Hmm this seems like an interesting idea. Nathan Brookwood doesn't think so:
"I have a lot of trouble understanding why they would do it," Brookwood said of the transition to Intel processors. "Unless there's something magical, I would have to believe it's not a good move. My concern is that every time Apple makes an architecture shift, many of its customers and development partners say enough is enough."
I have a feeling that they are doing it because Motorola and IBM both couldn't come up with enough chips to actually get machines on the market. It is tough to grow market share when you don't have enough machines to do it.
Also some of the market share woes that Mac faced came from the vast adoption of low cost Wintel machines by companies like Dell, E-machines, etc. Who would pay for a $3K Mac when they can have a Dell for $800 that does pretty much the same thing. Part of the reason why the Mac was so expensive is because of that low speed, hard to get, Motorola chip.
I think this move is a good one because they can use top of the line chips and compete on a design and function basis in which they seem to be a clear favorite. A Mac looks better and does cooler things then the Dell will ever do. Now the processor speed will no longer be something that is holding Apple back when it is directly compared to a Dell.
No comments:
Post a Comment