The "Classic" problem

The most obvious problem is of course the demise of the Classic mode that allows current Mac OS X computers to run applications written for Mac OS 9, and which is not supported by Mac OS X for Intel.

For your average computer user this may be of little concern, but in many business environments, these old applications have not gone away, and not being able to run them any more will be a serious problem for professionals who rely on these apps.

The most prominent example is of course QuarkXPress: Around the world, professional publishers rely on Quark's page layout program for production. However, only QuarkXPress 6.x (introduced only a couple of years ago) runs natively on Mac OS X; a majority of sites still use QuarkXPress 3.x and 4.x, and resort to Classic mode when they have to upgrade to recent Macintosh hardware.

(The conservative attitude of the publishing industry has been a problem for Apple in the past: The company had to keep G4 desktop models in its catalog far longer than initially planned, just because the publishing market needed machines which could boot with Mac OS 9.)

Click here to read more about the future of "Classic" mode.

QuarkXPress users are an important part of Apple's business: There are probably at least 1.5 to 2 million active users of QuarkXPress in the world, 80 percent of which run on Mac operating systems.

Even a very successful Apple cannot afford to sneer at this market. And for Quark, the move to Intel will be an issue: The company is in the middle of finalizing the upcoming 7.0 release of its flagship application, and porting the code to Intel is probably not a very welcome addition to the overall workload.

And then there is a long list of fairly specialized applications which have not been adapted to Mac OS X. A good example is FrameMaker. Adobe stopped selling its long-document program on the Macintosh platform over a year ago, but it is likely that existing sites continue to use the program, which is relatively well-behaved in Classic mode.

Adobe has thrown its support behind Apple on the Intel deal. Click here to read more.

Users who rely on such an application do so because there is no real alternative on Mac OS X; for them, the perspective of an Intel-based Macintosh could amount to a serious headache, and there are more of these users around then one might think, especially in the professional arena.

The 64-bit issue

Equally preoccupying is the question of 64-bit computing. Apple very neatly avoided any mention of this problem (which is in itself quite revealing.) At the launch of the first Power Mac G5, the company made a lot of noise about the advantages of the fact that the G5 processor uses a 64-bit architecture, and that, unlike Intel chips of the same kind, it can run 32-bit applications without resorting to a slow emulation mode.

What will happen with 64-bit support on Intel? Even Tiger is not yet fully 64-bit compliant, and only some high-end graphics applications, such as Lightwave, support 64-bit addressing. (Photoshop still does not, much to the regret of power users around the world.)

Will Apple quietly drop 64-bit addressing? Or does it just not seem that important given the future directions of the Mac platform?

Say goodbye to AltiVec

AltiVec has been touted as one of the platform advantages for the Macintosh, and it is one of the reasons why applications such as Photoshop or Final Cut Pro shine on the G5.

According to Apple, porting these applications to Intel-based Macs is going to be far more complex then average (a problem Apple will have to face with its own professional video applications) and even if it goes well, it will mean losing some edge for the Macintosh platform, in terms of perception as much as performance.

Next Page: Speculations on the future, pro and consumer.

More questions than answers

Steve Jobs has said it over and over: Apple cannot do what it has in mind without moving to Intel, and as far as consumer-level computing is concerned, one can easily see why.

Things are more complex for the pro markets, however. Clearly, Apple has much more to lose there than on the consumer side: Already, many of the larger publishing houses only support the Macintosh grudgingly, considering that Apple is increasingly turning into a consumer electronics company that not only doesn't really understand what their businesses are about, but which is unwilling to make the necessary efforts to bring them the services they expect from a corporate technology provider.

Steve Jobs' latest bombshell can only reinforce this image: Transitioning from one technology platform to another is a real headache for any company. To go from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X made a lot of sense, but the transition is far from over, particularly in larger organizations.

The new Intel-based Macs and the considerable growing pains associated with the change are yet another set of problems no IT director particularly needs—and it's one more argument for dropping the Mac operating system in favor of Windows.

Wild ideas and strange theories

This whole setup makes me wonder: Does Steve Jobs just not care—or are we missing some important angle here?

If one wishes to go down the line of wild theories, of course, there is plenty of food for thought here. Sure, Apple needs to send a clear, unambiguous message to the market. And that's exactly what the company has done: We are going to Intel. End of message.

But what is the real message to developers? Not "Get ready for Intel," but "Move to Xcode" (Apple's development environment) and "Create universal binaries."

Once you have universal binaries, you can create programs for (existing) Power Mac G5 and (future) Pentium Macs—all you need is to recompile.

This, of course, will mean that you will have the first universal, processor-agnostic operating system. And this, in turn, leaves the door wide open to have a different processor strategy for high-end professional workstations than for consumer Macs (and a yet-to-be-introduced living room/entertainment center appliance).

The most important aspect is to manage this pretty ambitious transition—hence the unambiguous message. But once the transition is done things become easier: The pros want G5s and 64-bit apps? What is to stop Apple from continuing to deliver 64-bit solutions using G5?

One can push this idea a bit further: Steve Jobs might just want to focus on the consumer market in the long term. Right now Apple needs the Macintosh business for survival.

But imagine if the whole digital media/iTunes/iVideo scenario materializes. It may just make more sense to spin out a Pro business unit which will deliver workstations for professional markets—on whatever platform seems the most appropriate.

Click here to read more about the consumer-market implications of Apple's decision.

This would probably also reassure the aforementioned IT decision makers who are unhappy with Apple today. Will it happen? Not overnight, but if things evolve in a certain direction, it would be the most logical way of handling things.

All this is wild speculation, of course. But one thing is quite certain: this is the biggest change Apple has tackled since the announcement of the original Mac.

Andreas Pfeiffer is founder of The Pfeiffer Report on Emerging Trends and Technologies.