OS X Unleashed

[pgwalsh]

UNLEASH OS X
When OS 9 was Apples primary OS they allowed clones into the market. The main problem was clone makers could build faster and better machines than Apple. This eroded Apples hardware sales and severely effected the bottom line. At the time it looked like the end for Apple and bankruptcy seemed inevitable. Then Steve Jobs took the helm as Apples interim CEO and yanked the the rains on clone market eliminating any hardware competition. This was a good move as it allowed Apple to focus on new products without worrying about direct competition in their market space

OS 9 was primarily used in Schools, homes, and small offices. In the professional area it was often used for Digital Music and Graphic Design. However, as processing demands and tasks became greater it was clear the OS 9 couldn't fit the bill. In addition when extensions were introduced OS 9 started suffering in stability (stability was commonly used tactic to fend off windows user hazing).

OS 9 was never considered in the corporate market as it didn't have the networking or business applications to attract business customers. Part of the was due to the fact the developers and IT managers never considered the operating system a serious contender. It lacked many of the features deemed necessary for corporate success.

Jobs canceling the clone market enabled Apple to come back. Having control of the Mac hardware for the release of OS X kept everything under Apple's control. With the release of OS X Jaguar, Apple finally an excellent corporate and consumer solution. The one area Apple comes up short is hardware. First, the Pro machines are underpowered and overpriced. Second, the budget machines still cost more with less power than a comparable Dell or Gateway computer. Third, enthusiasts can not build there own customized machine. Finally, there's few corporate buyers that want to get locked in to one vendor for hardware. For these reasons I think it's time for Apple to reopen the clone market and bring on an x86 version of OS X.

OS X appeals to the IT and Open Source community, but it falls short as there's only one
hardware vendor. I think this is the same reason why many people from the Windows crowd haven't jumped ship. Apple's hardware solutions are not a good deal where price and performance is concerned, but they excel in looks and feel. Unfortunately for Apple many people (including myself) like to stick the box under the desk and get it out of the way and on with business. That means the look of the box isn't really important. We rather have the money spent on making a quieter and cheaper machine.

In addition to OS X Apple has entered new markets with the iPod and the iTunes Music store. As for the iPod, it's the best selling product in its category. The iPod is a good product because it offers innovative design, ease of use, and massive capacity. With the success of the iPod it appears as though Apple has figured out how to compete in the hardware market even though it's a different market. To really compete with other MP3 Apple released a windows version, which is what they plan to do with iTunes.

With OS X quickly maturing and Apple having unique products and being able to compete in markets with other products, I no longer see a reason to keep the clone market closed. Not only that, but I haven't heard a valid reason for not releasing an x86 version of OS X. Maybe Apple is afraid of this hardware competition. That's understandable as they got their ass kicked last time.

The Old Argument
The old argument is that Apple can not enter the clone market because they lose massive amounts of money on hardware sales to competitors. Well that did happen in the past and it's still happening, but now they're losing sales to a different platform.

The old argument may be valid when considering OS 9, but not with OS X. OS X is a different beast and appeals to a broader market where OS 9 did not. OS X is a much better operating system than Windows. It's easier to use, better looking, more stable and secure then Windows. Sure it doesn't have as many applications available, but many of the best applications and games are available.

Additionally OS X appeals to Information Technology Professionals and the Open Source community where OS 9 never appealed. Where OS X doesn't appeal to the market is having only one hardware vendor. I'm not suggesting apple ditch out of the hardware arena and become a software company. I'm suggesting they open up the doors and unleash hell on Windows.

The Niche
Apple has proved they can sell to a niche market. OS 9 users were definitely a market niche where the rest of the industry was/is using Windows. However, what I'm referring to is the hardware designs in the eMac and iMac products.

The initial Yumminess of the original iMac has come and gone. The new iMac has a great design, but doesn't have the same effect as the original iMac (Funny thing is, most PC users I've talked to don't realized the lamp shaped iMac is the whole computer. Most think it's just a monitor and stand.). These products have patented designs which make cloning these models illegal. Products like these are Apples forte. I believe the eMac, iMac, iBook and PowerBook will continue to be popular sellers for Apple. These unique products are where Apple should continue to compete.

PowerMacs are just like any other PC box, but they have Apples pretty shell (whoopy). If you dig further it comes down to just the motherboard and chip set (if that). All the other components are made by other companies, just like PC's. Beyond the shell the only thing unique about the PowerMac is that it's configured by Apple. The PowerMac line should be either dropped or the product should be loaded with every possible feature to justify the high price.

Attack of The Clones
Time for Apple to let other companies innovate (or not) and bring Apples envisioned digital lifestyle to the masses. I'd like to see Dell, Gateway, HP, AlienWare and others produce OS X based products. Most OEM's will use the run of the mill ATX case and pc parts. They'll target budget shoppers in the same market as the eMac and iMac space. Eventually these machines may find there way in through the corporate back door. They will first be seen in the IT department and then as more applications become available we'll see them on the corporate desktop.

Why x86? Because everything is already in place except the drivers. Why go through the struggle of creating a new PC market when a huge market exists. PowerPC is great, but leaves us with IBM as Motorola is no longer a player in the PPC market.. Everybody knows IBM is expensive and consumers like alternatives. X86 has a number of main board manufactures and chip set makers. They have competition among cpu manufactures with Intel, AMD, and VIA. X86 makes sense and many people already have a box they could throw OS X on (just to try it).

What about drivers? Apple could use drivers from the Linux Open Source community and apply them to OS X. You'll cover 90% of the existing PC's. Apple already uses CUPS, it's time to use everything.
Applications
OS X on x86 should be launched with the inclusion of all of Apples software including Final Cut Pro and E magics suite of software. It may be a tall order, but it's feasible. All the basic consumer applications are covered with iLife, iCal, Mail, Safari, and Address Book. The only thing for consumers that's not covered is a viable office tool. Apple Works is not a viable alternative, but OpenOffice is a great alternative. There is the rumored ?Document? office productivity tool. Until rumor becomes reality there's no point in discussing Document any further. Regardless, OpenOffice is free and is garnering a larger user base daily.

Apple should open its coffers and push the OS X build of OpenOffice for PPC and x86. Not only that, but they should distribute it with OS X like many commercial Linux distributions. They should look into other popular Open Source applications and compile them for OS X and return the source to the community to entice developers to switch. Tools from the Open Source that function like applications from Adobe and Macromedias should be compiled and included with OS X . Not to squeeze Adobe or Macromedia out of the space, but to give immediate access to graphic and development applications beyond the basic OS X software. Mac users are already familiar with the unpleasant and frustrating wait of applications when Apple migrated from OS 9 to OS 10. At the time we didn't have iLife or any alternative applications to tide us over until the the professional applications arrived. This time there are many applications that can easily be ported for an x86 launch.

We will likely see demand first from Linux, IT, home users and enthusiasts. Business users will be more likely to switch when Apples Mail, Address Book, and iCal applications include support (if it doesn't already) for exchange servers.

Any possible way to ease the interconnectivity between windows and OS X compatibility over networks and standards should be included. If it can be done with the ease of Apples current windows file sharing then they've really got something.

More below

[pgwalsh]

Conclusion
OS X is definitely a great alternative to Windows, but without competition of hardware vendors we're likely to see Apples market percentage decline even further. I want hardware alternatives and I think I'm speaking for the masses. Who wants to be tied to one vendor. Most companies would avoid a situation where they had to rely on one vendor and I think many consumers do too.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it was necessary for Apple to control everything in the beginning. Now they have a marvelous operating system with incredible easy to use applications. Many naysayers will argue that x86 would require too much development and the cost would kill Apple. If Suse Linux can do it then Apple can do it.

On the other side of the coin is the hardware. Apples niche hardware products are great, but now is the time to arm the soldiers. Bring on Dell, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Sony and AlienWare. Let Joe Bob concoct his own home brewed OS X machine. Apple can certainly take the place as “The Ultimate Windows Alternative.” We have Apache, MySQL, PHP, and a slew of Open Source developers all ready to go. We just don't have the hardware competition.

Apple is a software company. Apple is a hardware company. But Apple is by no means all things to all people where personal computing is concerned. Apple brings innovative products to the market that we all love. They will continue that trend because it is in their nature. If you were to ask me who I thought the true rebels were and who really thinks different and pushed the fight against Microsoft, I'd tell you it's Linux and the Open Source community. These are the people fighting against all odds and due what's necessary to bring tools to their community. These are the people with small or no budgets that continue to fight and make Microsoft take notice. These are the people that push their Operating System and applications to as many platforms as possible. It's certainly isn't Apple, but it could be.

Currently the Mac community are Apples soldiers. They're the ones in the trenches fighting tooth and nail for Apples existence Apple needs to stop holding us back and give us the tools to fight the battle on the enemies ground. If anybody can breath new life into Apple, the Apple community can. In order to do so,we need Apple to unleash OS X.

Note:This is a very surface oriented argument and there are many area's where I could have gone into greater detail and explanation. My overall point is that Apple should be focused on Software and niche hardware products. They'll never compete against Windows as long as they are using different hardware.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Although others may disagree, I find this to be a great idea. Imagine running OS X on a Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon...

