The Back Page - Death Knell #45: Apple Will Dump Mac in Five Years
by
- March 14th, 2005
With all the success that Apple has enjoyed in the last year, one would think that the only additions we could make to the Apple Death Knell Counter would be mined treasures from the mid-90s. Doing so, however, would be to underestimate Rob Enderle's willingness to look like an idiot, because today I bring you Apple Death Knell #45, in which Rob Enderle once again predicts that Apple will either dump the PowerPC processor, or exit the Mac business within five years.
The newest threat to Apple's computer business is the twin demon of Xbox 2, the soon to be released successor to Microsoft's Xbox gaming platform, and the Cell processor, IBM's next generation of processor based on its Power technology. While many would see advances in processor technology from IBM as a good thing for the future of the Mac, Mr. Enderle instead sees the demons waiting to pounce.
While he never makes it clear how Xbox 2 is a threat to the Mac, Mr. Enderle's supposition is that the Cell processor will be so good that Apple will be forced to dump Power PC. He makes the argument that IBM will focus all its efforts on the Cell, both in terms processor R&D and its own products, leaving Apple as the only user of the G5 processor.
Of course, this ignores the fact that the Xbox 2 itself uses the G5, but Mr. Enderle has never been one to let facts get in the way of his own arguments.
Nonetheless, he postulates that when Apple finds itself alone (with Microsoft) in the PowerPC universe, the company will have all of three choices on where to go with its Mac business.
"One," he wrote, "is to exit the computer business and concentrate on the more powerful accessories market, focusing on competing with Logitech and Creative Labs rather than with Microsoft. A second option will be to adopt the Cell architecture, but this would signal the obsolescence of the current generation of products and make it more difficult to hold customers. (Remember that the move to OS X cost them better than three quarters of the market they had before the migration.) Three is to move to x86, and rumors are once again flying that this choice is being discussed. Such a move, however, would have a dramatic and likely negative initial impact on the installed base."
These arguments are silly, and that's being polite.
Option 1: Rob Enderle has been saying Apple will be exiting the PC business for years. Instead, Apple has increased Mac R&D, and put enormous resources into making Mac OS X the most advanced OS on the planet. In the last few quarters, the company has even (finally) to grow market share, and this quarter could be a big one for the company's Mac division.
Option 2: If Apple chose to move to the Cell processor, it would likely manage the transition as smoothly as it has transitioned to every processor since the original 68k processor of the original Mac. Each of those transitions has gone remarkably well, and Apple has a good track record of using emulation to make legacy apps work well.
Also, while Apple lost Mac market share, it wasn't because of the move to OS X, and that is one of the worst red herrings Mr. Enderle has thrown out yet.
Option 3: Mr. Enderle has also said for years now that Apple would move to Intel. I have deconstructed those arguments repeatedly, and won't bother to do so again, but I will simply point out that he hasn't yet been right, and he's just as wrong this time.
He goes on to expound on these three choices, and concludes with: "The consensus appears to be that within the next five years Apple will either move to a new processor or exit the PC business. That will not be a fun choice, but at least Steve Jobs will be able to play really cool Xbox games to take his mind off of it."
Mr. Enderle cleverly uses "consensus" to imply that there is a vast army of industry watchers who knows the Mac is doomed. He doesn't cite one of these watchers, and every Wall Street analyst we know tracking Apple is talking about the iPod Halo Effect growing Mac sales, so you can guess what I think of his "consensus."
In the meanwhile, this makes Apple Death Knell number six for Mr. Enderle.
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
CloseViewName:Small White CarPosts: 1960Joined: 02 Jul 2004 Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:08 pmSubject:
Uhm...yeah
You're right Bryan, I DON'T see how advances in computer chips implies that the Mac is doomed. That article barely makes enough sense to refute. Good job trying, though.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:17 pmSubject:
Damnit, I was in Reality Check taunting mode. "Mac sales rising, Macs doomed" is what I meant. Not "Apple doomed". Either way, though, there's clearly no limit to Rob Enderle's power of perception.
its been a while since i got a good quality death knell...
i see no problem with apple moving either to POWER architecture or Cell architecture-- as bryan said, they have always strived on backwards compatibility, and will have an emulation environment with the new processor
they will not do it for a while though, and it will be with a complete retool of the OS (similar to the classic to OS X conversion)
There's one simple reason. Who in their right mind wants to lock into a sole source for their computer hardware. Once you pick Mac OS you've got one hardware vendor, with Windows or Linux you can shop dozens of competing vendors. This basic reason is why the Mac will die.
Sorta. Everything I've read suggests that the new cell processor will help Power Architecture gain even more acceptance. But I've also read numerous articles that make a point of explaining that a cell processor is not suitable for a PC. It's just not that kind of processor.
