Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple & Community Evangelizing Into Uncoolness?
kbeischer writes "John Kheit followed up his MacObsorne article, which others have since covered minus the parts detailing a Steve Jobs uncanny ability to repeat his own mistakes, with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press, Apple's managment and parts of the user base as a bunch of deranged goose-stepping lemmings that are ignoring the costs associated with the Mac PPC to Intel switch. In the editorial, he links to an older article on BOZO (bitter obstanate zealot order) users causing market share loss. All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?"
Here's a quote from TFA (the very first sentence, as matter of fact...):
Nice going, Sarcastro. Nothing opens up the floor for rational discussion like howling ad hominem attacks.
I thought that the rest of the article would prove to be more substantive, but no, it's pretty much all like that.
Perfect article for Slashdotters, though. Let the flame war begin.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Just do what the cruisers do, just put a sticker on your computer of a kid pissing all over the logo of another platform. A new product for ThinkGeek?
So please, RTFA. It's worth it.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
A good evangelist, though vocal and possibly in-your-face, is rational and can explain why he believes as he does and why you should too, but will not insist you beleive as he does "or else."
A zealot will drown you out and/or attempt to make life rough for you if you disagree with him.
Some people get turned off by evangelists they disagree with, almost everyone gets turned off by zealots they disagree with.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Apple would be #1 in the market.
There are zealots on both sides who will argue until they are absolutely blue in the face over what is better than what. However, how does anyone ever plan on being able to prove it? Mac Zealots evangelize Mac just as much as Linux users do Linux....But while linux may be ridiculously stable and open source....try getting any ported game to run as fast on it as it runs on windows.
My point is that there will never be a "winner" in this debate. They're all here to stay, and the more griping and screaming that's done about how much better one product is than the other, the more people won't want to use those products simply because everyone supporting them seems like a blathering idiot... They all have good and ad points and all this screaming is retarded.
Neg Mod away...
We should also hope that Rosetta is capable of helping OS X for Intel to run classic OS 9 applications.
Steve to developers in 2002: OS 9 is dead, stop developing for it.
Steve in 2003: You should all be developing for OS X now, OS 9 is dead.
Steve in 2005: Develop under OS X Xcode, OS 9 is long dead
Steve in 2006: I mean it, seriously, just stop already
Steve in 2007: WTF is wrong with you people, stop developing for OS 9 already.
So they say Rosetta won't run OS 9 apps... isn't it time Classic is laid to rest once and for all? You need to step forward at some point.
...and that's all there is to it.
I didn't pick Apple for their marketing, their fanatics, or their devoted press. I picked Apple because the platform suited my needs. I liked the design of the PowerBook and I liked the design and feel of the OS. Those are the most important factors in my book. In fact, I got my PowerBook because I enjoy my iPod Mini so much. I recognized good design (at least, good design for my purposes, YMMV). Zealotry never really was a consideration.
...from John Siracusa of Ars Technica
Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today's Macs?
A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal has more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto--
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.
Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this?
This is ridiculous.
Let's take a step back:
Apple is now less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business, and less than 3% of Freescale's.
IBM is focused on the server market, embedded markets, and gaming console marketplace. Not desktop and portable (especially), areas where Apple desperately needs processors.
Freescale is, and has been, focused on the embedded, communications and automotive markets, and the fact that some of the processors were also good for some Apple products was almost incidental.
PowerPC in the desktop marketplace is going nowhere fast, and IBM has shown that in spades for the last two years. Its renewed focus and commitment to the game console market eclipses any priorities Apple would ever hope IBM to have.
So, Apple made a tough choice. A choice its been planning for, just in case, for over 5 years.
The Intel (vs AMD) move was one of convenience and political expedience. Intel gets a big PR win, Apple gets its point across. Once the x86 architecture switch is complete, the hard part is over, and Apple is free to use other products from, e.g., AMD, as do many other x86 vendors. And Apple hasn't forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace in the least. The message now is simple, and has to be kept simple: we're moving to x86.