[vniow]

You write this?

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by vniow
You write this? Yes I wrote this. So please excuse my grammar errors.

[bennetsaysargh]

That was a very good piece of writing. I think that Apple should let a limited amount of clones onto the market so they still have a piece of a hardware division.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
That was a very good piece of writing. I think that Apple should let a limited amount of clones onto the market so they still have a piece of a hardware division. Thanks!
I agree that Apple should have a hardware business, but they should stick with unique designs unless they can compete on price.

[bennetsaysargh]

I also have had friends think that the new iMac was just a monitor and they were wondering where the computer itself was.
Now that I think about it, I also had friends who thought the origional iMac was just a diplay. All-In-Ones are what make PC users say
"Oh cool!"

[iJon]

sometimes i feel that the mac os x is so great, sadly enough, is caused by apple controlling it. i think thats why windows has suffered some, to much stuff and people doing their own versions of windows to accomadate compaq and dell. i could be easily wrong. apple can control the quality of their computers so they get a good rep, if os x goes on an emachine and the thing breaks quality is gonna sufer. even if it was emachines fault its gonna make its way back to apple. this is just my opinion though. i think we all wish osx was running on a dual xeon, but sometimes i wonder if it really would be as good as the mac version. maybe more kernal panics and stuff.

iJon

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by iJon
sometimes i feel that the mac os x is so great, sadly enough, is caused by apple controlling it. i think thats why windows has suffered some, to much stuff and people doing their own versions of windows to accomadate compaq and dell. i could be easily wrong. apple can control the quality of their computers so they get a good rep, if os x goes on an emachine and the thing breaks quality is gonna sufer. even if it was emachines fault its gonna make its way back to apple. this is just my opinion though. i think we all wish osx was running on a dual xeon, but sometimes i wonder if it really would be as good as the mac version. maybe more kernal panics and stuff.

iJon
Well thats a good point. I think that Linux has show that you have the ability to run on almost anything. Similar to Windows OS X could have certified driver compatability program or a generic driver. More devices will be supported with the Open Source community involved.

[shadowfax]

personally, i have much more interest in seeing what apple does with IBM's 64 bit processor line. i would much prefer that they embrace a future technology than go to intel and it's "let's not innovate in the slightest" ideas. i mean, the centrino has some nice stuff, but the P4 should die. i don't like the philosophy behind it at all.

[Latino]

I can think of one problem. If it is so clear that Apple would have such a great success, I'm sure Microsoft would know as well. And as soon as all you suggest happened, they (Microsoft) would just get their checkbook out, buy Apple outright, and screw all of us right over.

What does everyone else think?

[iJon]

Originally posted by Latino
I can think of one problem. If it is so clear that Apple would have such a great success, I'm sure Microsoft would know as well. And as soon as all you suggest happened, they (Microsoft) would just get their checkbook out, buy Apple outright, and screw all of us right over.

What does everyone else think?
i dont think so, steve jobs runs this company, he has been through this battle with microsoft so may times. i think steve finally feels he may something to make people look the other way, i feel he has done it too.

iJon

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Latino
I can think of one problem. If it is so clear that Apple would have such a great success, I'm sure Microsoft would know as well. And as soon as all you suggest happened, they (Microsoft) would just get their checkbook out, buy Apple outright, and screw all of us right over.

What does everyone else think? I think Microsoft would find itself right back in court. I don't think M$ would make this kind of a move. But it they attempted it sure would be interesting.

[benixau]

Originally posted by Latino
I can think of one problem. If it is so clear that Apple would have such a great success, I'm sure Microsoft would know as well. And as soon as all you suggest happened, they (Microsoft) would just get their checkbook out, buy Apple outright, and screw all of us right over.

What does everyone else think?

no they can't. They have little problem with the DOJ and this tyhing called anti-monopoly. If MS bought Apple then MS would own all but 1% of the copmuter OS market - real bad.
But don't worry, that doesn't stop IBM buying apple.

[iJon]

well i thought this would fit in nicely instead of making a new thread. i came across this article and it was interesting to read. some of these peopel seemed kind of dumb in my opinion. i hear alot of these "if apple made the music store for windows they could have made more money, if they made os x for pcs they would make more money, if they made final cut and shake for windows they would make more money." man, will it ever end.

http://www.thedeal.com/NASApp/cs/CS?pagename=CBS&c=TDDArticle&cid=1052340194595

iJon

[bennetsaysargh]

Micro$ux won't buy Apple. Ever.
2 Main reasons
1)They'll get themselves in court faster than I can say the word pickle.
2)Steve is running the company. He won't give in.

We would then have to use old softwar instead of Winblows crapping up he software.

Never ever ever going to happen.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by iJon
well i thought this would fit in nicely instead of making a new thread. i came across this article and it was interesting to read. some of these peopel seemed kind of dumb in my opinion. i hear alot of these "if apple made the music store for windows they could have made more money, if they made os x for pcs they would make more money, if they made final cut and shake for windows they would make more money." man, will it ever end.

http://www.thedeal.com/NASApp/cs/CS?pagename=CBS&c=TDDArticle&cid=1052340194595

iJon Ah, loved the article. Just what I need to put on a smile. Now I hope jobs moves on it.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
Micro$ux won't buy Apple. Ever.
2 Main reasons
1)They'll get themselves in court faster than I can say the word pickle.
2)Steve is running the company. He won't give in.

We would then have to use old softwar instead of Winblows crapping up he software.

Never ever ever going to happen. apple is a corporation. if Microsoft acquired over 50% of the stock, or enough influence over the board of trustees who represented over 50%, steve would be caving. that said, there is something called antitrust law, and it would indeed be slapped in M$'s face. so, one main reason.

[Macpoops]

It would be a decent experiment to do the clone thing again. But definately not port to x86 this would create nothing but problems. Alot of the problems with windows is the fact that they must support such an immense amount of hardward. Also jumping onto the x86 would be like jumping back to the 68000 motos. OLD TECH. Yes, OLD Tech running faster, but still old tech. x86 is creeping closer and closer to the physical limits of the architecture, one of the reasons Intel created the itanium. It was atleast 10 years before real progress began to come from x86, 20 to reach 3 ghz. It's only been 10 years or so years since the PPC was made and there was no real muscle behind it's development, Moto...please everyone who's not familiar with the Mac would thing we use a cellphone as a CPU. IBM is not picking up where Moto has failed. Based on a seperate Arch. then the G4. Unlike moto IBM intends to use the Proc in it's own machines, this is a safety net for apple. Why would IBM let there chip for their own machine fall behind? This is the begining of a Golden Age for the PPC and Apple. All of the things are in place if apple switched to the 970. An OS light years ahead of anything else, if it wasn;t then why would Windows be copying it? Attractive industrial design, Then all you x86 worshippers will finally be quieted.

[cubist]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
... there is something called antitrust law, and it would indeed be slapped in M$'s face. so, one main reason.

Microsoft already broke antitrust law probably more blatantly than any other corporation in US history, and what punishment did they receive?

Basically, nothing. They got off scot-free.

They don't need to buy Apple. They can buy all the software producers and get them to stop making software for Apple. (Already done, mostly.) They can twist the arms and grease the palms of retail stores to eliminate the Apples. (Already mostly done, but rats! Apple opened their own stores.) They can introduce technologies and lock in their captive corporate customers to prevent Apple computers from being used in business. (Already mostly done; .Net will solidify it.)

Well, what do you know? Microsoft is already well-along on a conscious program to destroy Apple. There isn't any underhanded, anticompetitive, monopolistic action that they haven't already taken to eliminate Apple from the marketplace. Antitrust law? Pshaw! Completely worthless.

[G4scott]

If Jobs does let the clones re-live, they'll be strictly limited.

They may let IBM offer PowerPC and x86 based Macs, since Apple and IBM don't seem to be at each others throats right now. Any other hardware vendor just wouldn't cut it, though.

IBM could make some kick ass servers, and with OS X, they'd be un-stoppable. So much for windoze server 2003...

I doubt that Apple will let smaller companies like PowerComputing make clones, because they might not be able to offer the support and reliability of larger companies.

I'd still buy an Apple computer, though :cool:

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by cubist
Microsoft already broke antitrust law probably more blatantly than any other corporation in US history, and what punishment did they receive?

Basically, nothing. They got off scot-free. so what? to suggest that the fact that they got away with more than anybody else means they can get away with anything is illogical.

but of course, they don't need to buy apple. they can choke it out if they have to. it's unclear whether anyone would stop them.

[Billicus]

Originally posted by iJon
well i thought this would fit in nicely instead of making a new thread. i came across this article and it was interesting to read. some of these peopel seemed kind of dumb in my opinion. i hear alot of these "if apple made the music store for windows they could have made more money, if they made os x for pcs they would make more money, if they made final cut and shake for windows they would make more money." man, will it ever end.

http://www.thedeal.com/NASApp/cs/CS?pagename=CBS&c=TDDArticle&cid=1052340194595

iJon

That's such a good article! Everybody should read it. And I agree completely. Even though some of Apple's stability comes from the standpoint that they controlt the entire production line, they could pump additional money from software and hardware sales into product research, so that they could get ahead and get a running start against the bohemeth that is Micro$oft. Even though I'd miss having Apple do everything, I think it's the way to go. Down the road, who knows? We might look back on this decision and decide that it was a pivital point in Personal Computing. A point when Apple became the greatest company in the world :D

[Latino]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
Micro$ux won't buy Apple. Ever.
2 Main reasons
1)They'll get themselves in court faster than I can say the word pickle.
2)Steve is running the company. He won't give in.