Well, here...
"The optimization difficulties result from the fact the Cell is more like a cousin to PowerPC than a successor, he said. Although both processors are based on IBM's Power architecture, also used in the Power4 and Power5 lines, each processor family uses a different version of the Power architecture."
"For instance, the Cell processor does not perform out-of-order execution, a feature found in most processors designed in the past decade. This type of execution shuffles instructions, executing them without regard to the order in which they were programmed. Cell's core also issues fewer instructions.
"The core in the G5 can issue eight instructions at one time," Krewell said. "The Cell's core only issues two."
at least to the death of his writing career. i don't even bother to finish his reports as they are so often fraught with nonsense. apparently the link to the story is broken so perhaps it has already happened. i can only hope.
Are there really dozens of suppliers for PCs that you KNOW will be around in 5 years? Dell is one, now who else is showing long term profitability? Ooops - only Apple from what I can tell.
In 5 years we may have seen a flood of very cheap Linux computers from China, taking over a large segment of the PC market. This risk has increased with the sale of the IBM PC business and even Dell will be at risk.
That's going to move us towards three basic platforms. Linux China, Apple OSX and the WinTel PCs with a huge burden called backward compatibility - plus continuing malware.
As for Cell, what do you think the odds are that Apple will work out a version that can be integrated with their Gx line? After dual cores, that is.
More FUD, hiding the potential that MS is the one actually at risk.
Number 1 Cell Linux workstations
Sony (and perhaps others) will build workstations based on
on the Cell. Photoshop and video editing.
Number 2. Xbox PC
It is rumored that one version of the Xbox will come with a hard drive and run MS office, MS owns virtual PC and a port of Longhorn to PowerPC MS is possible in 2007.
PowerPC MS is a modify chip and MS has tried to get Intel to give it a royalty on chip sales. Would IBM be willing to pay MS a royalty on ever Power MS chip sold to Dell and others to run windows.
Just think
Dell Power MS that runs windows and Xbox
selling for under $1000.
MS get a payment for Software
MS get a payment for Hardware
MS get a payment for every game sold
MS makes Money on Office and other Software.
Sony and/or Nintendo pulls a Sega and drops hardware and becomes a software marker.
Bill Gates is in Heaven and is still living on earth.
IBM dominates Chip business.
If you were IBM or MS would you consider this path.
Enderle's comment make a lot of sense IF the IBM Cell processor is the ultimate and final processor (at least for this galaxy) and IF that technology is totally exclusive to XBox.
He seems to forget that the formula for MS product release dates = (announce date + target date) x pi
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:28 pmSubject:
I don't believe Enderle is that stupid and believes what he's writing. He's paid to write this, probably the article is fed to him by MS PR folks because lots of Window users are switching.
This is to create fear & doubt in those switchers that Apple may not be around in a few years if they switch to it now.
"PowerPC MS"???? It's not that modified from the G5. Both MS and game vendors are currently developing games on Apple G5 hardware.
MS can barely get Longhorn out for the Intel architecture; there is little or no motivation for them to port it to the PowerPC architecture as well. There's even less benefit to IBM for that to happen. Even if MS did so, there is no justification to assume that the PowerPC in the desktops could play X-box games, in fact it would be against MS's interest to allow it due to the impact on X-Box sales.
Sony is unlikely to pull playstation--it currently is crushing X-Box in total sales, has a huge installed base, and development of PS3 is in progress.
Perhaps the silliest item I've seen since reading an Ederle article.
Guest wrote: And by the end of this quarter it should be up to almost 10%. So, where on earth are these guys coming up with all this fud?
Speaking of fud:
Where are you getting your numbers? Apple hasn't had a 7.5 % market share in years and years. And though it looks like they're having a nice quarter, the numbers are no where close to the volume to cause a 2.5 increase in total share of compluters sold.
I'm not a Windows zealot. I vastly prefer Macs and recommend them to friends all of the time. But not even Steve Jobs and his famous RDF could make me believe those numbers are valid.
Every time I read a Rob Enderle comment on Apple I'm reminded of a video clip from a few years back.
A chimpanzee is sitting in a tree scratching it's ass. It then sniffs it's fingers and overwhelmed, falls backwards out of the tree.
In Robs case it's his head not his fingers that are always up his ass but the imagery is what consistently comes to mind. Of course to take anything he says as credible you would have to an amazingly stupid and isolated PC drone.
RealityCheck wrote: There's one simple reason. Who in their right mind wants to lock into a sole source for their computer hardware. Once you pick Mac OS you've got one hardware vendor, with Windows or Linux you can shop dozens of competing vendors. This basic reason is why the Mac will die.
You know, that's actually a great reason to BUY an Apple computer. Anyone who's in the IT industry LOVES to be able to go sole source for their hardware and software.
