Now that Apple is closing the book on the PowerPC era, what would have happened if they had just jumped from the Moto 68k to the x86 lo those many years ago? Would there even be an OS X? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

UPDATE: Brummbar has a response, to which I can't say I have much to add—it's true that Microsoft would be none too happy to see an OS X for x86 show up, and you'd probably see a lot of fistfights between Microsoft and the likes of Dell and HP over whether they could sell Mac OS X bundles with their PCs instead of Windows. No jurisdiction, one might suggest, but that hasn't stopped Microsoft before. We all remember those exclusionary license deals. The only reason Microsoft doesn't mind Dell selling Linux servers these days is that they probably recognize that Linux on the desktop really isn't a serious threat in anything but the ideologue market. OS X would be a whole different ballgame.

Which isn't to say that it would be a good idea for Apple. Sure, it might make Microsoft itch, but it would destroy Apple, whose revenue stream comes straight from its whole-widget hardware sales. Nobody would buy a Mac again if they could just get a $399 PC and put a $200 copy of OS X on it instead of Windows, and Apple's campus would dry up like a snail on the sidewalk. The day they sell a licensed OS X for PC hardware is the day every sane AAPL holder should divest completely, because the only reason they'd ever do it is to raise some quick cash to pay off creditors before closing up shop.

Meanwhile, Steven Den Beste (gasp!) has a response as well (no permalink—scroll down to 20051002). It's more about the historical question, about Jobs' exile, and about the foreign origins of OS X. It's interesting to ponder this seeming dilemma: is the "secret sauce" of the Mac, in fact, Mac OS X? If so, then what were we all worshipping before it came along? Yet it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Apple appeared to be down for the count before Steve returned, bringing all his NeXT baggage with him. Apple's fortunes pretty much turned around as soon as Steve got there and brought out the iMac. So is it, perhaps, not so much OS X that has made Apple what it is today, and instead Steve himself? His ineffable and inscrutable sense of what decisions are good ones and what paths lead to dead ends? It's hard to deny the foresight he had with the iPod and iTunes—and those don't depend on OS X at all.

I hate to have any argument come down to such a blatant puff piece for a particular person, but I think I'd have to see some serious counterexamples (like, bigger than the G4 Cube) before I back down from the idea that Steve is simply a force of nature whom Apple flouts at its peril—and without whom Apple is barely Apple at all.

UPDATE: On that note, sort of... perhaps this is Microsoft's trump card:

Manolo says, ayyyyyyy! The evil geniuses at the Microsoft they have made the tiny clone of the Steve Jobs! Run for your life, teeny tiny Steve Jobs, run!

The sheer diabolical brilliance of it all!

Via Den Beste.