Is it possible that the Mac is making inroads with Enterprise IT? Intel Capital announced at CEO Summit that it is leading a Series A investment round in Active Storage of Torrance, CA, which builds high-performance storage solutions for the Mac platform. Other investors in this round include Mission Ventures and Valhalla Partners. Intel Capital invests in companies that drive demand for Intel products, but it also looks to make money and apparently it sees money in enterprise-class solutions for the Mac.

Active Storage was born out of Apple’s decision to discontinue the Xserve RAID. Alex Grossman, CEO of Active Storage, and the other founders were previously executives in the Servers and Storage products group at Apple, Inc. They left to form their own company that would produce storage solutions of the same quality. While Apple has been pitching the Promise VTrack RAID as a replacement solution, Active Storage has developed its XRAID product line to be a lot more Mac-like with brilliant Mac-native management software. This is high-end gear for serious business — fibre-channel, redundant controllers, redundant power supplies, redundant cooling, etc — with an emphasis on performance. The XRAID comes in two flavors, the original XRAID with 16TB capacity expandable to 32TB and the XRAID ES with 4TB, expandable to 16TB.

All of this power is wrapped in a sexy package that feels very Apple like. The folks at Active Storage have put a lot of care into building enclosures with no sharp edges, tapered screws that sit flush with the chassis, thick gauge aluminum, and slick handles on the drive sleds that pop out with a light touch. I had a chance to take a look at the XRAID at Macworld Expo in January and the build quality on these units is astounding. Having been in a data center or two in my life, finding a polished product where attention has been given to every detail to make it simple to access from both the front and the back of the rack is a real joy. One of the coolest pieces is an iPhone monitoring app that gives you all the details you could want on how the XRAID is performing even when you are not near the data center. This is definitely a storage solution fit for a Mac.

The extreme ease of use in a Mac environment has made Active Storage popular in the entertainment crowd. When asked to explain further, Mr. Grossman explained that, “You may not know this because you aren’t in working with these systems every day, but feature-length movie production requires 50 to 100TB of storage. And that need doesn’t go away when the movie is finished either. There is a need for long-term archival storage as well. And it doesn’t always make sense to use tape backup, so disk-to-disk archiving is growing.”

Final Cut has made the Mac platform a common choice for film editing with some feature films like King Kong being composited and edited entirely on Macs. With the advent of HD, the storage needs for films are growing astronomically. Active Storage appears to be positioned to take advantage of that trend. It makes a great hardware solution in conjunction with Apple products like the Xserve, Final Cut Server, and Xsan 2.

The company currently has about 25 employees, but about 50 open positions on its web site. It is obviously looking to grow substantially in 2010, especially with this capital available to fund hiring and product development.

It is great news to see a well-respected investment fund like Intel Capital place bets on the Mac market, especially in a company that is focused on enterprise-class solutions for the Mac.

With the release of 10.6.2, Apple killed unsupported support for the Atom processor — the processor used in low-cost netbooks. Certain models of netbooks could run OS X quite easily, and people used them to make the Little Netbook Apple Refuses to Make. While it’s a stretch to say Apple has killed the hackintosh market, it’s certainly proving it isn’t going to sit around and ignore it.

The reaction has been interesting and varies from casual indifference, to the defense of Apple’s action, to thinking Apple cancelled Christmas. While I’ve been a vocal supporter of Apple’s right to continue to club Palm over the Pre syncing fiasco, I imagine it’ll sound hypocritical when I say I’m disappointed in Apple over this move.

Up until now, Apple’s stance with the hackintosh community has largely been don’t ask, don’t tell. The people who bought a netbook and, hopefully, bought a copy of OS X to install it, were aware of the risks of doing so. Getting it to run might involve waving a dead chicken at the screen, or it could be completely painless. However, the person undertaking this task knew of the risks. So, there was little harm done.

I’d like to take a look at some of the armchair theories I’ve seen, and offer my own armchair analysis of them.

Apple wasn’t happy with the (alleged) piracy

The piracy angle has two fronts: your interpretation of the EULA, and how many copies of OS X running on hackintoshes were purchased.