That gives them the ability to pick up the phone and Dial one number to get support, PLUS, if something doesn't work, there's no finger pointing. One of the real "issues" of the open-source and "standard" platforms is the support. Oh, that video card doesn't work, that's the OS' fault... Call MS, no, that's the hardware... Call the vendor..
made hundreds, ney thousounds of predictions of the future... none of which could actually predicted any event.... until after they happened and his story loosly fitted! carry on Rob maybe when you do #450 it will come to pass!
I don't understand why anyone would be so defensive of Microsoft. RC knows nothing about business or competition. I switched to Mac 2 years ago because I was forced to look for more reliable alternatives. I don't care who slapped the parts together, if it was a Microjunk operating system, it was trouble. If you want to be part of the 90+ percent of the sheep that follow Microsoft and are willing to tolerate all that comes with it, fine, but don't even try to make OSX users look stupid, as it just makes you look even more challenged than you already do.
Does anyone track the accuracy of Enderle's predictions? I'm guessing it is going to rank only slightly below the accuracy rate of the cover of National Enquirer.
CloseViewName:imothepixiePosts: 12Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:25 pmSubject: My Predictions
In five years time the X86 line are banned because of a new energy crisis which requires the the average household to consume less power as a whole than one dell 3Ghz.. the only consumer electronicics you are permited is a small mac mini type device with a line into the neighbourhood Sony Cell cluster serving DRM iTunes,TV,movies, Xbox games (Microsoft have turned a Commodore and are using dosbox to serve up there old favourites!) and you are trveling to work on your porche/segway 911 (only a badge of course!)
The best description of the Cell processor that I have read so far goes like this:
The first component of a Cell processor is a CPU very similar to a G4 or G5 processor. For applications, it is compatible with the G4 or G5. Obviously, some changes must be made to the operating system to work with a Cell processor, but that is no problem.
The Cell processor runs supposedly at 4.6 GHz and uses some technique similar to the hyperthreading of the Pentium 4. It can only perform at most two instructions per cycle, not a maximum of four like the G5. On the other hand, 4.6 GHz should help.
Hyperthreading means the chip looks to the operating system as if there were two processors, but there is really just one. There is no information available what kind of performance should be expected from hyperthreading on the Cell processor; my best guess is that it should make it possible to get the theoretical limit of two instructions per cycle most of the time.
The Cell processor fully supports Altivec. I didn't see any information whether Cell is a 32 bit processor like the G4 or a 64 bit processor like the G5. All in all, the PowerPC component of the Cell processor should be quite competitive at least with a single G5 processor, and possibly with a dual G5.
Then there are the eight co-processors. Eight processors, each with 256 KB of very fast memory, at the same speed as L1 cache in an ordinary processor. Each processor has 128 registers of 128 bit each, which can be programmed similar to an Altivec processor.
You might have heard that Altivec can make code run extremely fast, but it is a major pain in the *** to write software for it. If you thought Altivec is fast, you have seen nothing yet. Each cell processor runs at the speed of a very fast Altivec processor, and there are eight of them. But if you thought Altivec is hard to program, you have seen nothing yet either. Altivec is easy compared to programming a Cell chip.
For 99% of all code, it doesn't make any difference whether it runs on a G5 or a Cell processor. But there is one percent where it makes a huge difference. Encoding MPEG2. Realtime image processing. A Macintosh with a Cell processor could do things that a G5 couldn't because it is just too slow. On the other hand, it will not make Word ran any faster at all.
So moving to Cell would be no technical problem for Apple. Whether it makes sense to do so mostly depends on the price. If a Cell Macintosh can be built for the same money and at the same speed as a G5, then Apple should go for it. If not, Apple should stay with G5.
Another thing: Since a saw that article about Enderle and his "Ferrari" laptop, it is impossible for me to take that man serious. He is only good for a good laugh.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:09 pmSubject:
I just can't imagine Sony would let Microsoft use the Cell processor in an Xbox. The PowerPC, yes, because that's IBM alone. But not the Cell.
And I can't imagine IBM abandoning the IBM Power architecture to go completely Cell, since IBM just started the whole Power ecosystem thing.
By the way, I responded immediately to Enderle's article questioning not only the lack of supporting evidence for his claims about Cell in Xbox and IBM going completely Cell, but also whether he has some financial involvement with either MS or (shorting) Apple, and the fact that when I read his columns I never look at any ads. Since their comments are moderated, I never saw if it made it out before the article was pulled. Nothing would make me happier than to know that Enderle was fired.
CloseViewName:MikuroPosts: 454Joined: 15 Jun 2002 Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:32 pmSubject: Is he serious?
