undoubtably the one on Apple switching from being IBM-based to Intel-based. Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO, announced on Monday (Tuesday, SGT) that Apple are transitioning from PowerPC to Intel processors. Jobs' vision for the switch is that an Apple-Intel tie-up will allow Apple to break into the mainstream market with better and cheaper Macs. The Mac OS X will run on a next generation of Intel processors (not sure at this point in time whether this new class of processors is exclusive for Apply or that Mac OS X will run exclusively on them) and Intel has promised to supply Apple with a greater volume of processors.
The main reason for Apple's switch has been IBM's failure to cater to Apple's demand for more processors. IBM is unable to deliver more of its PowerPC to Apple, which is important for Apple to price their computers more competitively and create a greater presence in the market. Another important reason is that Intel's processors are far ahead of IBM's when it comes to delivering performance without consuming a lot of power, "a quality that is very important to Apple's future products," said Steve Jobs. [link]
So one may feel compulsed to ask "What the h*** is IBM thinking?" Is it worthwhile for IBM to lose the apple in hand over the chasing of oranges (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo game consoles)? Besides, who knows Apple may or may not venture into the console market, with the Mac-mini already looking like one. IMHO, an Apple-Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo tie-up is not entirely impossible. Now Intel will just get bigger and bigger. Poor AMD...
Well, the users seem to have mixed feelings about the switch, with most adopting a wait-and-see stance before they are willing to comment. To me, the switch will cause developers and fans a sense of disillusion now but in the long run, this is good news for the average user who simply wants a cheaper and more widely-used system that runs out-of-the-box and is user-friendly (read idiot-proof). So should I wait or go get myself a Mac-mini anytime soon?