In terms of the EULA, while I know Apple strongly disagrees with this, my personal take is as long as I’ve bought a legal license of OS X (and if it’s an upgrade license like Snow Leopard, I have the requisite Leopard copy), if I want to install it on a piece of non-Apple gear as long as I don’t waste Apple’s or mine time with supporting it, I’m in the clear. Now, this is not legal advice in any way, and all the usual disclaimers. It may be a tenuous stretch, but in this case I don’t consider a person creating such a hackintosh a “pirate.”

The second front, though, has no defense. If you’re creating a hackintosh and download a torrent or borrow a buddy’s disc, and don’t own a corresponding license, you’re a pirate. Where things get gray is if you’re downloading a hacked OS X distro, but have a legal license, are you a pirate? I have no data on how many hackintoshes were running pirated OS X installs, and I don’t have any corresponding data on how many Snow Leopard installs are legal. That said, since Apple offers no copy protection, I’m going to say that piracy wasn’t a motivator.

Apple didn’t like seeing netbooks with Apple stickers on them

In the somewhat wonky world of Apple’s Land of Preventing User Confusion, I can actually see this one being a reason for doing this. Now, I go to a fairly technical university and the overall number of netbooks I’ve seen is small, and zero of them have been running OS X (unscientific poll taken while trying to find tables at the canteen and library). I’ve never actually seen a hackbook, much less one with an Apple sticker slapped on it. But there are enough pictures on Flickr of people doing this, so I can see Apple getting irate and going, “OK, enough already.” Who knows, maybe people were walking into Apple stores looking for “that cute little Apple laptop I saw the nice guy at the airport using.”

Apple doesn’t have products running the Atom chipset

I’ll buy this one. While having support for the chipset doesn’t hurt anything, it’s unnecessary code. Maybe Apple was thinking of using the chipset and decided against it. Maybe knowing support for that chipset was keeping Jobs up at night. If Apple does end up using the chipset, it’s easy enough to re-enable the code in the future. Which is about as close as I’ll get to mentioning the oft-rumored, never-promised Tablaslabawhatevah. Some have opined that by doing this code cleanup Apple didn’t know it was breaking Atom support. I don’t agree. While it’s possible there’s nothing evil about its intent, I think it was intentional.

The Psystar lawsuit forced its hands

Now we’re getting somewhere. Up until recently, creating a hackintosh was very much a do-it-yourself affair. You had to get the hardware and do the grunt work to get the OS on it. Granted, while it’s gotten a lot easier over the years and many sites have complete walkthroughs, it’s still an undertaking. Psystar, though, upped the ante. It recently released the Rebel EFI tool which, allegedly, will allow you to install OS X on darn near anything. It’s not a stretch to assume it’s going to sell a netbook running OS X. Given the lawsuit, I believe Apple did this to both be able to demonstrate to a court it has taken measures to prevent OS X from running on un-supported hardware, as well as eliminate a future product line from Psystar.

Like I said, I’m a little disappointed in Apple. But I can understand why it would cut the code for an unused chip. I’ve given some thought to getting a netbook and hackintoshing it, but after I got my new MacBook Pro a month or so ago, that desire faded away. I’m much happier using Apple-built hardware. I have a Dell Ultraportable laptop for work, and the small trackpad on that drives me nuts…I don’t want to think of one smaller.

What about you? What do you think of Apple’s decision?

NVIDIA, makers of graphics chips for Apple’s range of iMacs and MacBooks, has announced that it is putting its Nforce chipset development on hold until the conclusion of a legal dispute with Intel, expected to be reached in 2010.

At the core of the matter is the claim by Intel that its four-year deal with NVIDIA does not include the Core and Nehalem series of microprocessors.

Nvidia’s PR Manager, Ken Brown, told Engadget:

…the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M/ION brands have enjoyed significant sales, as well as critical success. Customers including Apple… and others are continuing to incorporate GeForce 9400M and ION products in their current designs. There are many customers that have plans to use ION or GeForce 9400M chipsets for upcoming designs, as well.

