UPDATE: Gah!

INTEL RUMORS TRUE: Jobs says there have been two major transitions for Mac: 68K to PowerPC and then Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Now it's time for third transition to Intel-based Macs. Developers will begin to make the transition now. While users can begin to switch next year. Apple is making the move "because we want to make the best computers for our customers."

Uhhhhh.... snuh.

Bort.

Poooo!

There is no G5 PowerBook yet. Future products can't be build on IBM PowerPC processors, Jobs says. Intel has better performance and delivers much better performance per watt. Starting next year the first Macs with Intel processors will debut. They'll begin shipping by next WWDC (June). The transition will be mostly complete by 2007 WWDC. It's a two-year transition.

Well, okay, there's that...

But still. Gleh.

Okay, so this means Macs will be on Intel hardware, but not that it will be an open platform. You still won't be able to just run Mac OS X on any off-the-shelf Dell or homebuilt box. Custom motherboards and chipsets will make sure of that. But of course you know that that will be the tune of every pundit from here on out: "Apple must open up Mac OS X for generic x86 hardware, or else they're dooooooomed!"

But here's one silver lining: at least in the great Mac-vs-PC debate, processor performance will no longer be a factor. We'll never have to hear about CISC/RISC comparisons or "long pipeline" discussions ever again, and people won't be able to judge the Mac on the basis of the performance of its individual hardware components, because it'll have the same advantages and disadvantages as everything else.

Which of course also means that many fewer unique selling points, too. But, hey, I guess going to IDE hard drives and standard DIMMs and using filename extensions hasn't exactly hurt them...

See Brian. See Brian justify. Justify, Brian, justify.

UPDATE: Steven Den Beste says: "I think the reality distortion field has become so intense that it's collapsed in on itself and become a black hole."

Maybe the whole purpose of the iPod shuffle's bizarre, seemingly untenable marketing campaign was so he could practice for today...

And of course one just has to wonder: what must IBM have done to piss off Steve this badly? This'll be a hell of a story to read, once the insiders leak it.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, back to the keynote:

Mac OS X has been leading secret double life, Jobs proclaims. Every release of Mac OS X has been built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs over the last 5 years. Mac OS X is cross-platform by design. Jobs shows all Mac OS X Tiger running on Intel. All features are already compatible with Intel-based processors. It's not done yet, but will be put into the developer hands for finishing.

Marklar. Yeah, okay.

Under the transformation: Widget/Scripts/Java Just work, Jobs says. Cocoa apps will take a few days to update. Meanwhile, Carbon Apps will take a few weeks. Jobs tells carbon developers to start using Xcode. Over half of developers using Xcode. Next Xcode (version 2.1) will be delivered today. News Xcode generates a single "universal binary" that supports both PowerPC and Intel x86 processors. Available to everybody at registration desk following the keynote.

Jobs introduces Wolfram's CEO, who said they ported Mathematica 5 to Intel-based Macs in 2 hours. Only about 20 lines of code changed.

# Jobs shows Rosetta: a dymanic binary translator. It runs PowerPC code on Intel-baesd Macs, transparently to the users. It's pretty fast. Jobs demos Rosetta used to run PowerPC macs on Intel-based Macs --shows Microsoft Excel/Word running on Intel-based Mac (without any porting and/or recompiling). Jobs also shows Photoshop CS2 with all plugins that are translated and run on Intel-based Mac without significant speed decrease.

You bitch, Steve.

The Mac OS X for Intel Develpoer Kit includes a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 and OS X 10.4.1 for Intel (preview release). Order today; ships in two weeks.

Yuh-huh.

Well, at least there appears to be a much smoother transition path than was widely assumed. I wonder how fast "pretty fast" is? Rosetta will have to be damn good—but then, if it's too good, people won't bother recompiling for dual-platform at all, and Intel Macs will be stuck in a "Classic"-like hell for longer than actual Classic apps were.

Was he smiling at this keynote? Or was he dying a little inside?

"The world's most innovative computer company has teamed up with the most innovative chip company." Paul Otellini plays Apple's "Toasting the Pentium" commercial from 1996.

Seriously. I'm wondering.

UPDATE: Oh, and what does this mean about all the demonstrations in past keynotes of how much faster the Mac of the day was than the comparable Intel PC? Does this imply that all Macs to date have been sold under false pretenses? How long until the class-action lawsuits get flung blazing onto Apple's lawn?

So they ported Mathematica to Intel-based Macs. Does that make it faster? Slower? Intel has "better performance", eh, Steve? If it's faster, can we expect that Macs will blow away the Windows-based competition even harder now—or will they lag behind? Is OS X that much of an optimizing powerhouse that it compensates for slower PPC execution versus comparable Intel chips with Windows? Or is the G5 actually faster, and OS X will now be a detriment, bogging down the same hardware more than Windows does?

I eagerly await Ars Technica's take on this.

And John Gruber's, for that matter.