were an absolute travesty, and Apple just tried to glide over it. Same with the numerous issues they've had with overheating laptop GPUs. Worse still are the Apple users who defend everything Apple do, and acting like paying for AppleCare is always the solution.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Same with all the numerous issues they've had with overheating laptop GPUs.

Yep - there's a considerable list - exploding batteries, bad capacitors, GPUs, soldering joints and my personal gripe a non-functional SD card reader on my Mac mini - a common fault for which the solution is "buy a new Mac...."

 

[mode11]

Yep - there's a considerable list - exploding batteries, bad capacitors, GPUs, soldering joints and my personal gripe a non-functional SD card reader on my Mac mini - a common fault for which the solution is "buy a new Mac...."

Apple 'build quality' is a funny thing. On one hand, the milled aluminium shells and black PCBs look very swish. Their screens are great, and everything feels solid. But I wouldn't say their reliability is particularly impressive, with many models seeming to have endemic faults (e.g. 'Flexgate'). And whilst aluminium laptops look very nice in the showroom, they need a hard case or sleeve in the real world to keep their looks. I've always preferred ThinkPad's here, which are so durable you could probably use one to hammer nails into a wall.

Mac repairability is increasingly atrocious too. It's really a marketing masterstroke that Apple prices repairs so high that customers willingly take out insurance - with Apple! - to hedge against what is effectively a total loss should anything go wrong.

 

[B S Magnet]

Mac repairability is increasingly atrocious too. It's really a marketing masterstroke that Apple prices repairs so high that customers willingly take out insurance - with Apple! - to hedge against what is effectively a total loss should anything go wrong.

It’s because Apple have engineered out most aspects of repairability in lieu of a fully integrated, cryptographically-locked unit designed to be “recycled” instead of being repaired.

This began incrementally, but acceleration toward that end picked up momentum with the fused retina display assemblies of MacBooks (and contractually prohibiting their display vendor, LG, from selling the LCD part itself to independent repair centres or to parts resale vendor as Mouser, PCHub, or Panelook). This engineering out of repairability was, more or less, a done deal by the time of T2 chips, the cryptographic locking associated with that chip’s core function, and either soldering all consumables or using heavy-duty glue to make battery replacements much more difficult.

Apple have created an escalation of the waste stream cycle, whereas before faulty parts would be recycled, but now entire devices are subject to recycling (and all the energy consumption which goes into that) when, in most cases, one core component fails.

 

[mode11]

using heavy-duty glue to make battery replacements much more difficult

This is a great example. Whilst the bonded batteries may add some minor degree of rigidity to the laptop, the battery is a consumable (it'll degrade with time even if desk-bound) that will always need replacing at some point. Given that Lithium-Ion batteries have a tendency to turn into roman candles if punctured, this means DIY repair involves sitting outside with a bucket of sand, a fire extinguisher and an abnormally high heart rate. Rather than simply undoing a couple of screws, as you would on a comparable thin and light laptop like an X1 Carbon.

 

[B S Magnet]

This is a great example. Whilst the bonded batteries may add some minor degree of rigidity to the laptop, the battery is a consumable (it'll degrade with time even if desk-bound) that will always need replacing at some point. Given that Lithium-Ion batteries have a tendency to turn into roman candles if punctured, this means DIY repair involves sitting outside with a bucket of sand, a fire extinguisher and an abnormally high heart rate. Rather than simply undoing a couple of screws, as you would on a comparable thin and light laptop like an X1 Carbon.

It’s bad praxis.

 

[mode11]

It's clearly not in the interests of the customer, but it's a downside to having a single hardware supplier to a platform. Dell or HP couldn't get away with this stuff; they would just lose sales to competitors. But if you don't like Apple's decisions, they (and their syco-fans) will just point you in the direction of the highway.

 

[Basic75]

the original Core Duo-based MacBook Pro was a monster of a machine

As a G5 owner I couldn't take the Intel Macs seriously before the Core 2 because the Core Duo was only 32bit capable.

 

[B S Magnet]

It's clearly not in the interests of the customer, but it's a downside to having a single hardware supplier to a platform. Dell or HP couldn't get away with this stuff; they would just lose sales to competitors. But if you don't like Apple's decisions, they (and their syco-fans) will just point you in the direction of the highway.

That will work for as long and until Apple have constant growth.

As with every corporation to reach their scale, that is getting tougher for them to do. Eventually, there will be a correction even their current crop of most faithful won’t be able to ignore. Indeed, cracks — pun not intended — are beginning to show themselves. And that’s before EU and, optimistically, U.S. investigations into the corporation’s competition practices.

It may take to 2030 or later, but much greater, more stringent carbon consumption-related regulations imposed on industry around complete life cycles of hardware and equipment, will shape the course of product development.

Whether that means tech companies, in this instance, figure out proven, transparent, demonstrable ways to be completely carbon-neutral or carbon-positive in their product’s total life cycle, from extraction to reclamation and re-purposing, and manage to make it so that cycle benefits their bottom line; or, whether it means modular components return to being a preferred way to design and build components, is to be determined.

I’m thinking a return to modular components, with means to upcycle removed components into other uses, will probably be less challenging to meet than the first. But I reckon we’ll need to wait and see.

 

[mode11]

As a G5 owner I couldn't take the Intel Macs seriously before the Core 2 because the Core Duo was only 32bit capable.

The first generation of Intel users were really shafted. Apple quickly moved on to the Core 2 Duo and 64 bit EFI, which had a decent OS lifespan. The first gen laptops also seemed to overheat a fair bit.

With the Mac Pro 1,1, I believe it was actually just an EFI issue; the CPUs were 64-bit. Would've been nice of Apple to provide those Macs with an updated 64-bit EFI, but Apple's gonna Apple I guess...

 

[Basic75]

Apple, if they’re not careful, risk locking themselves into a nook of a niche and risk becoming an evolutionary dead-end. Which would, historically, not be the first time Apple almost ended up there without making a necessary course-correction.

They could always switch to AMD next. That would solve the issue of large CPUs and GPUs for the Mac Pro.

 

[mode11]

It may take to 2030 or later, but much greater, more stringent carbon consumption-related regulations imposed on industry around complete life cycles of hardware and equipment, will shape the course of product development.

Unlike some on these forums (not the PPC forum), I believe regulation is important and positive. If companies can do whatever they like, you can't blame them for doing what their shareholders demand - maximise profits. Even if Tim Cook were fully on board with recycling, he'd be almost powerless to go in that direction, as he'd just be leaving (their) money on the table. Regulations help companies do the right thing.

 

[B S Magnet]

They could always switch to AMD next. That would solve the issue of large CPUs and GPUs for the Mac Pro.

Although the presence of Intel x86_64 code may be diminishing on each successive macOS build — Sonoma possibly being the end of the road — Apple have a long history of internally building and optimizing the core OS to run on fallback architectures, as those sometimes end up being the escape hatch they need to find new ways to flourish.