Further, PowerPC support WILL continue for an indefinite period into the future. The Mac OS X product lifecycle is now about two years. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) will ship likely around MWSF 2007, and will support PowerPC. It will have a lifecycle of two years, for a total of continuing support for four years from now. Apple has been providing security updates for the previous version of the OS from the current one since Mac OS X 10.0; therefore, we can assume security updates and fixes for a minimum of six years. And that's just from what we know now; the support may in fact last longer than that.
At some point, support for older hardware is dropped from the current version of the OS (e.g., G3s). What's the difference whether the hardware that supplants it contains an IBM PowerPC G6 or an Intel Pentium 6?
Further, this crap about software companies - already using Xcode, mind you - arbitrarily dropping PowerPC support from their applications early is complete, unadulterated bullshit. Aside from which, the 68K -> PPC transition, as rocky as it was, is often viewed as the quintessential success in hardware transitions.
I'm sorry if some people really want people to panic and stop buying all PowerPC hardware, and possibly commit mass suicide. But with the CLEAR commitment of Freescale and IBM to literally everywhere but the desktop(/portable) market in terms of the features and performance Apple needs, I can't see this decision as anything but a good thing.
For extra karma, say that with a thick russian accent about how Windows will rule the world, while beating on the podium with your shoe.
I think I speak for many Mac users when I say "I have confidence in Apple's decision to continue the Mac experience using Intel CPUs."
- I made the x68 to PPC switch.
- I made the OS 9 to OS X switch.
- I'm going to make the PPC to Intel switch.
Our platform has constantly been playing catch-up and on a rare occasion, our top of the line jumps ahead of the x86 top of the line for a month or so.
Unfortunately, very few of us live at the top of the line. Our consumer offerings fall well behind the x86 architecture in various areas. While the rest of our hardware is well ahead of the PC curve, the CPU does not.
Perhaps if IBM had shown us a portable G5 or a 3+GHz system... I would be morning their absence.
I will also wait until I see a shipping system before casting negative speculation on this issue. Perhaps apple WILL use a BIOS in the shipping system, perhaps not. Will we still have Firewire 800? What about Target Mode... etc. etc.
How about you wait and see what Apple and Intel can conjure up?
The article makes a common mistake. Before, SOME mac users claimed PPC was THE way to go. Now SOME Mac users are saying Intel sounds like a good idea. Hey, guess what? They are not the same people saying this. The author is just being silly. I don't think many people have changed their positions about anything since Jobs made his announcement. The people who were saying "Mac is better because of PPC" are now saying, "Damn, this is a bad move, what's going on?" But most people don't give a crap. It's just about making the best Mac possible. If it's built on Intel, great.
Currently hooked on AMP
I want to know what Kheit and the other naysayers think Apple's options were. Motorola failed to deliver on faster chips and IBM has such a huge cash cow with the CPU business for the new X-box and PS/3 that you have to wonder how much effort they'd be willing to make to produce faster desktop chips for Apple.
Apple is already falling behind in the laptop world, for $1000 less than Apple sells their top of the line G4 laptop I can get a Toshiba with a 17" screen, built-in wireless, super drive, 100Gb hard drive, 3.33 Ghz CPU and 533Mhz front side bus. OK, sure, megahertz comparisons are hard but when you're comparing two CPUs and one of them is clocked twice as fast and has a faster front side bus then it's pretty much over. Sure, the Toshiba is a brick compared to the PowerMac 17" (although it's a very solid brick, I've owned Toshibas and like them quite a bit) but if you don't want a brick with a huge screen you have smaller and lighter options.
I'm not really happy about this decision but the naysayers such as Kheit aren't saying anything other than "we're pissed off because we're losing the PowerPC", they certainly aren't offering any kind of alternative strategy for what Apple could have done instead of switching CPU architectures. Perhaps they'd be happier if Apple continued on as a sort of red-headed bastard step-child of IBM and Freescale and faded into obscurity as their CPU offerings became less and less relevant and less and less competitive to what Intel and AMD were offering.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
This article doesn't know what it wants to be.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
Steve's been trying to kill Classic Mac OS for longer than that.
Steve to developers in 1997: Rhapsody will only run OS 8 apps in an emulator, start using "Yellow Box" now.
Steve to developers in 1998: If you port to Carbon, you'll be able to run on Rhapsody and OS 8/9.
