Apple Inc.: June 2005 Archives

I just stumbled across Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines document. It looks like there is quite a bit of detailed technical information in this document, including some information on Rosetta. Some bad news: Rosetta cannot run Classic (MacOS 8/9 apps), and Rosetta only emulates a G3. That means that any software that requires a G4 or G5 is out. In addition, Rosetta cannot be used to emulate kernel extensions, so an x86-based mac is going to need new drivers for all of your old hardware. Is this going to be a new form of "driver hell"?

-Andy.

So, Apple did it. They announced that they are switching the Mac platform to Intel processors capable of running the x86 instruction set. Apple knows how to do these sorts of transitions, and as such, I really cannot fault their plan for making this transition. As of today, they already have a build of Tiger running on x86 where "almost everything works". In addition, they have a new version of Xcode, which supports building applications that can run on Tiger/x86. This means that pretty-much as of now, developers can start porting their code over to the new platform.

In addition, Apple will provide emulation of PPC binaries in Tiger/x86, to ensure a smooth transition. This is really important, because people aren't going to run out and upgrade all of their applications right away. In addition, it is important to ensure that using Tiger/x86 is still a "mac-like" experience. If users need to contemplate as to wether or not they need to download the "PPC" or "x86" version of an application -- then Apple will have lost. But with Rosetta and universal (or "fat") binaries, even grandma will be able to survive this transition.

But there are still a lot of details that Apple hasn't covered. They didn't say if they were going to use an Intel chipset or not (but hinted that it would be so). They also didn't cover if Tiger/x86 would be 64-bit (using the x86-64 instruction set), but it probably will be 64 bit. They also didn't talk about their dual-processor strategy. My guess is that they will follow Intel's lead. Intel is pumping dual core CPU's for the mass market, and keeping SMP in the server space (with the Xeon). While we could see a Xeon-based PowerMac, I'm not so sure that is likely (Xeon's are quite expensive). And of course, they didn't talk at all about how they would keep people from running MacOS X on non-Apple hardware.

Phil Schiller did say "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac". Note that he didn't say that Apple wouldn't support this. His wording is that Apple would prevent running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. So, it could be that Apple will leverage some sort of Intel DRM after all, as I wrote about on Saturday. But at this point, it is all speculation as to Apple's exact plans.

All-in-all, I'm not so sure that this is a good move for Apple. I think it is somewhat prescient that there is no mention of this switch on the main page of Apple.com - I had to dig in order to find the press release, in fact. I think that Apple is going to have a very hard time selling x86-based macs, purely from a psychological perspective. I mean, picture it -- you'll be able to go to your favorite computer store, and make an apples-to-apples (no pun intended) comparison between an Apple box and a Wintel box. These two hypothetical machines will have the same CPU, RAM, Graphics Card, HD, etc. And they will also have two very different prices. So it will be evident, to all consumers, just how much the "Apple tax" is. And I don't think that people are going to go for it. Hell, I think that I am going to have a hard time going for it. In the laptop space, Apple still has a strong chance -- design matters quite a bit more in laptops than it does in desktops.

So, is this "the end" for Apple? Probably not, but it could spell doom for their hardware business. It is too early to tell. What I do know is that I have pretty mixed feelings about this switch, and that Steve Jobs has huge balls.

-Andy.

On my way home from Sleater-Kinney last night, I just happened to accidently drive by Moscone on my way home. As I drove by, I noticed that they already had all of the big banners up for WWDC. There were a series of banners all hyping Spotlight. Each banner featured the Spotlight search box, with the slogan "You can find it in Tiger". So, there was one where the phrase "your killer app" was typed into the search box.

But the one that made me laugh (as I was driving home), was the one that said "Longhorn - You can find it in Tiger". Man, Apple's PR really shouldn't be tweaking the sleeping giant, but it sure is awful fun.

-Andy.

In the last several days, several rumors have cropped up saying that Apple is going to switch the Mac platform from PowerPC processors made by IBM and Motorola to X86-64 processors made by Intel. Of course, this is not the first time that the rumormongers or pundits have predicted such a switch. And every time, it hasn't happened (for reasons that I mostly agree with).

