By: wumpus (lost.delete@this.in.a.cave), June 25, 2020 10:51 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid) on June 24, 2020 8:15 am wrote:
> Anne O. Nymous (not.delete@this.real.address) on June 24, 2020 4:41 am wrote:
>
> > I for one consider being willing to change ISA/platform not a sign of weakness or a correction
> > of an earlier error, but simply as good management, nobodies crystal ball actually works that well,
> > and what might have been even an absolute optimal strategy/decision in the past might turn out
> > to be a dead end in the near future. So flexibility and change per se are not bad things.
>
> I note that no-one is saying that if ARM is the right answer now, ARM must have been the
> right answer in 2006, and Apple should have ported to ARM instead of Intel back then.
Interesting concept.
So in 2006 the question can be recast to:
Stay with IBM silicon (sounds like Jobs refused to consider this)
Go with Intel (not sure if AMD was still viable. But its existence helped make x86 look less like lock-in).
Go with ARM (Cortex A8? Doesn't sound viable to me)
Go with "Apple Silicon" and ARM. No point
Go with "Apple Silicon" and PPC. "Apple Silicon". In 2006? No.
While I can't take the idea of Apple making their own chips in 2006 seriously, if they went that route then PPC would have been the way to go (probably on iPhone as well).
x86 was the right choice.
> Anne O. Nymous (not.delete@this.real.address) on June 24, 2020 4:41 am wrote:
>
> > I for one consider being willing to change ISA/platform not a sign of weakness or a correction
> > of an earlier error, but simply as good management, nobodies crystal ball actually works that well,
> > and what might have been even an absolute optimal strategy/decision in the past might turn out
> > to be a dead end in the near future. So flexibility and change per se are not bad things.
>
> I note that no-one is saying that if ARM is the right answer now, ARM must have been the
> right answer in 2006, and Apple should have ported to ARM instead of Intel back then.
Interesting concept.
So in 2006 the question can be recast to:
Stay with IBM silicon (sounds like Jobs refused to consider this)
Go with Intel (not sure if AMD was still viable. But its existence helped make x86 look less like lock-in).
Go with ARM (Cortex A8? Doesn't sound viable to me)
Go with "Apple Silicon" and ARM. No point
Go with "Apple Silicon" and PPC. "Apple Silicon". In 2006? No.
While I can't take the idea of Apple making their own chips in 2006 seriously, if they went that route then PPC would have been the way to go (probably on iPhone as well).
x86 was the right choice.