We would then have to use old softwar instead of Winblows crapping up he software.

Never ever ever going to happen.

OK ok, I'll keep my mouth shut next time (or my fingers busy with something else). May be you guys are right, and Microsoft wouldn't date do that and risk the DOJ wrath. But I'm tempted to say, never say never!

I once said I would never buy a Mac, and here I am, saving up to get an iBook! :)

[cb911]

if Apple let others make hardware that sold with OS X installed, do you really think that Apple could just survive with their software and notebook lines?

it would have to be a very small deal, like letting IBM sell OS X servers and workstations.

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by cb911
if Apple let others make hardware that sold with OS X installed, do you really think that Apple could just survive with their software and notebook lines?

it would have to be a very small deal, like letting IBM sell OS X servers and workstations.

i think it should be limited too, but not that limited. if they were to open up to the clone market, i would suggest that pple keep some hardware sales and let only a few clones out. of course they would have to follow apple's rules and everything, but still.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by cb911
if Apple let others make hardware that sold with OS X installed, do you really think that Apple could just survive with their software and notebook lines?

it would have to be a very small deal, like letting IBM sell OS X servers and workstations. Yes. I definitely think they would survive as a software company. Red Had and Suse are surviving and Apple makes a much better OS. You'd have many more vendors pushing the OS and many people don't like Microsoft for being a bully. They also have Final Cut Pro, E magic (which was surviving on its own), Shake, iLife, Keynote and other software. It's not just an the OS. However, it would be the best alternative to windows and garner man Linux users.

[mgargan1]

i don't see the problem people have with intel. They make good processors, and are a great company. I've owned more computers with an intel processor than I can count. They make a great product, and yea, the P4 sucked when it first came out, but it has evolved into the highest performing processor in its market. Yes, i have a Mac, but only because of the OS. I could care less about the G4. I would really like to see Mac use intel processors, or the PPC 970, and maybe even the power4/5 in the xservers.

If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mgargan1
i don't see the problem people have with intel. They make good processors, and are a great company. I've owned more computers with an intel processor than I can count. They make a great product, and yea, the P4 sucked when it first came out, but it has evolved into the highest performing processor in its market. Yes, i have a Mac, but only because of the OS. I could care less about the G4. I would really like to see Mac use intel processors, or the PPC 970, and maybe even the power4/5 in the xservers.

If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

I think I speak for the majority of us when I say that I don't have a problem with Intel. I agree they make a great product. The issue is that the majority of there product is used to run Windows which most of us consider the enemy.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I think I speak for the majority of us when I say that I don't have a problem with Intel. I agree they make a great product. The issue is that the majority of there product is used to run Windows which most of us consider the enemy. I think that's the real issue. It should be about the OS and not so much about the hardware. Apples designs are good but I still use a PowerMac, which doesn't differ much from boxes that contain Intel and AMD processors.

[benixau]

ok, look at it like this.

x86 is old. Intel is trying to replace it but it wont go away. AMD is trying to replace it and when they get there x86-64 chips out they may have a chance.

problem is that the PPC architecture is not like that. It can be changed from 32 to 64 and still have backward compatibility whilst retaining all of the benefits of a 64bit proccessing unit.

now just this justify the slower G4 speeds? no. how do i justify the above claims? IBM 970

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by benixau
ok, look at it like this.

x86 is old. Intel is trying to replace it but it wont go away. AMD is trying to replace it and when they get there x86-64 chips out they may have a chance.

problem is that the PPC architecture is not like that. It can be changed from 32 to 64 and still have backward compatibility whilst retaining all of the benefits of a 64bit proccessing unit.

now just this justify the slower G4 speeds? no. how do i justify the above claims? IBM 970

The backwards compatibility doesn't come from it being X86 or PPC it comes from that fact that IBM designed the 970 with an on board 32bit emulation unit that works.

[Macpoops]

without going into it yes the 970 can process 32bits as well as 64 it does not do any of it through emulation.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mgargan1
If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died. isn't it the other way around, or do i have my personality types mixed up?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Macpoops
without going into it yes the 970 can process 32bits as well as 64 it does not do any of it through emulation.

Sorry I didn't really mean to use the word emulation. I simply meant to say that it could natively run 32bit programs.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mgargan1
If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

I don't think it would make a difference to most users if they use Intel or any other brand. The important thing is the user interface which at this point is OSX and if that doesn't change except maybe it would be ran faster then I don't think nearly anyone would really care.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't think it would make a difference to most users if they use Intel or any other brand. The important thing is the user interface which at this point is OSX and if that doesn't change except maybe it would be ran faster then I don't think nearly anyone would really care. I think it would in the long run. of course it would be welcomed at first. but then M$ would pull out on apple, exclusivise all its apps and make itself uncompatible again, and so on...

of course, that might not happen. the thing that bothers me is the future of DRM, which intel is v ery committed to. i don't want to have apple tied to that, 3GHz P4 or no.

the other thing is that you will find that most people don't give a rat's ass about looks of a gui either. i put themeswitchers on windows XP for people, and so many people are like, so what? it doesn't matter. it looked fine before.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
I think it would in the long run. of course it would be welcomed at first. but then M$ would pull out on apple, exclusivise all its apps and make itself uncompatible again, and so on...

of course, that might not happen. the thing that bothers me is the future of DRM, which intel is v ery committed to. i don't want to have apple tied to that, 3GHz P4 or no.

the other thing is that you will find that most people don't give a rat's ass about looks of a gui either. i put themeswitchers on windows XP for people, and so many people are like, so what? it doesn't matter. it looked fine before.

I'm not talking about making OSX X86 compatible across the board I'm talking about Apple making Macs with the X86 but preventing the MacOS from being used on compatible machines with a boot rom or something.

It's not so much the look of the system but how it works or doesn't work for that matter.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
I think it would in the long run. of course it would be welcomed at first. but then M$ would pull out on apple, exclusivise all its apps and make itself uncompatible again, and so on...

of course, that might not happen. the thing that bothers me is the future of DRM, which intel is v ery committed to. i don't want to have apple tied to that, 3GHz P4 or no.

the other thing is that you will find that most people don't give a rat's ass about looks of a gui either. i put themeswitchers on windows XP for people, and so many people are like, so what? it doesn't matter. it looked fine before. I here you on the theme switcher deal. It seems whenever we talk x86 we talk intel and I'm a big AMD fan. I always go for the little guys.

As I said before I really see OS X appealing to developers, linux users, and IT professionals at first.

Some of the features OS X has are extremely easy to use and the iApps are very appealing. I think people would like a choice and if you could pick up a copy of OS X as a professional OS for $100 to $120 and pay an extra $50 for the iApps sweet you cover a lot of home users.

Lately I've been educating some Window users on OpenOffice. No one I know had heard of it until I showed them. They like it and many don't use a majority of the apps. Once you show them how to make the .DOC as the default save, they work on it as if they were in word.

A point I made to my girlfriend last night was the fact that you can educate people and the word will get out. I tranformed her into an OpenOffice user. She uses it for school now. She doesn't notice much of a difference. She the OpenOffice Spread sheet was excel. With regards to the OS. It's much easier for me to get someone to try a new OS when they already have a computer then to buy a new computer to try a new OS. I upgrade lots of computer and save people a lot of money. Most aren't power users, but they do love it when I show them the iApps and how easy they are to use. They think the Dock is cool, but other than that they don't notice much of a difference.

Maybe we could start a thread that points out Windows and OS X differences?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Maybe we could start a thread that points out Windows and OS X differences?

The number one point I push is ease of use. I know for the people I deal with who barely know how to close an app or restart there computer the basic software that comes with there digital cameras and other devices sucks and is very hard for them to use. Especially since they have a hard time find there documents folder let alone the folder the images are being stored in.

In my oppinion that is what the iApps are for. People who don't have a clue. Take iPhoto for instance. It's not that great of a photo but for the absolute begginer it's fantastic.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
The number one point I push is ease of use. I know for the people I deal with who barely know how to close an app or restart there computer the basic software that comes with there digital cameras and other devices sucks and is very hard for them to use. Especially since they have a hard time find there documents folder let alone the folder the images are being stored in.

In my oppinion that is what the iApps are for. People who don't have a clue. Take iPhoto for instance. It's not that great of a photo but for the absolute begginer it's fantastic. I agree, but there must be more than that.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm not talking about making OSX X86 compatible across the board I'm talking about Apple making Macs with the X86 but preventing the MacOS from being used on compatible machines with a boot rom or something.