Sometimes I wonder Rob Enderle is joking with every article he makes, just to see how far he can go and still be taken seriously. The Onion has articles that make more sense than his.
Quote
A second option will be to adopt the Cell architecture, but this would signal the obsolescence of the current generation of products and make it more difficult to hold customers.
Uhh.....riiiiight. By that logic, moving to the G5 should have signalled the obsolescence of the G4, and should have absolutely murdered Apple's existing user base.
It's called progress. The idea that Apple can't switch to a new processor within the next five years because it would signal the "obsolescence" of TODAY'S processor is beyond absurd. I honestly wouldn't expect such ridiculously flawed logic from a child, let alone an adult who makes a living writing about this stuff.
News flash: All of today's processors, from all companies, will be obsolete in 5 years!
News flash #2: If the Cell processor becomes so big, it's FAR better for Apple and OS X than it is for Microsoft and Windows. Porting Windows to Cell would be virtually impossible, whereas porting OS X to Cell would be relatively trivial. I wouldn't even call it a "port"; it would be more like an optimization, just as the OS needed optimizations to take advantage of the 64-bit G5.
Finally, MS really has very little to do with Cell. They're using it; that's it. If I'm not mistaken, Sony's also using a Cell derivitive in their next-gen gaming console.
RealityCheck wrote: There's one simple reason. Who in their right mind wants to lock into a sole source for their computer hardware. Once you pick Mac OS you've got one hardware vendor, with Windows or Linux you can shop dozens of competing vendors. This basic reason is why the Mac will die.
ROLFMAO... RC, that was a kneejerk troll, you aren't even TRYING anymore. People have predicting "Apple will die" for OVER TWENTY YEARS NOW! And it NEVER HAPPENS.
The XBox is not using a cell
It has a modified Power based processor
closer to the power 5 and/or G6 than the G5
It is rumored that the Xbox 2/360 will have 3 dual core chips.
Power MS was jointly developed by IBM and MS
It MIGHT have features that no other power chip has.
Not much is public about the XBox2 processor.
One thing for sure it is more than a sightly modify G5
MS could have software the only runs on Power chips with special feature.
Windows on a power chip would mean $billions in Sales for IBM
MS will not make money on sale of Xbox hardware
MS makes money on each game sold by anyone that runs on the Xbox.
X86-64 will not be able to stay up with True 64 bit processors.
MS will port Windows to another processor.
Right now the choices are Itanic and Power.
He is 0 and 5 so far with no chance of getting anything right when it comes to Apple. He always makes a fool of himself when he talks about Apple.
He never has any facts only his dumb predictions which make no sense. He tries so hard to make Microsoft look so good no matter what the real facts are.
CloseViewName:jacravPosts: 268Joined: 04 Jul 2001 Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:00 amSubject: Another one …
RealityCheck wrote:
with Windows or Linux you can shop dozens of competing vendors.
RC ! Stick to your topic ! You're talking (or at least, WE are, and Rob is …) about processor makers, and the X86 has 2 : Intel and AMD, not dozens. Dell just decided to go Intel only, so they're tying themselves to ONE purveyor. Apple still has 2: Motorola for the G4 and IBM for the G5, and no one knows yet who will build the G6 or the successor to the notebook processor if the G5 heat issues aren't solved pretty soon … Does even SJ know … ?
What are the odds on the X86 architecture still being in existence 5 years from now ? I wouldn't put any money on it …
Enderle is true to form : a jackass as usual … And he calls himself an "analyst", is that because the term includes the root "anal-" in it ?
Please don't link to his posts, it only feeds him … as he probably gets 10 times his "normal" hits every time he pulls one of these insanely bad columns on the Mac platform … ratings are money in the pocket ! That's even worse than feeding RC … after all, RC is our very own, we bred him and nurture him, he's like this incredibly dumb pet that keeps bumping into furniture, stupid, but lovable, zits, basement room and all … only wish he were potty trained … but this might yet happen, as he's still young !
Although its all just so much vapor at this point, the reality is that Cell is a technology developed by IBM and Sony (and toshiba IIRC) for use in Sony products. MS will not be getting it for the Xbox, and its doubtful Apple will either. Its going to run the PS3, and my guess is that by the time the PS3 finally debuts (looking like mid to late '06 at the moment) Apple will have dual or even quad-core G5s running their powerhouse computers that will make Cell look shabby. Keep in mind that the PS3 will be costing somewhere between 300 and 500 dollars, at the very most, whereas a G5 is going to set you back at least 6x as much. That doesn't mean Cell won't be a good processor, but its simply apples and oranges.
Its interesting to note that, given Nintendo's announcement that their new console will have an IBM CPU and ATI GPU (and will be backwards compatible with the gamecube, yay!), all three announced next-generation consoles will have IBM processor technology at their core.
