Apple, Scully, And Intel vs. Motorola

fsharp writes "I've heard too many comments suggesting that Apple should have moved to Intel (x86). The Register has an article exploring John Scully's recent comments about his failure to move the Mac to x86. Scully critiques his decisions based entirely on hindsight, and in doing so, identifies Dell as a the chief competitor and the way Apple could have slayed this evil dragon would have been to move to Intel early on in his tenure. Not so fast. Hindsight can be 20/20, however it can also be quite myopic if one suffers from selective memory. The article does a good job of examining the options available at the time when Apple rewrote the MacOS for the Intel x86. How safe a bet or great a risk would it have been for Apple to switch, given the quality of chips offered (at that time) from Intel?"

Comments

Look at what was available

[bangalla]

At the time that the Mac moved to PPC there is no way that Intel could have offered such a seamless transition. The ability of the PPC to emulate the 68k at good speed was what made the transition work. If Apple had tried to move to the x86 platform they would have lost a lot of customers with a big investment in software as the x86 could not emulate the 68k at usable speed.

Using an alternative archetecture has also allowed Apple to hold on to its uniqueness, which has in turn guarded it somewhat from fierce comparison to the x86 crowd.

No-one in the PC business saw Dell coming, if Apple had been just another x86 vendor with a nice OS they would be facing the same problems as HP, Compaq etc did when confronted by Dell's better supply chain model.

I think that Sculley is being remarkably revisionist in his views. The article points out a lot of the folly in his musings.

The G5 and the relationship with IBM is more than enough to now justify the choie of the PPC architecture.

Bill Gates' memorandum to John Scully, June 25, 19

[mst76]

I got found this interesting post on Google Groups. Remember, this is what Bill Gates wrote to the Apple CEO 13 years ago, just one and a half year after the launch of the original Apple Macintosh and the IBM AT, three years after Compaq introduced the first IBM clone.

Selected quotes from a confidential memorandum from Bill Gates to John Scully of Apple dated June 25, 1985.

Source: Wired Magazine, November 1997, page 126-128.

A memo on "Apple Licensing of Mac Technology."

Apple's stated position in personal computer is innovative technology leader. This position implies that Apple must create a standard on new, advanced technology. They must establish a "revolutionary" architecture, which necessarily implies new development incompatible with existing architectures.

Apple must make Macintosh a standard. But no personal computer company, not even IBM, can create a standard without independent support. Even though Apple realized this, they have not been able to gain the independent support required to be perceived as a standard.

The significant investment (especially independent support) in a "standard personal computer" results in an incredible momentum for its architecture. Specifically, the IBM PC architecture continues to receive huge investment and gains additional momentum [...] The investment in the IBM architecture includes development of differentiated compatibles, software, and peripherals; user and sales channel education; and most importantly, attitudes and perceptions that are not easily changed.

Any deficiencies in the IBM architecture are quickly eliminated by independent support [...] The closed architecture prevents similar independent investment in the Macintosh. The IBM architecture, when compared to the Macintosh, probably has more than 100 times the engineering resources applied to it when investment of compatible manufacturers is included. The ratio becomes even greater when the manufacturers of expansion cards are included.

Conclusion:

As the independent investment in a "standard" architecture grows, so does the momentum for that architecture. The industry has reached the point where it is now impossible for Apple to create a standard out of their innovative technology without support from, and the resulting credibility of, other personal computer manufacturers. Thus APPLE MUST OPEN THE MACINTOSH ARCHITECTURE TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENT SUPPORT REQUIRED TO GAIN MOMENTUM AND ESTABLISH A STANDARD. [emphasis mine]

The Mac has not become a standard:

The Macintosh has failed to attain the critical mass necessary for the technology to be considered a long term contender.

[...]

Recommendation:

Apple should license Macintosh technology to 3-5 significant manufacturers for the development of "Mac Compatibles".

US manufacturers and contacts: ideal companies - in addition to credibility, they have large account sales force that can establish the Mac architecture in larger companies:

- AT&T, James Edwards - Wang, An Wang - Digital Equipment Corporation, Ken Olsen - Texas Instruments, Jerry Junkins - Hewlett Packard, John Young

Other companies:

[ list of companies and contact names deleted ]

Apple should license the Macintosh technology to US and European companies in a way that allows them to go to other companies for manufacturing. Sony, Kyocera [...] are good candidates for OEM manufacturing of Mac compatibles.

MICROSOFT IS VERY WILLING TO HELP APPLE IMPLEMENT THIS STRATEGY. We are familiar with the key manufacturers, their strategies and strengths. We also have a great deal of experience in OEMing system software.

Rationale:

1. The companies that license Mac technology would add credibility to the Macintosh architecture.

2. These companies would broaden the available product offerings through their "Mac-compatible" product lines:

- They would each innovate and add features to the basic systems [...]

-