It's not so much the look of the system but how it works or doesn't work for that matter. well, i don't think intel would go for that at all, and i think that would frankly piss off a lot of people, who would construe that as extreme elitism--going out of the way to make sure it only worked on APPLE x86.

as to how a GUI works, the windows GUI is actually very efficient. sure they screwed up with the XP one, but you can go back to classic, and that design is perfectly acceptable and has advantages to OS X in certain ways.

pgwalsh--sorry, i hate AMD. i love their philosophy and that they compete with intel, but their products don't impress me. they seem to produce massive amounts of heat to get the same performance as P4s, for one thing, plus they are kind of on the margin now economically.

i think IBM is our best bet, and hope apple goes that route.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Shadowfax

pgwalsh--sorry, i hate AMD. i love their philosophy and that they compete with intel, but their products don't impress me. they seem to produce massive amounts of heat to get the same performance as P4s, for one thing, plus they are kind of on the margin now economically.

i think IBM is our best bet, and hope apple goes that route. To not like a processor because of heat is a bit silly, but if that's how you feel fine. I'm glad they are working with IBM to modify their copper connects and SOI. That should lower the heat. Plus AMD will be even more interesting when they come out with the Athlon64... In the end I'd like to see OS X run on the 970, AMD, and Intel.

[DakotaGuy]

You bring up some good points, but there is also a dark side as well. The chance of this all working is a gamble I don't really care to see Apple take.

You are saying that Apple should go head to head with Microsoft. Look at Microsoft...Look at Apple...who would win? I hate to say it, but Bill Gates would cut every throat in the room to keep his massive market share. You would have to convince PC vendors like Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony to all license the OS and to put it on as the standard config. like Windows XP is. I doubt they would go away from Windows with a 95% marketshare. You could offer the consumers a choice either XP or OSX, but OSX would be killed because most people prefer Windows. I don't like it, but if you took a poll on the street, 95% are going to pick MS Windows, and curse it as they may, they will keep fighting it and using it.

You have to license the PC builders to use OSX, it would be the only way. Just selling the OS to put on a computer would not work very well. Most consumers will not change the OS that their computer comes with. If you think they do, I can point to many figures that will show that Windows 98 is currently the most used OS out there.

It is a gamble and it would put Apple in a direct face-off with Microsoft. I know the David and Goliath story from the bible, but face it this is corporate America. Someone would loose. I love Apple and have great faith in their products, but hardware is still their main money maker. If you license the OS, then you take that away and they have to survive head on with Microsoft.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
You bring up some good points, but there is also a dark side as well. The chance of this all working is a gamble I don't really care to see Apple take.

You are saying that Apple should go head to head with Microsoft. Look at Microsoft...Look at Apple...who would win? I hate to say it, but Bill Gates would cut every throat in the room to keep his massive market share. You would have to convince PC vendors like Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony to all license the OS and to put it on as the standard config. like Windows XP is. I doubt they would go away from Windows with a 95% marketshare. You could offer the consumers a choice either XP or OSX, but OSX would be killed because most people prefer Windows. I don't like it, but if you took a poll on the street, 95% are going to pick MS Windows, and curse it as they may, they will keep fighting it and using it.

You have to license the PC builders to use OSX, it would be the only way. Just selling the OS to put on a computer would not work very well. Most consumers will not change the OS that their computer comes with. If you think they do, I can point to many figures that will show that Windows 98 is currently the most used OS out there.

It is a gamble and it would put Apple in a direct face-off with Microsoft. I know the David and Goliath story from the bible, but face it this is corporate America. Someone would loose. I love Apple and have great faith in their products, but hardware is still their main money maker. If you license the OS, then you take that away and they have to survive head on with Microsoft. What makes you think Microsoft couldn't enter the PPC market and crush Apple? They need Apple or some some OS to have some percentage of the OS market.

Apple isn't entering x86 or the clone market with PPC because they can't compete with hardware sales. There's no reason that Apples market share would decrease. Unless of course they screw up and don't have drives etc...

Companies like Sun and other Java based companies will use OS X.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
What makes you think Microsoft couldn't enter the PPC market and crush Apple? They need Apple or some some OS to have some percentage of the OS market. they couldn't beat Apple on the PPC. that would require them to innovate. microsoft has money--they can do anything. except create something new and original. what would they do in the PPC market? come out with a free, good OS that had features to beat OS X? damn, that would be awesome.

i WANT microsuck to beat apple in the PPC market. they can't do it.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
well, i don't think intel would go for that at all, and i think that would frankly piss off a lot of people, who would construe that as extreme elitism--going out of the way to make sure it only worked on APPLE x86.

as to how a GUI works, the windows GUI is actually very efficient. sure they screwed up with the XP one, but you can go back to classic, and that design is perfectly acceptable and has advantages to OS X in certain ways.

pgwalsh--sorry, i hate AMD. i love their philosophy and that they compete with intel, but their products don't impress me. they seem to produce massive amounts of heat to get the same performance as P4s, for one thing, plus they are kind of on the margin now economically.

i think IBM is our best bet, and hope apple goes that route.

I don't think the issue with elistism would be any greater then it is now. That's peoples number one complaint now that the only way they can runs MacOS is on a Mac. I just don't see a problem with it. It shouldn't matter what procesor they have. I mean so Nintendo uses a varient of the G3 in the GC but I don't call them elitist because I can't run there software on an iBook. If a company runs proprietary hardware for there software more power to them. To me that means they want a certain amount of control of there end product and the quality of it.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't think the issue with elistism would be any greater then it is now. That's peoples number one complaint now that the only way they can runs MacOS is on a Mac. I just don't see a problem with it. It shouldn't matter what procesor they have. I mean so Nintendo uses a varient of the G3 in the GC but I don't call them elitist because I can't run there software on an iBook. If a company runs proprietary hardware for there software more power to them. To me that means they want a certain amount of control of there end product and the quality of it. Maybe you should go back and read the point of having more hardware vendors. The OS is what matters. Not the processor. The reason some of us want x86 is speed and "competition." A logical reason is that there's already massive amount of hardware vendors that support that platform. Think of the different motherboard manufactures and the competition they present each other. Apple didn't fix the issue with their motherboards. Why? Cause no one else makes one and they don't have to worry about someone stepping up to the plate. They do what want when they want and they can leave us in a hole any time they want. With Apple you have 1 company and that's it. They'll never get past 10% market share on there own. They might not be able to get past 5% as where they were when they had clones.

Companies like VIA, nVida, SIS, Intel and other that make chip sets and are constantly trying top one or the other. Some motherboard manufactures focus on very stable boards (e.g. ECS). Companies like Asus, Abit, Chaintech, MSI, and others compete in the motherboard market in many areas. Some try to provide as much product on the motherboard as possible, while focusing on the speed of the board. That's one reason we've seen the x86 scream by us. That's also why prices for PC's are so low and have support for so many different things. It's hardware competition and that's what I want with OS X. Hardware Competition.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Maybe you should go back and read the point of having more hardware vendors. The OS is what matters. Not the processor. The reason some of us want x86 is speed and "competition." A logical reason is that there's already massive amount of hardware vendors that support that platform. Think of the different motherboard manufactures and the competition they present each other. Apple didn't fix the issue with their motherboards. Why? Cause no one else makes one and they don't have to worry about someone stepping up to the plate. They do what want when they want and they can leave us in a hole any time they want. With Apple you have 1 company and that's it. They'll never get past 10% market share on there own. They might not be able to get past 5% as where they were when they had clones.

Companies like VIA, nVida, SIS, Intel and other that make chip sets and are constantly trying top one or the other. Some motherboard manufactures focus on very stable boards (e.g. ECS). Companies like Asus, Abit, Chaintech, MSI, and others compete in the motherboard market in many areas. Some try to provide as much product on the motherboard as possible, while focusing on the speed of the board. That's one reason we've seen the x86 scream by us. That's also why prices for PC's are so low and have support for so many different things. It's hardware competition and that's what I want with OS X. Hardware Competition.

I agree that competition breeds a better product but I do also believe that the only way you can achieve true integration and a synergistic product is to produce the hardware and software designer. When you have control of both ends you have a much better idea of what the limitations are and better control over creating a compatible product. I just don't see that sort of quality control and product integration coming from a dozens of custom builders all competing to turn out the fastest, cheapist, crapiest product.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I agree that competition breeds a better product but I do also believe that the only way you can achieve true integration and a synergistic product is to produce the hardware and software designer. When you have control of both ends you have a much better idea of what the limitations are and better control over creating a compatible product. I just don't see that sort of quality control and product integration coming from a dozens of custom builders all competing to turn out the fastest, cheapist, crapiest product. Well I understand your argument and I would base it on past experience as an OS 9 user. I'm not sure how stable old Apple clones were, but they were based on an old OS. Linux is very stable and it offers support for almost every PC. OS X is similar to Linux in stability and I think they could still achieve stability in the clone market. Those are mainly driver issues too. Remember we use the same video cards and hard drives etc. Apple would have to implement a driver/software certification program. That way consumers could make informed decisions.