This makes sense, given that these chipsets have been in production for a while and customers (such as Apple) have long-term supply contracts NVIDIA is obliged to honor. Indeed, Apple’s upcoming rumored iMac refresh may well see no change in the use of GeForce 9400M chips in its low-end 20 and 24 inch iMacs. Brown continues:

We firmly believe that this market has a long healthy life ahead. But because of Intel’s improper claims to customers and the market that we aren’t licensed to the new DMI bus and its unfair business tactics, it is effectively impossible for us to market chipsets for future CPUs. So, until we resolve this matter in court next year, we’ll postpone further chipset investments for Intel DMI CPUs.

Despite Intel’s actions, we have innovative products that we are excited to introduce to the market in the months ahead. We know these products will bring with them some amazing breakthroughs that will surprise the industry, just as GeForce 9400M and ION have shaken up the industry this year.

In the world of corporate communications, this is about as bitchy as executives can get.

AppleInsider reported on its website yesterday that,  “…earlier this year, Intel sued Nvidia in an attempt to stop the company from developing compatible chipsets for future generation Intel processors. Many of NVIDIA’s gains — including the partnership with Apple — have amounted to Intel’s loss.” So perhaps all this legal maneuvering is indicative of Intel’s desire to wrest-back control of that sector of the market (and the associated profits) with its own chipset offerings. Perhaps.

Undoubtedly, there has been trouble for NVIDIA in the last year, though reading between the lines of countless reported rumors proves a bit of a challenge. It was only a year ago that Apple switched to the GeForce 9400M G integrated controller in their MacBooks. Shortly after, iMacs and Mac Minis got the same chip-love with the NVIDIA MCP79. But by mid 2009, rumors circulated that relations between Apple and NVIDIA were deteriorating due to reports of manufacturing defects that affected a number of MacBook Pros.

More recently, there have been rumors thatNVIDIA’sCEO and President Jen-Hsun Huang directly asked partners if there was any reason NVIDIA should stay in the chipset business. As the story goes, no one could offer a reason, and the division is closed. NVIDIA denied it. It’s hard to know what’s really going on, but it’s not hard to see that trouble is brewin’.

Where does this leave Apple once its existing orders of  NVIDIA chips are satisfied? A mix of Intel and ATI solutions aren’t beyond imagining. ATI cards are already offered in the high-end iMac and Mac Pro configurations available on the Apple Store. So perhaps Intel chipsets can replace NVIDIA’s on the low end of the scale — I just wonder whether Intel’s chips (and experience in mobile technology) can offer appropriate gains in performance, reliability and power efficiency.

Last week at the IDF 2009 Conference in San Francisco, Intel unveiled a new next-generation data transfer technology dubbed Light Peak. It’s basically an optical subsystem comprised of lasers, modules and probably the odd Flux Capacitor here and there. The outcome is transfer speeds of up to 10Gbps. (By comparison, the upcoming USB 3.0 standard will provide maximum throughput of ‘only’ 3Gbps. So-called “Hi-Speed” USB 2.0, in case you’re not yet impressed enough, manages a measly 480Mbps.)

Furthermore, Intel says the technology can support multiple devices on the same port simultaneously, without the need for adapters or extension dongles, and maintain data parity at cable lengths up to one hundred meters. Wow.

So it’s heart warming to know that Apple originally devised the concept for Light Peak. Engadget reports that Steve Jobs presented the idea to Intel’s Paul Otellini back in 2007. Apple was interested in developing an insanely high-speed interoperable standard capable of shifting huge amounts of data and, “…replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector (FireWire, USB, Display interface).”

Speed Demon

The blistering super-speed of Light Peak makes it ideal for driving bandwidth-intensive devices and peripherals on the desktop — say, multiple HD panels — but the real world benefits to ordinary consumers (after all, most end-users do not have high-end desktop hardware) would obviously lie in handheld integration. Because the technology supports multiple devices on the same port, it means a portable device could potentially do-away with the tradition of providing several different I/O ports. Doesn’t this sound typically Apple? Say goodbye to Ethernet, USB, Mini DV, FireWire, optical audio in/out, HDMI and so on. Light Peak offers to replace them all with a single, super high-bandwidth alternative. Fewer ports means fewer components and smaller, thinner devices requiring less power. Presumably, they would be cheaper to manufacture, passing those savings down to the customers in the shape of lower prices. That said, I wouldn’t expect Apple to factor that into its premium pricing philosophy. Apple’s not exactly known for its low, low prices.

