I agree in principal with Brad that going the Intel route will lead to fragmentation, but what if that is what Apple and their partners want.
I can only imagine that the impetus behind three vendors looking to Apple is not for iLife compatibility, but because their large lucrative corporate contracts are balking at yet another round of Windows upgrades. Linux on the desktop is just not there yet and there is no real indication that it will be there any time soon. That leaves OSX.
Now, why would the software issue be a non-issue? Because the apps that are going to be written for OSX on Intel would not be apps that regular Mac users are going to want or need. Would Apple need to port the Altivec heavy iLife apps to OSX for Intel? I don't really think that some middle manager is going to need to edit movies nor will their bosses want them to be.
For the most part Apple software, sans the OS, would have no real place on a corporate desktop. The real issue comes down to two things. Will Microsoft 'port'/recompile Office for Intel. I think they would. MS might lose the Windows license, but they keep the Office license. It's better than losing both of them. The second issue is will software companies port their Windows software to OSX for Intel? Again, I'm not talking about the dozens of winamp clones, but real honest to goodness software. I think that's the real gamble. But, software vendors will go where the boxes are and if HP/IBM installs hundreds of thousands of OSX boxes there is an instant market.
|