[GeeYouEye]

Am I the only one who sees a huge, glaring problem with this? Or maybe it isn't... tell me, how does Apple convince software developers that now they have to develop for two identical OS's on different hardware? Or were you planning on having them use Win32 API's, which is what more software than you can imagine is written in. PPC native code certainly wouldn't run, and x86 assembly programs won't run until they were rewritten to be able to be opened from the OS, or at least make the OS calls to quit, hide, etc. Software devs won't stand for it. They develop on too many (in their opinion) platforms already, and they don't want an OS X-x86 one.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Am I the only one who sees a huge, glaring problem with this? Or maybe it isn't... tell me, how does Apple convince software developers that now they have to develop for two identical OS's on different hardware? Or were you planning on having them use Win32 API's, which is what more software than you can imagine is written in. PPC native code certainly wouldn't run, and x86 assembly programs won't run until they were rewritten to be able to be opened from the OS, or at least make the OS calls to quit, hide, etc. Software devs won't stand for it. They develop on too many (in their opinion) platforms already, and they don't want an OS X-x86 one. You can't say they wont develop for it because you don't know that. Did you read the part about porting linux apps and Apple porting all of its applications. As I said before, it would primarily be used by Developers and IT prof. I think most vendors would see OS X on x86 as a promising outlook for OS X and Apple. But who knows. Think of it as Linux for consumers.

I'm starting to think the Apple community is the community of the afraid. Not willing to take a risk. It's not like I'm asking Apple to stop anything. I'm just asking them to broaden their reach.

[bennetsaysargh]

what's the site for openoffice? i want to try it.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
what's the site for openoffice? i want to try it. http://openoffice.org

Remember it's a beta version and you need the developer tools, fink, and x11 to use it. I couldn't get it running on OS X, but many have. I'm not UNIX savvy. :( I have an older machine, but I use it on my PC as my primary office tool.

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
http://openoffice.org

Remember it's a beta version and you need the developer tools, fink, and x11 to use it. I couldn't get it running on OS X, but many have. I'm not UNIX savvy. :( I have an older machine, but I use it on my PC as my primary office tool.

thanks:D!

[billyboy]

IMO OSX is one of Apple's two killer advantages over allcomers in the computer world and it needs to keep that very very close to its heart. That does not mean only 2or 3% of the world are ever going to use it. Far from it. By "sacrificing" Apple Music Store, the second jewel, in tandem with the iPod, jewel number 3, Apple has already laid the foundation of a fantastic in-house-built opportunity to make OSX available to the masses, but at a steady rate within the capacity of Apple. ie These two Windows-ised products will bring people in to the fold, negating the need to farm OSX, Apple's jewel, out. (Music is the new rock n roll, Apple's name will be splattered on Windows iTunes screens across the globe - and with a taste of what a Mac can do, the phones will be hot and Apple will become a company that the masses are hassling for Mac computers. And OSX will be intact.

On the hardware side, I dont see the great appeal in an idea that links Apple in any way to cheapo mass produced stuff. Apple's income is 80% hardware based, the future growth sector is desktop replacements. The PB earns Apple most. With the 970 and the soon to be world famous Mac-only OSX, the PB and the beefed up Powermacs will do alright. If the phones are ringing from music loving Windows people wanting to switch, what better position to be in to keep the special Apple hardware loaded with the inhouse jewel OSX at charmingly high prices. And it is profit that is missing in the Apple formula at the moment.

The thing is IMO its all well and good proposing ideas to help Apple take on MS big time by licensing competitive clones and porting OSX to other platforms, but Apple is a niche company, and to grow it basicaly overnight from the outside in is essentially not good business practice.

The article iJon posted was all about how to appeal to shareholders with spectacular moves to generate their support in the short term. I think that if Apple is to grow safely, it woud be well advised to expand what it already does. It has donated iPod and AMS to the cause and I reckon with the confidence of a burgeoning market, any changes in direction on the lines suggested at the start of the thead will be feasible, but on Apple terms - which will be modest and sure.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by billyboy
IMO OSX is one of Apple's two killer advantages over allcomers in the computer world and it needs to keep that very very close to its heart. That does not mean only 2or 3% of the world are ever going to use it. Far from it. By "sacrificing" Apple Music Store, the second jewel, in tandem with the iPod, jewel number 3, Apple has already laid the foundation of a fantastic in-house-built opportunity to make OSX available to the masses, but at a steady rate within the capacity of Apple. ie These two Windows-ised products will bring people in to the fold, negating the need to farm OSX, Apple's jewel, out. (Music is the new rock n roll, Apple's name will be splattered on Windows iTunes screens across the globe - and with a taste of what a Mac can do, the phones will be hot and Apple will become a company that the masses are hassling for Mac computers. And OSX will be intact.

On the hardware side, I dont see the great appeal in an idea that links Apple in any way to cheapo mass produced stuff. Apple's income is 80% hardware based, the future growth sector is desktop replacements. The PB earns Apple most. With the 970 and the soon to be world famous Mac-only OSX, the PB and the beefed up Powermacs will do alright. If the phones are ringing from music loving Windows people wanting to switch, what better position to be in to keep the special Apple hardware loaded with the inhouse jewel OSX at charmingly high prices. And it is profit that is missing in the Apple formula at the moment.

The thing is IMO its all well and good proposing ideas to help Apple take on MS big time by licensing competitive clones and porting OSX to other platforms, but Apple is a niche company, and to grow it basicaly overnight from the outside in is essentially not good business practice.

The article iJon posted was all about how to appeal to shareholders with spectacular moves to generate their support in the short term. I think that if Apple is to grow safely, it woud be well advised to expand what it already does. It has donated iPod and AMS to the cause and I reckon with the confidence of a burgeoning market, any changes in direction on the lines suggested at the start of the thead will be feasible, but on Apple terms - which will be modest and sure. You know it's funny that you wrote all this, but you didn't substantiate your argument. I'm glad you like what Apple is doing and I'm sure you realize their market share is declining. It's good to see an opposing view, but put something to back up your argument and give me some detailed analysis of what you think they need to do. They clearly can't stay there current course. If they use the 970, it will help sales, but wont improve their biggest concern, which is market share. Maybe that's why they are getting into the music business and other areas. Maybe they are getting into these areas so when they do allow clones everything is in place.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
You know it's funny that you wrote all this, but you didn't substantiate your argument. I'm glad you like what Apple is doing and I'm sure you realize their market share is declining. It's good to see an opposing view, but put something to back up your argument and give me some detailed analysis of what you think they need to do. They clearly can't stay there current course. If they use the 970, it will help sales, but wont improve their biggest concern, which is market share. Maybe that's why they are getting into the music business and other areas. Maybe they are getting into these areas so when they do allow clones everything is in place.

Hi PG

I am a shareholder with Apple so the well presented expansive idea of yours should appeal, but it doesnt make sense to little old me. About the strategy that is now rolling I wrote -

By "sacrificing" Apple Music Store, the second jewel, in tandem with the iPod, jewel number 3, Apple has already laid the foundation of a fantastic in-house-built opportunity to make OSX available to the masses, but at a steady rate within the capacity of Apple. ie These two Windows-ised products will bring people in to the fold, negating the need to farm OSX, Apple's jewel, out.

A couple of numbers - apparently 50% of internet visits are music related so, as you say too, the move into music downloads isnt a bad idea for a software company. Apple apparently sold 2 million downloads in 16 days to their measly market share of users. When AMS is available to Windows users, the downloads have been projected to be in the tens of millions, so yes, exposure of Apple will sky rocket - and here we disagree. I say that is where the "970 Cupertino-Apple hardware with OSX" sales kick in to meet the new demand for the Mac experience. I thought I wrote that as well, but thanks for prompting me to rephrase.

The PB for instance is the biggest earner, $350m worth, sort of indicating what I thought was a growing trend in desk top replacements. Profits from that line for instance are expandable by increasing turnover or keeping output constant and reducing costs. I suggest they can expect higher turnover as a spin off of music downloads, and so a bit more profit in the kitty. To increase their current overall .95% net profit tally, they have the iPods, which are I believe the most expensive MP3 player out there, and are also the most profitable piece of hardware in the Apple range. 130000 units bought or ordered in week one of launch of AMS is I believe pretty good evidence of the potential of that particular product to raise profit margins in the hardware range. Sucess breeds success and investment in R&D wont be hindered, and so Apple continues to tweak and improve profitability and build quality across the range. Very boring and conservative, but it makes for a solid business.


Does your proposal allow for top of the range clones only? That might not be a bad shout. Rolls Royce dont do runabouts, in all my years in business, I never had a customer complain about the quality of my high price service ( and poor quality is a gripe that lingers on far longer than a moan at a high price actually paid). It is a risk not worth taking to put OSX on mass market non-Apple machines. If the machines play up, its the front end that gets the flak - OSX - by Apple.

Apple stand 100% behind what they sell, and only the minimum of passing the buck outside of Apple is really possible. farm out clones on the scale that would make your plan worthwhile, and control gets lost, and a distinct market advantage goes belly up.

So I say, why would Apple need mass market clones out there to take advantage of the music-generated interest in Macs when they have the cash and the upcoming range of hardware products to grow their own business from within. No forgetting that this strategy of which I am a big fan is an 18 month old project to counter the natural effect of product cycles, and take the company onto another level.

