wumpus (lost.delete@this.in.a.cave) on June 25, 2020 10:51 am wrote:
> 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.

PowerPC also had PA Semi as an option. They probably didn't feel like going with a small startup company.