Most of the discussion that I have seen has revolved around how "hard" the switch would be, in terms of all of the applications that would need to be re-compiled for a totally different CPU instruction set. And while I grant that would be a challenge, it is not an insurmountable one, and certainly, it isn't what has kept Apple from making the x86-switch.

What I haven't seen discussed, is the "real" reason why Apple hasn't switched to x86. In my mind, Apple hasn't switched to x86 because, if they did so, they would ultimately be killing their hardware business. The reason why is quite simple: if Apple were to release a build of MacOS X that was compiled for the x86 instruction set, people would take that build, and run it on non-Apple hardware.

Now, I'm assuming that an Intel-based Mac would contain some Apple-proprietary hardware, that MacOS X for Intel would require to run. However, any protection that Apple could come up with would be easy to defeat. Heck, the OS that forms the foundation of MacOS X, Darwin, is already open source. So, Apple would have to embed their security into the GUI layer. But still, that would be easy for the hackers to defeat. This sort of cracking has been around for as long as there has been copy protection, and it would be broken in a matter of weeks, if not days.

So, up until now, I haven't seen a whole switch to x86 as being "in the cards" for the Mac platform. I knew that if Apple did it, then people would start running MacOS X on non-Apple hardware, then less Macs would be sold, until Apple was either ruined or exited the hardware business altogether. Apple is run by some smart people (some of whom hate clones), so I know that they would never allow this to happen. Yet, I think that such a switch may be imminent. What do I know that I don't see anybody else talking about on the web?

Last week, Intel announced their newest "Pentium D" processors, along with a new chipset, the 945g. In the announcement, Intel made an oblique reference to the fact that these new chips have the latest iteration of their DRM technology built-in. All of the press coverage that I have seen of the DRM has focused on "protecting digital media" from thieves. While I'm sure that is what Intel is aiming at, I think that Apple could have a different purpose in mind for this DRM hardware.

Consider if all of the non-open source bits of MacOS X for Intel were shipped from Apple in an encrypted format. The DRM technology in the Intel CPU and chipset is able to decrypt the OS into memory, in such a way that there isn't much of a performance penalty. Furthermore, the MacOS itself leverages the DRM hardware, to prevent hackers from reading the OS that has been unencrypted in memory. Now, the only piece that is missing is the special key, that the CPU uses to un-encrypt the OS. This is where Apple's hardware engineers step in, crafting a special chip that holds the key, and is soldered onto the Apple motherboard.

From a very high level, it seems like such a scheme might be difficult enough for the hackers to crack, that it will keep widespread adoption of MacOS X on non-Apple hardware at bay. I think that this is why all of the rumors have been saying that Apple is switching to "Intel" and not "x86". If they just wanted to switch to x86, why wouldn't they consider AMD? I think that Apple would really like to go to AMD, because they are really kicking ass right now, but they won't, because AMD doesn't have the DRM technology that Intel has.

So, while I'm not saying that I want Apple to switch to x86, what I am saying is that for the first time, I see how such a move could happen. Monday could be an interesting day.

-Andy.

[UPDATE]: MacOSRumors has a nice roundup of the Mac-on-x86 rumors that have occurred over the past several years. And John Gruber has a great analysis of the whole situation as well.

[UPDATE2]: The New York Times is corroborating the switch to Intel story. The interesting part of this article is the discussion around the financial relationship between Apple and IBM. According to the NYT, less than 2% of the production capacity of IBM's Fishkill, NY plant goes to Apple processors. And the NYT says that IBM is probably barely breaking even making processors for Apple.

[UPDATE3]: Daring Fireball has some more odds 'n ends, his bet is Intel PowerPC's. And Leander Kahney mentioned the Intel DRM, but thinks that Apple wants it in order to woo Hollywood with some sort of oft-rumoured iTunes-for-movies.

Of course, one monkey wrench in all of this speculation is that Intel is now retracting their recent statements concerning DRM in the new Pentium D.