So what does it all mean in practical, everyday terms that, you know, matter to ordinary people? Well, right now, it means almost nothing since the technology is still in the developement stage. According to Engadget’s Joshua Topolsky, Apple intends to introduce the new standard (yep, it’s not just a new toy, it’s a whole new standard) in late 2010. Beyond that, 2011 might see low-power variations appear in handheld devices.

The concept behind Light Peak is typically Apple. It offers a real, practical — and aesthetically pleasing — solution to the age old problem of cable-mess while introducing impressive new technology to the industry. Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs are, it seems, almost pathologically opposed to seeing buttons, ports and other bits and pieces on their devices. In fact, Ive said of the MacBook’s redesign; “We’ve refined and refined every detail in the service of the user, just to get rid of complexity. If something doesn’t need to be there, it’s not there. I don’t know how we could make something any more essential, any simpler…”

And for ultimate minimalism, look no further than the iPhone. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if Ive and Jobs considered a zero-button design at one point in the iPhone’s R&D infancy.

According to Engadget, the roadmap for Light Peak, as it stood in 2007, “…includes Light Peak being introduced to the iPhone / iPod platform to serve as a gateway for multimedia and networking outputs.”

Light Peak would offer an incredible data transfer platform to replace the USB standard used with all iPods and iPhones today. Imagine transferring an HD movie from iTunes to a device in mere seconds, or your entire iTunes music library in about a minute. And there’s no reason why OEMs can’t build Light Peak right into their chipsets and motherboards, allowing for ever-higher bus speeds.

Apple was smart going to Intel with the proposal for Light Peak. Introducing a new toy is relatively easy, but introducing a whole new platform is much harder. By handing the task to Intel, Apple can ensure this new standard makes its way into more hardware than Apple products alone.

USB 3.0 has been a long, long time coming, and many OEM’s are, presumably, invested in long-term licensing deals which allow them to build USB support into their products. At launch, Light Peak would be an expensive new platform (those licenses won’t be cheap!) that initially only Intel’s first-tier partners might support (Engadget tips the hat toward Sony as a possible early-adopter). Most OEMs will likely “wait and see” if the technology proves stable, reliable and economical in the long run. But at least they will consider it. They might not give it any attention at all if it were to appear as an Apple-only technology.

And goodness only knows if we’re about to see the start of another format war, pitted between USB 3.0 and Light Peak 1.0.

One More Thing

Engadget adds that Intel has plans for a new low-power Atom chip, due to launch next year, that will be positioned to compete with chips currently found in mobile devices such as iPhones, netbooks and set top boxes. Says Engadget, “The indication we’ve been given is that that product (coupled with the Light Peak standard) could provide the basis for some “big” MID news in 2010.”

I’m gonna watch the evolution of Light Peak carefully, and I think you should, too. Sure, it doesn’t (yet) promise the wireless goodness of the more mature and proven USB 3.0 standard, which, at the very least, won’t require end users replace all their peripherals with Light Peak-enabled alternatives. But it does offer the kind of wideband, high-speed convergence our increasingly interconnected devices cry-out for.

In addition to the numerous refinements that Snow Leopard brings, among the first you’ll notice is an easier installation experience. Some options that experienced Apple users have come to know and love have been changed or relocated, resulting in an experience that is far less intimidating than installing Microsoft Windows.

Traditional OS X users may be familiar with some of the more advanced installation options beyond the usual “Upgrade Mac OS X.” Options such as “Erase and Install” and “Archive and Install” have been changed for Snow Leopard. To prevent users from accidentally erasing their hard drive, the erase and install functionality has been relegated to manual formatting via Disk Utility.

Should one need to archive and install (which is where your previous system files are archived in a separate location and a new system is installed in their place), the installer will it automatically when it detects an attempt to install the same operating system as is currently found on the Mac. When installation is complete, Snow Leopard cleans up after itself and doesn’t leave users with an ugly “Previous System” folder as before.

