Apple WWDC: Post-Keynote Thoughts
Continued from 'Apple WWDC: Additional Info'….
Points to ponder:
1) I mentioned yesterday, and writeups I've subsequently read have echoed, the assumption that the Rosetta PowerPC-to-Intel on-the-fly code translation software is derived from Transitive's QuickTransit technology. Ironically, when I met with Transitive at the Intel Developer Forum, I grilled them extensively on this very point; the ability to run the Mac OS and apps on Wintel hardware. The spokesperson didn't straight-out admit anything but was having a bit of trouble dancing around my questions; maybe now I know why. However, Jobs didn't say where Rosetta came from; other possibilities exist. It could be 100% Apple-developed. It could have come from Intel; the company has done work on dynamic code translation to enable x86 binaries to run on Itanium, and it likely also inherited FX!32 (which enabled Windows NT apps to run on Alpha) when it bought the semiconductor assets of Digital Equipment Corporation. And perhaps Apple licensed and adapted cash-desperate Transmeta's LongRun code morphing technology. Regardless of where the code came from, its challenges should not be underestimated. Among other things, the G5 and x86 have different 'endian-ness' and whereas the G4 supports a 'little-endian emulation mode', the G5 doesn't, a factor which reportedly greatly complicated Microsoft's support of the G5 in Virtual PC (conversely, Virtual PC is going to be able to run a whole lot faster on Intel-based hardware!).
2) Jobs admitted that OS X had led a 'secret double life' for at least five years, running on both Intel x86 and Freescale/IBM PowerPC hardware. However, Intel's embrace of 64-bit x86 is relatively recent, so it's not clear to what degree 64-bit x86 support is currently integrated within the Xcode development environment. Regardless, given Intel's strong advocacy of both EMT64 and multi-core going forward, it's difficult to imagine Apple systems not containing them, unless the company were to, for example, launch a line of laptops based on Intel's current Dothan Pentium M architecture instead of waiting for Yonah.
3) To the previous point, although Intel prominently featured in Jobs' pitch, there's nothing I've heard so far that explicitly precludes AMD-based systems. However, I suspect Intel will strive to be as tight with Apple as it is with Dell, for example, to ensure a 100% Intel system sweep. And, as I mentioned in last Saturday's three-part WWDC preview post, AMD doesn't yet have a comprehensive mobile processor story, thereby keeping it out of the segment of Apple's product line that (probably) most prominently factored in the PowerPC-to-x86 switch.
4) Multi-platform developers will probably see the PowerPC-to-x86 switch as a win, at least in the long term. Given that the combination of AMD and Intel CPUs comprises well over 90% of the PC processor business, multi-platform developers have understandably focused their attentions there to the exclusion of PowerPC. All the x86 code optimization tricks they've learned over the years will now be applicable to the Apple platform as well. Along similar lines of thinking, developers who are currently 100% committed to the Windows (or, for that matter, Linux-on-x86) platform will gain additional temptation to consider Mac OS versions of their products. 100% Apple developers, on the other hand, will have to wipe part of their slates clean and start anew.
5) After the keynote, Macworld got some face time with David Moody, Apple’s vice president of worldwide Mac product marketing. Here's a particularly interesting quote from the writeup: "Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC. “We will not sell or support Windows, but we are not doing anything in the hardware that would preclude someone from using it,” said Moody." So it looks like my prediction last Saturday is correct; Apple doesn't plan to sell an Intel-tailored version of OS X on retail shelves to compete with Microsoft.
6) Apple will have to carefully navigate these next few years if it's to dodge the Osborne Effect. Jobs made no mention of which segments of the company's product line would transition to Intel CPUs first; I'm personally laying odds on PowerBooks, to be announced at next January's MacWorld Expo (with availability later that spring, therefore meeting his promise to be shipping Intel-based systems by the next WWDC), or perhaps at NAB 2006 (since Apple is generally loath to pre-announce products before they're ready to ship). He mentioned lots of great PowerPC-based products in the pipeline, but nothing's gotten announced so far this week. Apple had better keep tempting customers with tasty PowerPC-based gear until the Intel-based stuff is ready, or they'll see their near-term hardware business dry up as folks keep their wallets in their pockets and choose to wait.
Your thoughts, folks?