Snuffing out MS influence on computers is a big call, and I dont think your policy is one that Apple are either up to, or should be up for.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by billyboy
Hi PG
Thanks for the response and expansion of what you previously wrote. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, but I had a dinner date with my family last night.

To begin I disagree with you in regards that the AMS and iPod are negating the need to farm out OS X to the masses of Windows. I think those products and services are helping Apples bottom line and may get some additional switchers. However, I think Windows version of iTunes gives users more of a reason not to switch. Regardless, I do not think iTunes, AMS, and the iPod are reason enough to get people to switch. AMS is going to pick up Apples bottom line, it's approach is similar to .Mac, but appeals to much larger audience. One good thing about AMS is that it will keep shareholders happy. But I don't think it's going to do much for OS X. OS X is my main concern.

I say that is where the "970 Cupertino-Apple hardware with OSX" sales kick in to meet the new demand for the Mac experience. You're right, this is exactly where we disagree. You think the 970 is the holy grail of Apples problems and I thinks it's a solution to a major problem, but I don't think it will increase there market share dramatically. This is where I think you have delusions of grandeur with Apple hardware sales. At best I think they may be able to get back to 5% mark with the 970 and that's where they were when SJ took the helm.

Does your proposal allow for top of the range clones only? That might not be a bad shout. Rolls Royce dont do runabouts, in all my years in business, I never had a customer complain about the quality of my high price service ( and poor quality is a gripe that lingers on far longer than a moan at a high price actually paid). It is a risk not worth taking to put OSX on mass market non-Apple machines. If the machines play up, its the front end that gets the flak - OSX - by Apple.

My proposal allows for any range of clones, but I would expect to see similar boxes that Dell and Gateway are pumping out by the masses. Additionally I see people building there own, which has been a long time dream of mine. I don't expect Apple to license the eMac and iMac lines.

To cover the problem which you stated regarding the quality of third party machines. I think Apple has to have a driver certification program similar to what M$ is doing now. If it's not certified then they can't put that on the box. However, if someone wants to build there own box they can and they'll expect some issues. Linux deploys on many boxes and platforms and seems to avoid many hardware problems. There are problems nonetheless. For example Linux doesn't play nice with one model of Netgears Ethernet cards. So in essence I agree with you that quality is imperative. We will get support from the Linux OpenSource uses as we do now. They'll want OS X on their machines.

Yes I agree that Apples stands 100% behind what they sell. If any manufacture didn't stand behind what they sell then you'd be foolish to buy what they are selling. You can't tell me that 100% of what Apple sells is perfect either. The hardware they sell as you know is coming from different manufacturers which Apple doesn't have quality control over. Those same parts will find themselves in clones. I don't think there's a manufacture on the market that wants to release a product and then have it noted that it causes problems with the OS. Apple has done a remarkable job of making developer tools available. With OS X being OpenSource in many respects except the GUI, developers have the ability to integrate better with the OS. This is something the Microsoft doesn't do. If manufactures take advantage of this opportunity to marry the OS then it will only help Apple further.

No forgetting that this strategy of which I am a big fan is an 18 month old project to counter the natural effect of product cycles, and take the company onto another level I'm not sure to what you're referring to here?

I don't think Apple is going to Snuff out MS, but they can take a much larger market share by broadening their efforts. Think MS like the fact that Linux holds over 60% of the server market? No. Governments, businesses and non profit organizations are looking into OpenSource. Apple is the perfect solutions, but there hardware is way too expensive and as I said before. No one wants to get tied into one hardware vendor.

I read one solution that I rather liked. Split Apple into a Apple Hardware Company and Apple Software Company. But that's another issue.

Thanks again for your detailed response BillyBoy (that's what my mother calls my father, ha!). I'm enjoying discussing this with you. I certainly see why a shareholder would like AMS. It's a great service, but I don't think it solves OS X's and Apples diminishing market share in the desktop market.

[Regular Joe]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Regardless, I do not think iTunes, AMS, and the iPod are reason enough to get people to switch.

I do not wish to impose on your conversation, but I am a "regular Joe" who is switching to a Macintosh system based on my exposure to iPod. I may be in the minority, or perhaps I have just grown tired of the Windows environment; it doesn't matter, without the iPod I would not have switched.

However, let me also add that it was the exposure to Apple iPod owners that "planted the seed,” if you will. Now, if 99% of all iPod users were from the Windows platform, would I have heard the Mac owners at all? To further complicate the discussion, if the iPod didn't work with Windows, would I have ever purchased one?

I do believe that iTunes for Windows is a good thing. I do not believe most users would switch to a Mac only to purchase 99¢ songs. However, it will give the masses exposure to Apple. The curious will investigate, and if they possess any intelligence at all, switch. Besides, it offers a unique advertising opportunity while Windows users are waiting for their music to download. ;)

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Regular Joe
I do not wish to impose on your conversation, but I am a "regular Joe" who is switching to a Macintosh system based on my exposure to iPod. I may be in the minority, or perhaps I have just grown tired of the Windows environment; it doesn't matter, without the iPod I would not have switched.

However, let me also add that it was the exposure to Apple iPod owners that "planted the seed,? if you will. Now, if 99% of all iPod users were from the Windows platform, would I have heard the Mac owners at all? To further complicate the discussion, if the iPod didn't work with Windows, would I have ever purchased one?

I do believe that iTunes for Windows is a good thing. I do not believe most users would switch to a Mac only to purchase 99¢ songs. However, it will give the masses exposure to Apple. The curious will investigate, and if they possess any intelligence at all, switch. Besides, it offers a unique advertising opportunity while Windows users are waiting for their music to download. ;) You're not imposing at all. It's good to see supportive arguments regardless of what side of the fence they are on. You're situation may be unique, but I have heard of others doing the same. I don't think it will happen in such great numbers as to have a large effect on the desktop market share.. But how great would it be if I were wrong. :D

[billyboy]

Hey PG

Hope u enjoyed your meal.

I see you want to spread OSX to the world, so my support of a more modest initial target-solid base won't sit well with you, but here we go!

You said sales were declining, and I pointed out that products have life-cycles, and Apple have been working for 18 months on AMS, which along with the 970 is a part of their drive to compensate for flagging sales, especially in the Powermacs.

I am not an apologist for Jobs but he took over when Apple had 5% of a smaller market than exists now. Sticking to their guns conservative Apple are still around having come through a very dodgy period in the general economy. So, the short term figure of 5% of a growing market isnt such a backward step. That's almost doubling the company, which isnt a bad premise for future growth.

iTunes on Windows a reason not to switch? How come? There is more to life than music, and Im sure there will be plenty of info bundled with iTunes explaining the wonders of OSX and the complete Mac digital thing. If there isnt then Apple will have wasted their entry into Windows-land and broken a golden rule of marketing - target your existing customers.

(I just read Regular Joe's input and generating maybe $2000 of hardware sales from a music download programme doesnt seem too bad a return. Obviously the numbers are the nub and in 2-3 years' time I expect you to have been proved wrong about the desire for a move from Windows to Mac. However as I said earlier, your desire to see OSX across the globe wont happen through this tactic in that time scale.

And the hardware issue. As I said, desktop replacements are set to be a burgeoning sector, and despite being tiny, Apple are pretty much ahead of the design game, and the overdue move away from stagnating Motorola indicates to me that Apple are able to expand their horizons in the build department generally.

Of course they have reliability issues, but no one is perfect. Customer service is a major issue, and many a fool has bought a product in the belief they'd be supported if problems arose! So when Apple enjoy such a strong reputation for customer service, that is something to cherish and not play down. Quality control in your own business is hard enough, and it would be a scary proposition to put Apple's name to the quality of OSX-running clones.

Also, I believe Apple are rare in that they are committed wholly to synching hardware with software. The teething troubles spreading that philosophy to clone manufacturers could sink the whole Apple/OSX "legend" without trace.

Like football, this a matter of opinion.

Maybe usurp Jobs, install a benevolent Gates-type and your proposal could come true. That would be the time for you to launch a pay per line discussion board allowing the public to vent their spleen on those dominatrix bas*****s at Apple, bring back MS. The whole world should be using OSX, and it could happen, but only when we live in the Star Trek society when money doesnt matter and quality does.

cheers Billyboy

(Unlike your mother's term of endearment, Billyboy is a term one of my mates coined for people who are a bit of a dumb***) :)

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by billyboy
[B]
I see you want to spread OSX to the world, so my support of a more modest initial target-solid base won't sit well with you, but here we go! [B]

Okay, we agree to disagree on the direction Apple should head. Yes, I think I'd like them to grab a much larger share of the OS market. However I certainly don't want to see them become the next Microsoft. I think there is room for multiple Operating Systems. I'd like to see at least 3 or 4 with about equal percentage of the market. I'd like to see more open standards so applications can communicate. That's something Microsoft doesn't want because it'll eat at there market share. I would like to see more players in the OS space.

My understanding is you like Apple and the road they are taking. I too like some if not most of their achievements in the software space. But I'd like them to obtain 30 or 40% of the market and I gather you would not. They certainly can't grab that much market space with their current business model. At this point since we fundamentally disagree with Apples overall goal I think we can't go any further. I think it's another topic for another discussion.