Steve to developers in 1997: If you develop for Carbon, you'll be able to run on OS X and OS 8/9.
Steve to developers in 2000: If you develop for Carbon, you can run on OS X, but Cocoa is really the way forward.
Steve to developers in 2001: We really have OS X working properly now, switch to Cocoa.
Steve to developers in 2002: OS 9 is dead, stop developing for it.
Steve in 2003: You should all be developing for OS X now, OS 9 is dead.
Steve in 2004: Develop under OS X Xcode, OS 9 is long dead
Steve in 2005: It'll be much easier to port Cocoa apps to OS X Intel, and did you notice we don't sell OS 9 bootable Macs any more?
Steve in 2006: It's much easier to port Cocoa apps to OS X Intel, you don't need to keep OS 9 compatibility, honest!
Steve in 2007: WTF is wrong with you people, stop developing for OS 9 already.
>How much do you want to bet a bunch of those developers drop support for PPC Macs far sooner than the
>aforementioned "3-5 year" period and claim that the games demand the "performance" of the faster Intel
>machines. We already saw that when Doom 3 was released for the Mac. It supported only the very fastest
>Macs while leaving many other current and/or new Macs out in the lurch.
Does he think we just sit around and say "Lets just not support the rest of these macs because we want to screw the user base!"
We work with Apple, ATI, and Nvidia to make everything run as well as possible. Doom 3 had AltiVec code in it, and there were driver changes to make things work better. The bottom line is that the compiler / cpu / system / graphics card combinations available for macs has just never been as fast as the equivalent x86/windows systems. The performance gap is not a myth or the result of malicious developers trying to make your platform of choice look bad.
Yes, it is always possible to make an application faster, but expecting developers to work harder on the mac platform than on windows is not reasonable. The xbox version of Doom required extensive effort in both programming and content to get good performance, but it was justified because of the market. In hindsight, we probably should have waited and ported the xbox version of the game to the mac, which would have played on a broader range of hardware. Of course, then we would have taken criticism for only giving the mac community the "crippled, cut down version".
John Carmack
There've certainly been Bitter, Obstinate Zealots around in the Mac community for a while now. They're the ones who've railed against every move that Apple has made that shakes their world view. The amount of flamage directed from the "old guard" at OS X went on for years. Putting the application title in the menu makes the system completely unusable! What idiot came up with the Dock? Where's my control strip? If the trash can isn't on the desktop it's no good! And -- my God -- the Finder isn't perfectly "spatial" anymore! Wah! Wah! Wah! Fitt's Law! Fitt's Law! Fitt's Law!
... that's blind zealotry.
Jesus Christ, people, give it a rest.
You know what? Giving Apple the benefit of the doubt that they've actually, y'know, put some thought into this decision and aren't just doing it because they think x86 chips will look prettier in those brushed aluminum cases isn't blind zealotry. Saying that, yes, you'll be willing to look at Intel Macs when they come out isn't blind zealotry. But rending your clothes and beating your chest and screaming, "No! Never! I'll keep my PowerMac until you pry my cold, dead fingers from my mouse, and goddammit, my mouse has only one button!"
Mr. Kheit, for your long and distinguished service in saying "Hell No, We Won't Go" to every single change Apple has made, I award you the Big Red Clown Nose of Bozo Punditry.
(And, don't worry, Dvorak fans! I have faith he'll reclaim it soon.)
This leads to the fundamental point, which is economics. Sure. But do you remember how it took a year to scale from 450 to 500 MHz? And how it's been tooth-and-nail for every extra cycle since? The G4 was always the "better" CPU, but the P4 consistently ran at more than twice the frequency. Even today, the race stands at 3.8 vs. 1.67. Freescale has barely managed incremental upgrades to the G4, while Intel has been plowing along with a variety of architectures, one of which was bound to not suck. The M is 70% faster per clock than the P4, already runs at much faster clockspeed than the G4, and is scheduled to be dual-core in the same timeframe as Freescale's e600.