Trickery With Versions

With Snow Leopard’s “behind the scenes” archive and install process, it now automatically installs the current OS version number. For example, if someone is running 10.6.3 and reinstalls, when installation is complete they will still be using 10.6.3 instead of 10.6. This removes the need to run an hour of software updates, but it does present a potential problem. When “dot releases” come out, compatibility is sometimes affected, and users archive and install to revert back to a previous system version. Beyond erasing and installing, this doesn’t seem possible with Snow Leopard.

Wither Rosetta?

By default, when you install Snow Leopard, it will not install Rosetta, Apple’s technology to allow older PowerPC apps to run on Intel processors. As most applications are Universal and Snow Leopard itself requires an Intel processor, Apple is finally making big strides to leave behind the world of PowerPC. Should users still need Rosetta, it is available as an optional install.

QuickTime X vs QuickTime 7

Snow Leopard introduces Apple’s redesigned version of QuickTime, dubbed QuickTime X. Though several of the more popular third party plugins will work with QuickTime X out of the box, users may need to resort to QuickTime 7 and any plugins they’ve used with it for playing more specialized content (or you could just turn to the much more robust VLC).

Snow Leopard will include QuickTime 7 as an option, but will not install it by default unless users already have QuickTime 7 Pro on their system. Should you try to open a file in QuickTime X that requires QuickTime 7, Software Update will automatically download it for you if it’s not already present on the system.

Unanswered Questions

As mentioned earlier, it remains unclear whether Apple has a solution in place in case users install a “dot release” like 10.6.4 and wish to revert back. What we’ve heard about the archive and install seems to infer you would end up with 10.6.4 upon completion.

There’s also still some question as to how Snow Leopard will behave with fresh installs and with older operating systems. Will users need to install Leopard first when swapping in a new hard drive, for example? Recent evidence points to no, but we won’t know for sure until tomorrow.

I’m sure many of you are going to have questions about the installation process, upgrade requirements, and the like. Feel free to use with the comments below to help the process along as the Apple faithful adopt yet another new operating system.

A few weeks back, Steve Jobs returned to his duties at Apple. During his absence, Apple appears to have operated effectively and efficiently. Few people asked the question, “What will Apple do without Steve?” because the question was getting a dress rehearsal. But now that Steve is back (meaning, one day, he will “leave” again), I believe that the investors, financial analyst and the media will once again begin to ask about Apple’s succession planning.

So, what is succession planning and why is it important to Apple?

Succession planning is a talent management process. For key employees, those whose positions within Apple are too critical to be left vacant or staffed by someone who doesn’t have a clue about the task at hand, the board of directors is responsible for identifying and developing a talent pool. These leaders-in-waiting will be used to ensure effective continuity and growth of the company.

Succession planning is a primary concern for Apple’s shareholders. Many institutional and individual investors have chosen to hold Apple’s stock for the long haul. They want to know that the company is planning predictably over that time frame as well.

So why is this important to Apple?

Over the last year, the state of Steve Job’s health has raised a chorus of questions about Apple’s succession planning. What would happen to Apple if Steve was no longer able to do his job as CEO? Is Tim Cook the next “Steve?” Why isn’t the board making a clearer statement about this issue? These question create uncertainty, and investors don’t like uncertainty (as can be seen by the January lows in Apple’s stock price).

The question of succession planning goes beyond just figuring out who will be the next CEO. Transitions in leadership can be disruptive. Selecting a candidate from within the company may provide continuity. However, internal candidates who are not selected may choose to take their chances elsewhere. Selecting a candidate from the outside usually results in the new person bringing in his/her “people” — who possibly displace existing staff. The board’s challenge is to find a leader that works well within the existing corporate culture and, at the same time, brings something exciting and new to the table so he/she is not seen as “Steve 2.0.”

Apple may be able to learn a lot about leadership continuity from companies like Intel and Microsoft.

Over the last 40 years, Intel has maintained a high level of growth and innovation as it has transitioned through five chief executives. Paul Otellini, Intel’s current CEO, worked at the company for more than 30 years before taking the reins, and his top executives have spent their entire careers at Intel. Grooming and predictability are the hallmarks of the Intel approach. For those analysts that think Apple currently has a “deep bench” of capable executives, the Intel approach may be the best option.