Maybe usurp Jobs, install a benevolent Gates-type and your proposal could come true. That would be the time for you to launch a pay per line discussion board allowing the public to vent their spleen on those dominatrix bas*****s at Apple, bring back MS. The whole world should be using OSX, and it could happen, but only when we live in the Star Trek society when money doesnt matter and quality does. This is one of the most bizarre paragraphs I've read in a while. I certainly don't want to see Apple become the next Microsoft. The whole spleen dominatrix thing really degenerates the conversation, but I think we've both grown tired and come realize we want vastly different things for Apple.

I certainly think Apple could be against windows, but they need to get are their ducks lined up in a row.

I certainly wouldn't classify my father under your meaning of Billyboy as he graduated from Harvard Law, sits on the board of the Hoover Institute, and the board of Harvard Law School. Interesting that you choose that as your user name.

[sawaguchishinji]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
We will get support from the Linux OpenSource uses as we do now. They'll want OS X on their machines.

(The majority users) For free only .

[billyboy]

Originally posted by pgwalsh

This is one of the most bizarre paragraphs I've read in a while. I certainly don't want to see Apple become the next Microsoft. The whole spleen dominatrix thing really degenerates the conversation, but I think we've both grown tired and come realize we want vastly different things for Apple.

I certainly wouldn't classify my father under your meaning of Billyboy as he graduated from Harvard Law, sits on the board of the Hoover Institute, and the board of Harvard Law School. Interesting that you choose that as your user name.

PG

Thanks for the compliment on my bizzareness! British humour has a habit of floating over some heads, and mine went one stage worse and sunk without trace. Nothing degenerative intended :)

Andy

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by billyboy
PG

Thanks for the compliment on my bizzareness! British humour has a habit of floating over some heads, and mine went one stage worse and sunk without trace. Nothing degenerative intended :)

Andy

just like whenm we say break a leg, it's not literal, but british people kinda look at us weird when we say that:p

[billyboy]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
just like whenm we say break a leg, it's not literal, but british people kinda look at us weird when we say that:p

A good thread in the making there for another forum.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
You can't say they wont develop for it because you don't know that. Did you read the part about porting linux apps and Apple porting all of its applications. As I said before, it would primarily be used by Developers and IT prof. I think most vendors would see OS X on x86 as a promising outlook for OS X and Apple. But who knows. Think of it as Linux for consumers.

I'm starting to think the Apple community is the community of the afraid. Not willing to take a risk. It's not like I'm asking Apple to stop anything. I'm just asking them to broaden their reach.

Tell that to Adobe, Quark, Omni, RealSoft, Microsoft(!), Alias|Wavefront, Corel, Electric Image, FWB, etc., not to mention Infogrames, Ambrosia, Pangea, EA, etc.

To say nothing of the thousands or tens of thousands of independent and shareware developers.

Look, the GIMP is fine, and having all those Linux apps will be just dandy, but show me a QuarkXPress equivalent for Linux. Show me EV Nova for Linux. Show me Maya for Linux. Show me EI's Universe for Linux, and Lightwave, and Cinema 4D XL, and Bryce for Linux. Show me RealBASIC for Linux. Or OmniGraffle. Or The Sims. Or Civ3.

You can't, because they don't exist, and have no equivalent. And after (how many now) years of developing a version of XPress, Apple's going to turn around and say to Quark "Oh, by the way, we're now on two architectures, so you'll have to do another rewrite of XPress."? And actually expect Quark to do it? You're insane if you believe it'll happen.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Tell that to Adobe, Quark, Omni, RealSoft, Microsoft(!), Alias|Wavefront, Corel, Electric Image, FWB, etc., not to mention Infogrames, Ambrosia, Pangea, EA, etc.

To say nothing of the thousands or tens of thousands of independent and shareware developers.

Look, the GIMP is fine, and having all those Linux apps will be just dandy, but show me a QuarkXPress equivalent for Linux. Show me EV Nova for Linux. Show me Maya for Linux. Show me EI's Universe for Linux, and Lightwave, and Cinema 4D XL, and Bryce for Linux. Show me RealBASIC for Linux. Or OmniGraffle. Or The Sims. Or Civ3.

You can't, because they don't exist, and have no equivalent. And after (how many now) years of developing a version of XPress, Apple's going to turn around and say to Quark "Oh, by the way, we're now on two architectures, so you'll have to do another rewrite of XPress."? And actually expect Quark to do it? You're insane if you believe it'll happen. You're a typical naysayer. It certaninely will take time, but I they will recompile the apps over time to run on x86. I believe most software vendors will see a move to x86 as a promising move. Just look at the trouble with Motorola. I don't mind being insane either. :D However I think it's insane that they are not on x86 and have not released clones. But I already discussed that.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
You're a typical naysayer. It certaninely will take time, but I they will recompile the apps over time to run on x86. I believe most software vendors will see a move to x86 as a promising move. Just look at the trouble with Motorola. I don't mind being insane either. :D However I think it's insane that they are not on x86 and have not released clones. But I already discussed that.

Except unlike Linux PPC and some Unix x-86 apps, it'll take a lot more than a recompile to make it work. In the time they'd be rewriting their software (IF they rewrite their software), Apple will sell so few computers that unless they seriously ramp up the charges on the x-86 version of OS X (and then it offers no cost savings, and significant interoperability problems over Windows), they will go out of business.

And sometimes us typical naysayers are absolutely right. This is one of those times.

Clones are another matter. When Jobs killed the clones back in 1998, he did it because Apple wasn't selling enough boxes because the clones were better than the original. However, the beginning of the clone years actually did go quite well. I think it may be time for Apple to look into the PPC clone market again, but not allow the cloners to directly compete with Apple; make them build systems for target markets Apple doesn't target. For example, clone maker XYZ could make a sub-$500 beige desktop machine, without, say, FireWire, and with a G3, disk drive and CD-RW. Give it simple VGA-out or DVI-out, and you have an instant hit in the education market. Or ABC take the guts of a G4, add a whole bunch of specialized high-end stuff for a single, non-video field and sell it for $5000. etc.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Except unlike Linux PPC and some Unix x-86 apps, it'll take a lot more than a recompile to make it work. In the time they'd be rewriting their software (IF they rewrite their software), Apple will sell so few computers that unless they seriously ramp up the charges on the x-86 version of OS X (and then it offers no cost savings, and significant interoperability problems over Windows), they will go out of business.

And sometimes us typical naysayers are absolutely right. This is one of those times.

Clones are another matter. When Jobs killed the clones back in 1998, he did it because Apple wasn't selling enough boxes because the clones were better than the original. However, the beginning of the clone years actually did go quite well. I think it may be time for Apple to look into the PPC clone market again, but not allow the cloners to directly compete with Apple; make them build systems for target markets Apple doesn't target. For example, clone maker XYZ could make a sub-$500 beige desktop machine, without, say, FireWire, and with a G3, disk drive and CD-RW. Give it simple VGA-out or DVI-out, and you have an instant hit in the education market. Or ABC take the guts of a G4, add a whole bunch of specialized high-end stuff for a single, non-video field and sell it for $5000. etc. I can totally respect this... This would be better than nothing in my view. I would like to see full blown competition nonetheless

[billyboy]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Or ABC take the guts of a G4, add a whole bunch of specialized high-end stuff for a single, non-video field and sell it for $5000. etc.

I like that idea, stretching the market up the way.

I think the uncomfortable part of PGs otherwise good vision is the cheap n cheerful aspect of the marketing. Im not a snob, really, but Apple has placed itself from the outset as the Merc of the industry, not as profitable admittedly, which needs to be addressed, but the mass market has more than its fair share of intense competition, and joining in that scrap even via 3rd party clones just sends out the wrong signals about what Apple is all about (IMHO).

There is plenty of money in exclusivity, I am sure Apple's share of sales of pricy computers must only be a small proportion of the current market and that's where Apple needs to go balls out to capitalise on. So yes I am swayed to high end clones, but beige boxes? - ugh!

.

[moose]

Great thread... and you Brits keep up the humor. This Yank appreciates it. Granted I am dual nationality (Amero-Brit). Oy Geezahs!

IMHO, price point is the greatest hurdle Apple has to surmount in appealing to PC users, from network guys through casual home users. I know that OS X has paid for itself a hundred fold in stability vs my Win 2k box. I know my OS X box plays in Win networks without hiccup. I know my OS X Office apps are in many cases actually better than their Windows equivalent. I know my overall computing experience is far more gratifying than that of a Winbox. I know all this, and yet I also know that I will never convince 95% of all Windows users to switch simply on the basis of intial cost. And on the surface of it, I can hardly blame them. An average user will look at the two machines and decide that the perception of their immediate needs are not outweighed by their desires. At the end of the day, for all its desireability, Apple will never meet a mass market as long as the hardware price to performance ratio remains untenable to people who don't want to spend more than 2k for an exceedingly well equipped PC.

