All this really means is cheaper, faster, cooler (temperature) macs. I mean who really cares what machine-level code your computer runs, unless you're coding assembly - and if you are, get a life. This way Apple doesn't have to develop entire motherboards, just firmware and OS, and they can get motherboards from any number of sources, with no manufacturing ramp-up penalty like Redhouse was talking about in his interview.
x86 Macs will still look cool and they will still have the same OS running on them. Unless you are a developer, there is no downside. Even then - can you complain about a better market share?
Besides, there is much more competition in the x86 arena than there ever was in the PPC world. Intel, AMD, VIA all make x86 CPU's. I doubt Jobs was stupid enough to sign an exclusivity agreement with Intel, so they can choose their sources. Does IBM have a quad-core CPU in the works? Don't think so.
Before you go calling me a fanboy, I must qualify that I was all Amiga right up to 94 (still have my a3000) when I got my first tech job and have never paid for an Intel processor once since then. I prefer AMD but will buy what gives more bang for the buck (which happens to be AMD64 right now).
Sorry if you bought an A1, but did any of you ever think that you would meet anyone in your neighborhood or workplace who even knew what it was?