On the other hand, the transition of Bill Gates at Microsoft was a planned affair that took more than eight years to complete. A phased, long-term approach would give Apple an opportunity to bring new executives into the spotlight and provide the kind of certainty that both customers and investors are looking for.

Over the next several months, as Steve gets back into a more normal work schedule, I suspect that we will have greater visibility into Apple’s succession planning. My hope is that the company combines the best of the Intel and Microsoft approaches.

One detail that escaped mention during the keynote presentation at Apple’s WWDC earlier this week likely does not sit well with users still clutching their beloved G4 machines, namely that OS X 10.6, also know as Snow Leopard, will finally drop PowerPC support and only run on Intel Macs. It’s unfortunate for people attached to their eMacs and 12-inch Powerbooks, especially given that Snow Leopard appears to be more resource-efficient than Leopard ever was.

Yes, it’s unfortunate, but it also makes sense from Apple’s perspective. The company hasn’t released a PowerPC computer since October 2005, which will be nearly four years ago when Snow Leopard is released in September. Four years might not be a long time to own a car or a refrigerator, but with computers, it’s a lifetime. Just think about the difference between the original MacBook and the 13-inch MacBook Pro announced this past Tuesday.

A lot of what Snow Leopard brings to the table won’t be all that applicable to a computer with PowerPC architecture, either, such as multicore processing improvements with Grand Central Dispatch, and OpenCL tech that leverages graphics processor capabilities for general computing tasks. Not to mention that the whole thing runs in 64-bit mode, which probably wouldn’t play all that nice on older Macs.

Macs have always been notable for their value proposition in the long term. I was only recently shopping for a PowerPC G4 12-inch PowerBook as a gift for my girlfriend, thinking I could pick one up for a song at this point. In fact, for a decently spec’d machine with a newish battery, I was looking at paying at least $550-$600. Many people were unblinkingly asking $750 and up for their cherished machines, and weren’t open to being talked down at all.

Does a lack of continued OS support hurt the value proposition of those machines? Sure it does, but probably not as much as one might think. Anyone looking to buy an older Mac, for instance, probably doesn’t have technological currency at the forefront of their mind. In fact, whether they find Tiger, Leopard, or Snow Leopard on the computer in question probably won’t make much difference in terms of their usage.

Maybe Apple is leaving a lot of people out to dry when it comes to Snow Leopard’s backwards compatibility, but at the same time, you have to remember that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. Yes, it makes a lot of software, too, but that’s not its primary source of revenue. Snow Leopard is really just another reason to buy a new machine, and you can’t really blame Apple for wanting people to do that.

iLife ‘09 recently arrived and brought with it loads of goodies and new features for users upgrading from previous versions. iPhoto ’09’s facial recognition tech is the talk of the town, since it can apparently even distinguish between cats. Aspiring musicians can learn from the greats, albeit for a fee, via Garage Band’s “Artist Lessons”. Or rather, aspiring musicians who are lucky enough to be using a Mac with an Intel processor can learn from the greats. Those still running PPC architecture have actually been left out in the cold by Apple this time around.

It’s not like “Intel-only” is something Mac users haven’t heard before, but this is the first time Apple has applied it to their popular consumer-level media suite, as Ars Technica points out. As someone who’s currently shopping for a gently used 12″ PowerBook G4, which I’m opting for over a new netbook, the news is somewhat disconcerting. Or dis-”concerting”, rather. See what I did there?

The problem is not so much with my not being able to pay $6.50 for questionably useful musical instruction from celebrities, but with the possibility that this represents the first crack in the dam, so to speak. If Apple begins excluding PowerPC architecture from its support list, it’s unlikely that anyone else will continue to respect the technology either. Should they, though? One of the benefits of buying Apple hardware in the past has been the durability of the computers, and the fact that they retain so much resale value, even as they advance significantly in age. Still, does that mean that Apple and others should bend over backwards to offer legacy support?

