Intel-Mac hits a chord with integrators

by Joel Shore

June 21, 2005 —

It was fascinating hearing from several readers of this column in the wake of our look at Apple's decision to shift its processor platform from the IBM-manufactured PowerPC to Intel. Some of you thought I was completely out to lunch with my assessment of Apple's move, others agreed with me. Frankly, I like that. Lively discussions and disagreements are good for all of us. As for name calling, that doesn't add much in the way of substance.

The fact is, I'm not at all anti-Apple. Indeed, I've written more than a dozen columns over the years chastising Microsoft for some inane decision or technology --- or failure to even have a technology, in some cases --- that demonstrated how far ahead of the curve Apple was, and still is. The whole method of Macintosh application installation, the ridiculousness of solving Windows problems by being forced to manually edit the system registry, the difficulty of implementing Windows networking in comparison to AppleTalk (a jewel in its day), and Apple's penchant for having peripherals that just work when you connect them (eat your heart out Plug 'n' Play), are just some that come to mind.

And Apple, for all its technical prowess, has had its moments of dubiousness, too. Its decision to not license the operating system, then to allow clones, then to change its mind and not allow them, wasn't one of its stellar moments. Nor was the Newton. Or the policy, in the early days, of keeping the Mac a non-expandable architecture. And its channel policies of granting then revoking dealerships didn't win fans in some circles. But the fact is that because the operating system and the hardware are so closely united, the Mac has always been a technologically superior platform, hands down. That was true in 1984, and it's still true, 21 years later.

I'd love to see Apple's market share among corporations grow enormously. The best thing that could happen to Windows users is to have a strong Apple. There's nothing like robust competition to keep a company on its toes, and keeping a fire lit under Microsoft would hopefully lead to products that are secure --- and complete --- on day one. This is not to suggest that Apple's mission is to keep the pressure on Microsoft. It has better things to do.

In publishing, graphics arts, and among film-music composers, the Mac reigns supreme. And if an Intel-based Mac attracts developers in other categories to bring newfound glory to the House of Jobs, I'm all for it.

As I noted in our earlier discussion, where this leaves the channel and solutions integrators is not yet known. More than likely, integrators will benefit from having new solutions to recommend and sell. While I still suspect that the majority of corporate-oriented integrators sell few Macs, that could change. Doing so will require investments in training, something else about which we currently know little. I'm looking forward to learning more.

ITworld.com