Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!

[persia]

CNN posted this video story yesterday that explains why Apple avoided Intel for so long.  It appears that when Steve Jobs was just starting up making computers in the garage he approached Andrew Grove for a discount on memory.  Andrew responded that they give discounts to large orders not to small companies like yours.  You are a nobody, why should I give you a discount.  That apparently stuck with Steve Jobs for a long time and that's why he went with IBM and PPC instead of Intel.  

So the who Intel versus PPC debate was not about endian-ness or features, it was about a bruised ego...

http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2009/11/05/tm_steve_jobs_apple_ceo.fortune/

[persia]

Steve Jobs was named CEO of the decade by Money Magazine.  He took a company on the ropes, worth about 5 billion and turned it into an industry leader worth 40 times that.  But I think they're also right, the '00s were the decade of Apple, but the '10s will be the decade of Google.  Android has a better chance to catch the big three (Symbian, Apple and RIM) than anyone else....

[persia]

NeXT started with Motorola chips and made the decision in 1992 to go to Intel rather than IBM (PPC).  This is probably the point at which Steve Jobs forgave Grove, in '97 Jobs took over an Apple entrenched in IBM chips.  9 Years later the IBM chips were eliminated.  There is every indication that OS X was Intel ready from the beginning.

But it was a long process.  He had to get OS X off the ground and wean people off classic before the switch could be made.