I’d argue that yes, they should, if they want to keep their reputation of being a computer that you can happily own for many years, and then pass on or find another loving home for when you are finished. And that reputation will remain intact, so long as the core functionality remains accessible, even if glittering extras like Norah Jones helping you play piano might not.

It may not have arrived at Macworld, as some thought possible, but it looks like we could yet see a quad-core iMac from Apple in 2009.

The rumors have gained renewed strength based on news from Intel regarding new, low power quad-core processors that they’ve just released. The new processors are designed for desktop use, in contrast with the existing low-power notebook chips, and as such would represent a departure for the iMac line, which typically uses mobile processors.

The new Core 2 Quad processors introduced by Intel are low power, but they still use far more energy than the existing Core 2 Duo mobile chips used in current models, and generate far more heat. Intel, however, clearly is thinking about the chips with the iMac or iMac competitors in mind, saying they’re designed for “sleek and cool desktops.” I can’t think of many other machines that fit that description, can you?

Of course, there’s a big difference between wishful thinking on Intel’s part and what Apple will actually do. Even if affordable, do quad-core iMacs make sense from Cupertino’s perspective? Basic logic would seem to suggest that the move from duo to quad-core processors would be a natural next step, but there’s the question of what it would mean for Apple’s clearly delineated product categories.

Quad-core iMacs would probably sap some entry-level power users away from the Mac Pro line of desktops, since, if Apple stays true to form, pricing levels will not change with hardware improvements. It is true that eventually the line will probably have to go that way, but Apple generally makes sure that their higher-end products stand enough apart from their more widely appealing computers that corporate buyers for media professionals know where they have to put their money.

As evidence that the quad-core iMacs could indeed be based on these new chips, AppleInsider cites older rumors that suggested Apple was working on new cooling methods for their all-in-one desktop that could handle the excess heat generated by the more power-hungry chips.

You may or may not have forgotten about the MacBook Pro’s larger self, the 17-inch model. Following its conspicuous absence from the lineup of new laptops announced at the notebook event which took place this past October, news came that Apple had not forsaken the bigger-screened version, but that its release was delayed due to production issues. Well, we’ve yet to see the 17-incher appear, but now it looks like there might’ve been good reason for the prolonged absence.

APC today is suggesting that the recently released (just yesterday, in fact) low-cost quad-core processor from Intel, the Core 2 Extreme Q9000, might have something to do with Apple’s hold out. That’s right, the theory is that Apple could be prepping its first quad core notebook using the chip, which, as APC points out, does work out well on paper, if you consider the chip’s price point and Apple’s apparent acceptable margins. For the sake of comparison, consider that Acer has already announced a gaming laptop with a $1,799 price point using the chip.

At this point, the theory is just that, a theory, based on the timing of Intel’s release and the continued presence of an old machine at the top end of the MacBook Pro line. It is, however, a sound theory that holds up to scrutiny. The timing couldn’t be more perfect for a Macworld announcement, and it’s impossible to conceive that Intel didn’t tip its hand to Apple earlier about this development, and the timeframe for its release. The new price point of the quad core processor would allow Apple to stay under the dangerous $3,000 mark.

Apple could also be planning to offer multiple models, splitting the 17-incher into two basic configurations, one with a dual, and the other with this new quad core chip. That would account for the rumors that circulated before Macworld that internal Apple pricing sheets were showing more models than were released at the October event. Taken together, all the clues lead me to believe that we’ll almost certainly be seeing this in the flesh (in the aluminum?) come Macworld.

Although the speculation was rampant when Apple bought PA Semi earlier this year, Intel made it official: there will not be Intel processors in the iPhone.

Intel is preparing more x86 versions of their processors for mobile devices, and “Apple chose not to take that road map at their next generation of platform…That was disappointing,” said Patrick Gelsinger, general manager of the digital enterprise group at Intel.

Disappointing is right. Apple plans on selling 10 million iPhones this year, and analysts are predicting that they may sell up to 15 million in 2008! It also means you won’t be able to run Windows Mobile on your iPhone anytime soon. I was really hoping for Boot Camp on the future versions of iPhone.

