Probably not, IBM and Motorola expended some money on several occassions to try to goose the PPC marketshare (these are the times PPC was ahead of Intel) and except for the G3 and G4 capturing significant embedded marketshare ... the desktop market wasn't too big a hit.
But these periods they sank money into PPC really didn't capture any significant interest in computers -- a key benchmark needed for Apple.
Apple needed at least one or two other manufacturers selling PPC computers to keep IBM and Freescale interested in making desktop chips to make them continually sink money into R&D to keep PPC on par with Intel.
Take the G5, it was an IBM gambit to recover a portion of marketshare from the G4 -- it didn't work. Apple used it, but the embedded space found it too Rube Goldberg, too hot, and too expensive in the R&D dept.
Why put a CPU in the computer that requires another PPC CPU to even come up to a stable clock -- when the G4 will do it on a simpler, cheaper, and lower Watt package.
Sony and MicroSoft aren't good examples either, they needed a lot of R&D to design a new chip -- but that chip design isn't something that requires continual R&D to make it better every year. These chips need R&D to make them cheaper to produce during their lifespan. No real R&D is needed until the "next" box is designed.
---
In order for Apple to switch back they need reassurance that they will be offered a chip that will be continually developed. Not something that gets a makeover every 3 or 4 years.
Which is what they got with Intel ...
MicroSoft or Amiga could have saved the PPC platform, but MS walked away from it and Amiga kept going BK.
Now even Amiga OS 4.0 will have to port to Intel with Apple's exit from the PPC market ... unless they think they alone can save the PPC desktop market when Apple couldn't.
But these periods they sank money into PPC really didn't capture any significant interest in computers -- a key benchmark needed for Apple.
Apple needed at least one or two other manufacturers selling PPC computers to keep IBM and Freescale interested in making desktop chips to make them continually sink money into R&D to keep PPC on par with Intel.
Take the G5, it was an IBM gambit to recover a portion of marketshare from the G4 -- it didn't work. Apple used it, but the embedded space found it too Rube Goldberg, too hot, and too expensive in the R&D dept.
Why put a CPU in the computer that requires another PPC CPU to even come up to a stable clock -- when the G4 will do it on a simpler, cheaper, and lower Watt package.
Sony and MicroSoft aren't good examples either, they needed a lot of R&D to design a new chip -- but that chip design isn't something that requires continual R&D to make it better every year. These chips need R&D to make them cheaper to produce during their lifespan. No real R&D is needed until the "next" box is designed.
---
In order for Apple to switch back they need reassurance that they will be offered a chip that will be continually developed. Not something that gets a makeover every 3 or 4 years.
Which is what they got with Intel ...
MicroSoft or Amiga could have saved the PPC platform, but MS walked away from it and Amiga kept going BK.
Now even Amiga OS 4.0 will have to port to Intel with Apple's exit from the PPC market ... unless they think they alone can save the PPC desktop market when Apple couldn't.
