Apple announced move to Intel Processors starting in 2006

OK I'm as confused as the next guy here. Apple has always implied that it is a "software" company (now that iPods have spun off on their own I guess that can still be true). However, I just don't understand why the need to change from the PowerPC to Intel. Not that macs are gaming machines but the next gen gaming consoles are based on RISC/Cell processors so why wouldn't Apple continue to ride the wave they started? It seems to me there is more stuff going on behind the scenes. Perhaps Apple and IBm have been reluctant partners as of late. Maybe Apple felt that it would be held hostage by IBM in future processor designs and should make the break now while Apple hardware/software is making a slight comeback. I go back to the tag-line Apple had many years ago "Think Different". To me this isn't different enough. Personally what does this mean for the Apple computers that I have now? (Dual 2.5 G5 PowerMac and G4 PowerBook) I guess software updates will continue for a while. The first Intel based PowerMac isn't scheduled until 2007 (while an Intel Mac Mini is rumored to be ready by 2006 (late 2005?)) Apple has changed processors before and still survived but they didn't change to the same chip-set as their competitors. Time will tell. As a tangent Apple was criticized when it dropped support for the Floppy Drive and when they adopted USB/Firewire at times when peripherals using those interfaces where not common. Even Apple's adoption of PCI didn't hurt it. Like the rest of us...I'll wait and see but can't help to be worried for their future.

Broadcast Flag - Will not be enforceable this July

About a month ago it was announced that the Broadcast Flag will be dismissed. So this means no changes to new recording hardware or how we use existing hardware. The DC court ruled that the FCC does not have the jurisdiction to control how a signal is to be used once it has entered the communication device. Now that is a very broad explanation I gave but more or less correct. Will this stop premium content providers from seeking what they want?...No, they will either ask for the same thing again OR change the avenue in how they ask. I can see both sides here. Those providing content want to make sure that they receive all potential revenue from the content they are providing. Would you want to pay for your cable service just to have your neighbor leach off your signal. At the same time I see fair use as something that shouldn't be messed with or else no one will want to buy any premium content. (Why buy something that you can't modify (view in different locations/formats etc.))

Anyway, things will be OK for now.