[Via Forbes]

I don’t think this will show up in tonight’s quarterly report, but Forbes is reporting that Apple bought chip company P.A. Semi with the apparent hopes to use them to create chips for the iPhone. Unsurprisingly, Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said, “Apple buys smaller technology companies from time to time, and we generally do not comment on our purposes and plans.” Mr. Dowling, I realize that Apple doesn’t usually comment on any question that a news outlet might ask you, but how are we supposed to run Windows Mobile on our iPhones if you don’t tell go with a small Intel chip?

I jest, don’t attack!

This is interesting, though because Intel claims that its new mobile-targeted chips will be “central to handheld computing.” It seems that the purchase of this small (150 employees) company is to remind Intel that just because they are in Apple’s computers, doesn’t mean they will be in Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch.

I have never heard of P.A. Semi, but they created a super non-power-sucking 64-bit dual core microprocessor in February 2007 that they claim is 300-400 percent more efficient than other processors.

Apparently, negotiations with P.A. Semi took place at Steve Jobs’ home. If that is true, what does it take to get a meeting with Jobs at his home? I am no CEO, but that seems like a pretty big honor to be invited to a CEO’s home.

(via Forbes)

Apple promised to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007 and Microsoft released a Universal Binary version of Office in January 2008, but a Remote Desktop Connection Client that runs natively on Intel Macs is still in beta. Except now that beta has expired… sort of.

Microsoft released RDC 2.0 Beta 2 on October 25, 2007, with the release note that it would expire on March 31, 2008. Users launching it today will receive the message shown here:

You might think that the insistence to upgrade to the final release version means there is a final release version available. Yet clicking the default button simply takes the user to the Mactopia home page. Clicking on the Remote Desktop link there reveals that the “lastest” version is still 2.0 Beta 2, which, according to the message given on launch, is “out of date.”

Here’s how I see Microsoft’s options for this situation:

• Ideal Option: Release the final version of RDC 2.0 for download
• Near-Ideal Option: Release Beta 3 with a future expiration date
• Acceptable Option: Continue to let us use Beta 2 and stop telling us it’s out of date
• Worst Option: Beta 2 stops working completely and nothing new can be downloaded

Oh, and maybe someone over there should double-check the spelling in the dialog boxes. 

apple.com, 9 May 1998 [via]

Noted blogger and podcaster Daniel Eran Dilger writes today at Roughly Drafted on Leopard and the History and Future of Mac OS X on PowerPC.

For those of you, like our own Stephanie Guertin, who are running on older PPC systems, Dilger lays out why support for the PowerPC isn’t going away anytime soon. With an informative examination of historical Apple products, his article provides a sound argument for G4 and G5 owners to stay calm.

His article (as well as his blog in general) is worth a read whether you’re panicking about support for that PowerBook you bought just before the MacBook Pro was announced, or you merely want a refresher on the history of Apple’s products and CEOs during the dark ages (the years when Jobs was gone).

When entering college in 1995, I purchased my first computer that was all mine – a Performa 631CD, with screaming 33 MHz performance and a 68040LC processor. Sporting 8 MB of RAM and 500 MB of hard drive space, I was good to go. But unsurprisingly, I was immediately lapped, not just by the next Mac upgrades, but by an entire processor family, as Apple moved from 68k Macs to PowerPC. In short time, I found many titles were written for PowerPC processors only, and my Mac was too out of date to participate.

More than a decade later, my go-to Mac is a PowerBook G4. Though the specs are much stronger than my first Macs, and the machine is tremendous, I’m seeing a similar gap between where I am and where the leading Mac developers are focused – as they code for Intel-based Macs, and some applications run only on Intel Macs, leveraging the power of Apple’s new chip partner.

Some of the most prominent Intel-only Mac developers are extremely visible, especially on the Web, including the Internet video playback software, Joost, and VMWare’s Fusion, a product so cool from a simple geek factor, that it has me trying to find reasons to upgrade.

Apple has made some big leaps of faith in recent years, from 68k to PowerPC, from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, and from PowerPC to Intel. But those of us who bought late are quickly antiquated, despite using machines that work great. Should I be taking my PowerBook to eBay and making an upgrade? What else am I missing out on by not yet making the switch to Intel?