This is the first year that we have covered Apple's World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC) keynote, but it will definitely not be the last.

Over 3800 developers will attend this year's WWDC, making it similar in size to IDF from a couple of years ago.

Hosted in the Moscone West Convention Center, the same venue as Intel's IDF just a few months prior, Apple made the most ground-breaking announcement in their history - the move to Intel processors starting in 2006 and almost complete by 2007. The crowd was already expecting what was to come:

Despite the expectations, the announcement was still quite shocking. Even I found myself feeling shocked by the announcement that the rumors, in fact, were real.

Before we get to the details of Apple's Intel transition, here are some of the highlights from the start of the keynote:

Steve Jobs demo'd iTunes 4.9 with support for Podcasting. The support is quite widespread throughout the new version of iTunes and in Apple's usual style, it is quite easy to use.


iTunes 4.9 Playing a Podcast

Later today, Apple will be previewing Quicktime 7, with H.264 support, for Windows PCs. The preview version will be available for download today.

Also, later this week, Apple will have shipped their 2 millionth copy of Tiger, which has been shipping for 6 weeks now and has 16% of all Mac OS market share:

Although Steve Jobs didn't go into much detail, he did announce that the next version of the Mac OS would be Mac OS X 10.5, codenamed Leopard. Leopard won't be talked about at the conference this year, but it will next year. The OS will ship sometime in late 2006 or early 2007, around the same time as Longhorn.

Apple and Intel, Together at Last
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • santa590 - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    31)
    It's not Windows apps ported to OS X. It's OS X apps for PPC ported to OS X for x86 (or intel).
    Reply
  • Pandaren - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    To all Intel bashers: Yonah, Merom, and Conroe. That's why Apple is making the switch. Reply
  • finbarqs - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    haha i think it's more of Apple's way to take away from some of microsoft's storm. In fact, i think that's what apple has been planning all this time... to become a bigger player in the computing market. Apple always have their niche 5% market. With the transition to Intel's x86 architecture, They can finally take away some of the storm that's been blessed with microsoft. Now people will have a choice of either OSX or Windows... Finally Microsoft's quality control will go up! Reply
  • Wightout - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    31) i would think that it is for the same reason that BMW dosn't want their cars in every home. it would destroy the value and prestiege of owning one. You would loose the idea that you and your mac are special UNLIKE everyone else. Reply
  • hoppa - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    I really can't see why Apple wouldn't want to release OS X for general x86, other than their image. They would make a hell of a lot more selling their OS than they would lose selling proprietary hardware. Especially if, as they claim, Windows apps can be ported to OS X in a couple hours! I'd be one of the first to switch . And I may actually even consider buying it!

    -andy
    Reply
  • fishbits - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    "On another point, if they don't want to make their OS run on anthing but Intel and specific hardware, just what is the advantage?"

    Because they can charge more for it to Apple loyalists who can't go out and build their own. Maybe one day Apple buyers will say "Hey! We're pretty much getting PC hardware and dropping an extra $1000 or so for the OS and a case!" Will have to see if that happens, and then what Apple's reaction will be. Maybe when they figure out that the Power PC was just a good CPU and not a magical entity, and that Intel will be providing chips that are even better (with Apple itself shouting Pentium love from the rooftops) the minds will uncloud.

    I'd love it if it meant I could get OS X for $100-200 (money Apple's currently not getting), and more folks could give OS X a try without dismissing it due to price of entry.

    "For that matter, the argument of AMD can't handle the capacity is crap. What is 1.8% of the market? AMD can't handle that?"

    Sure they can, but not without conceding that part of what we currently think of as the x86 market. Apple and AMD may yet do great things together some day, but it's far more vital that they gain ground in their current markets before taking on something new. When AMD's not teetering on the edge anymore (hopefully soon) they'll have more breathing room for such projects.
    Reply
  • wilburpan - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    One more item in favor of Intel CPU's over AMD:

    Multitasking performance appears to be consistently better with Pentium D chips over Athlon 64 with today's options. See the "Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look" article on Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    Again, if Apple wants to be at the legendary living room digital hub, multitasking performance may be a priority over FPS in a FPS.*

    * Frames per second in a first person shooter. I've always wanted to say that. :)
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    On another point, if they don't want to make their OS run on anthing but Intel and specific hardware, just what is the advantage? So it has a different processor in it, and one that is according to apple much slower.

    For that matter, the argument of AMD can't handle the capacity is crap. What is 1.8% of the market? AMD can't handle that?

    That's Dell's argument too, but then again, over the past year Intel has been pretty slow as well to deliver. And it's not as if 100% of your processor shipments will turn AMD overnight.
    Reply
  • Wightout - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    hopefully there wont be that stupid insignia plastered to the front of all the new mac machines, or any of the laptops. yuuuuck.....! Reply
  • Anemone - Monday, June 06, 2005 - link

    Should be X86 I think and thus AMD as well but that's just my $.02. Overall a nice move and one where we might be finally able to directly compare OS's on the same platforms...

    Nice!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now