Mot/Freescale has, since 2000, shown the classic symptoms of a company trying to compete in a capital- and R&D-intensive industry without sufficient resources. In reality, they haven't been trying to compete - they focus very effectively in the embedded market, which has had just enough overlap with Apple's designs to enable dual-use products. But the embedded market still has different economics and incentives than the PC market, and Apple's suffered enormously for that. IBM's motivations for diving in with the 970 remain obscure, but may have been marketing as much as anything else. Having secured their spot as manufacturer for every next-gen console CPU, they have little incentive to both keep up with Intel (who's going to buy these chips, and who else are they trying to impress?) and invest the cash to differentiate the 970 (for use in what else, consoles? IBM laptops?). There's just nothing in it for them. And the next-gen console chips are great, but they're subject to console-chip rules. Apple would be insane to bet their business on them.
For better or worse, Intel is the only major supplier of PC CPUs in the world - aside from AMD, which shares a common platform, anyway. It was only inertia that made the switch seem unthinkable - it was really inevitable.
I wrote: "G4 core has always been close to twice as fast clock-for-clock than the Pentium 4"
But do you remember how [the G4] took a year to scale from 450 to 500 MHz?
Don't try and snow me, man, I'm not making a dramatic or surprising announcement here, this is a totally conservative prediction.
It's shipping at 1.67 now. That would already be faster than a 3 GHz P4 except for the damn 166 MHz bus. There is absolutely no risk in predicting better performance from an e600 than from a 3 GHz P4, because Freescale doesn't have to do anything extraordinary to make that happen.
The M is 70% faster per clock than the P4. That still means it's slower per clock than the e600. And the e600 will run existing Mac OS code native, not under emulation.
Remember, we're talking about what use Apple can make of the Pentium M or the MPC8461. Not what the Pentium M can do in a laptop that already exists running software that's already compiled for it and optimised for it, because that's not what Apple has.
Maybe this is their last gasp. Maybe they'll process-shrink it to 2 GHz by this time next year, I don't know, but when someone starts talking about the "G5 Laptop" as if that or the Pentium M are the only options... well, hell man, that's just not the case and you know it.
Mot/Freescale has, since 2000, shown the classic symptoms of a company trying to compete in a capital- and R&D-intensive industry without sufficient resources.
And yet despite that they've managed to keep clocking up the short-pipeline G4 and keeping the core within spitting distance of Intel's MUCH more expensive effort. And what's been holding them back? A frigging socket!
Now they've come up with a damn good solution to that, Apple pulls out. And you're telling me that's their fault?
Intel has been plowing along with a variety of architectures, one of which was bound to not suck.
Intel has precisely two architectures right now. The P4 core, and the old P6 core. Everything they're shipping is a variant of one or the other of these. Whether they call it Celeron or Pentium 4 or Pentium Mobile, it's one or the other of these two designs.
That's one more core than either IBM or Motorola/Freescale, yes, but despite having all the resources and all the time and all the talent of two major former competitors in hand... they're still barely ahead. And they've screwed up badly before... they got the StongArm from DEC and developed a successor that was barely faster at twice the clock rate.
Yes, the odds favor them. But the odds have favored them for years and they haven't managed a clear victory... ever. They've marketed and made deals and bluffed their way out every time. That's how they beat Alpha, that's how they beat MIPS, that's how they beat PA/RISC. They convinced people they were unbeatable, like they've convinced you they were unbeatable, and when they've shown their hands it's been a pair of Itanics.
For better or worse, Intel is the only major supplier of PC CPUs in the world
As of Monday, yes, that's absolutely true.
But that would have been try no matter when Apple pulled the plug. They would have done it in 1997 if they thought they could get away with it: that's when Rhapsody was announced as the Macified version of NeXTSTeP. They would have done it in 2000 or 2001 if they'd been able to swing people over to the original plan for Rhapsody, instead of having to come up with Carbon as a stopgap to keep the ISVs from revolting. None of what you're saying now was any less true back then.
All I'm saying is that there's no other reason to do this NOW, rather than in 2001, or 2003, or 2007, other than Apple's got enough market share and cash to risk it now, and they've got enough developers on the NeXTstep-derived API that they can risk losing a few of the ones still coding to MacOS-derived Carbon for whom conversion is too much of a hurdle.