Going to Intel or AMD compatability would be a huge boon. I feel that hardware competition, a given in the PC world, would be a welcome relief both to existing Apple loyalists (including myself), and a compelling welcome mat to PC users who balk at price. While I feel that the marriage of OS X to Apple hardware is a compelling strength, I also feel that you can remove much of that, or simply never access it (iSync, Superdrive, etc.) and still have an experience that easily trumps 2k or XP. Further, I feel that the Dells and Gateways of the world are perfectly positioned as mass resellers of hardware to ebb and flow with Apple's OS developments, so that is a moot point. Further, they would be out from under Microsofts absurd, stringent and stifling licensing agreements, and ostensibly fielding far fewer support calls with their newfound stability and ease of use.

My one serious caveat/doubt about this idea ever getting off the ground is that Microsoft would undoubtedly leverage its clout, and existing "relationships", if you can call it that, with PC manufacturers to attempt to keep Apple out of the PC market, not by buying Apple, but by applying harsh penalties to those companies that start to sell the Apple OS. Sure its illegal. Like they care. They've already proven they can outspend the government anyway. So, I don't know if PC makers would really feel Apple presents the impetus to incur M$'s wrath, and potentially create serious disturbances to their cashflow. I would wager that as bad as it is in the M$ world, many PC makers would still remain hesitant to convert, or even offer X in the stable of alternative OSes when threatened from "above".

OS X is the little OS that could, but it just needs to be given the opportunity. I buy Macs more for the OS than the hardware, and I feel very strongly that all hardware being equal, the choice between OS X and any flavor of Windows, tilts strongly in Apple's favor. Software is Apple's trump card, not hardware (excluding iPod), and their strategy should reflect that reality. The OS can still make brilliant use of new technologies as they appear, just as they do now. And just as they do now, customers will make their decisions primarily based on price and desire, but I would wager that more users will be able to experience the full gamut of the OS's ability as the hardware will be that much cheaper placing the Apple flavored experience of things like wireless technologies, music, video, software, etc in the houses of people who otherwise would be labouring under Windows.

But whatever it does, it better do it sooner rather than later. Call it a hunch, but I have a strong feeling that WinFS is going to be yet another ploy to further ostracize alternative players within the M$ dominated arenas, once again making life difficult for Macs in a predominately PC world. Its further very telling that a number of Longhorn builds are extraodinarily OS Xish. An attempt to quell the OS X esthetic bug, while delivering a new file management forma

[GregA]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm not talking about making OSX X86 compatible across the board I'm talking about Apple making Macs with the X86 but preventing the MacOS from being used on compatible machines with a boot rom or something.I hope we've moved beyond boot ROMs. Can't OSX determine what hardware it is on?

Make OSX check online that it is a valid copy. Use the same "registration" they're using for iTunes Music Store - OSX with an ID will run on 1 computer only. If 2 different systems try to run it, offer the 2nd the option to buy ("enter your credit card details here and we'll give you a new ID"). The only fault is for computers that never connect to the Internet (can we let them slide?!).

Now say we only sell preconfigured on Dell and IBM (for example). No worries - and if someone copies onto a clone machine you can stop them, or charge them. Either way is good isn't it?
(The other 'defence' is make it for 64bit only, which also gives Apple breathing space to support hardware and differentiates it from MS.)

You could also sell OSX with this licensing idea. Download it for free, or bundle it on every computer magazine - and let anyone try it for a month before asking them to pay.

[GregA]

When people talk about Apple going into new markets (and all the trouble it could cause) they seem to generally talk about OSX for PCs. I think there are so many other ways Apple could go cross platform and OSX for Intel is the LAST one. IBM had the right idea 10 years ago when it allowed all its divisions to act independently... while still making it that little bit better to work together.

So taking the Apple cross platform question a different way.
Starting by grouping Apple into 3 broad sections... OS, Apps, Hardware

OS: The standard question:
Could an Apple OS division sell OSX for PPC clones & Intel clones. This has been discussed a lot.
What about licensing in some way the Cocoa API for cross platform development on Linux & Windows? (it makes the next Apps question potentially very easy for Apple too).
or the feasibility of MacOS GUI for Redhat Linux?

Apps: The next question:
Could an Apple software division profitably sell Final Cut, AppleWorks, WebObjects, Keynote, & Quicktime etc for Windows & Linux? What about cross platform iApps (cheaply with free upgrades). (I know I'm cheating, some of these exist!)

Hardware: This I'm interested in:
If Apple hardware was independent - do you think many pc users would like to buy a Windows-iMac (without Mac OSX!)? Bundle it with Appleworks, iApps, Rendezvous, Mail & Safari, and iCal (and some Apple backgrounds and screen savers) of course. (They could buy OSX on Intel...).

I know Macs are better because they are integrated, and Macs cost more because of the quality OS & software. And even if Apple sold cross platform, the best experience would still be the integrated package.

If Apple allowed all I mentioned... they would sell less bundled/integrated systems. But...
- Would the hardware division overall sell more or less hardware than it does now?
- Would the apps division sell more or less?
- Would more or less copies of the OS be sold?
- would cross platform development lead to more apps for MacOS?
- How does all this affect .mac, iTunes, iChat?
- What would happen to the Apple mindshare - for loyal customers? and those who thought Apple was dead?

Seriously - is it possible that in 1 year, instead of 3% of the computer market, Apple PowerPCs would have 2% of the computer market, Apple's Windows machines could reach 2%, and the OS sales could reach 1%? (then Apps? Development? etc?).

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by GregAussie
When people talk about Apple going into new markets (and all the trouble it could cause) they seem to generally talk about OSX for PCs. I think there are so many other ways Apple could go cross platform and OSX for Intel is the LAST one. IBM had the right idea 10 years ago when it allowed all its divisions to act independently... while still making it that little bit better to work together.

I agree that this would be a good approach.

So taking the Apple cross platform question a different way.
Starting by grouping Apple into 3 broad sections... OS, Apps, Hardware

OS: The standard question:
Could an Apple OS division sell OSX for PPC clones & Intel clones. This has been discussed a lot.
What about licensing in some way the Cocoa API for cross platform development on Linux & Windows? (it makes the next Apps question potentially very easy for Apple too).
or the feasibility of MacOS GUI for Redhat Linux? I don't agree with the Mac GUI for Redhad or any form of linux. OS X is Unix and I think it can be the desktop alternative instead of Linux. However they can coexist.

Apps: The next question:
Could an Apple software division profitably sell Final Cut, AppleWorks, WebObjects, Keynote, & Quicktime etc for Windows & Linux? What about cross platform iApps (cheaply with free upgrades). (I know I'm cheating, some of these exist!) I hope they don't sell those apps for Windows or Linux. If the do theres less of a reason to switch. I'm personally all about OS X and the apps. I think this would be a bad move.

Hardware: This I'm interested in:
If Apple hardware was independent - do you think many pc users would like to buy a Windows-iMac (without Mac OSX!)? Bundle it with Appleworks, iApps, Rendezvous, Mail & Safari, and iCal (and some Apple backgrounds and screen savers) of course. (They could buy OSX on Intel...). Apple could sell Windows hardware, but I'd hate to see it. If they were a separate hardware company it would make sense, but maybe they could survive without doing so.

I know Macs are better because they are integrated, and Macs cost more because of the quality OS & software. And even if Apple sold cross platform, the best experience would still be the integrated package.

If Apple allowed all I mentioned... they would sell less bundled/integrated systems. But...
- Would the hardware division overall sell more or less hardware than it does now?
- Would the apps division sell more or less?
- Would more or less copies of the OS be sold?
- would cross platform development lead to more apps for MacOS?
- How does all this affect .mac, iTunes, iChat?
- What would happen to the Apple mindshare - for loyal customers? and those who thought Apple was dead?

Seriously - is it possible that in 1 year, instead of 3% of the computer market, Apple PowerPCs would have 2% of the computer market, Apple's Windows machines could reach 2%, and the OS sales could reach 1%? (then Apps? Development? etc?). Okay, if Apple goes Intel they should bundle the iApps with the OS and sell it for $150. You want people to have the full expereince wthout having to buy or download additional software...

I think cross platform would lead to more apps. I think a lot of people that are using Linux would switch and more windows users would switch. But as I said before it would be easier to switch if you just had to buy the new OS then to buy a new computer. Not many people want to go out and buy another computer.

Businesses are leaving Sun for Linux. OS X would fit the bill perfectly. But unless there are more vendors, no large business would make that switch to one vendor.

Thanks for all your input Greg. You have some interesting points of view.

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by GregAussie
You could also sell OSX with this licensing idea. Download it for free, or bundle it on every computer magazine - and let anyone try it for a month before asking them to pay.

i don't think you'd want to download an OS, and about letting people try it for a month, well tat's lik making the OS shareware! that's kinda stupid.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i don't think you'd want to download an OS, and about letting people try it for a month, well tat's lik making the OS shareware! that's kinda stupid. People download OS's all the time. Check out Debian Linux... Just package it as a disk image and bamb. Of course this wouldn't be for the average Joe, but I don't think an average joe is going to test an OS for a month or two anyway.

Debian also has a net install. You download a core piece and once you choose the packages you want it downloads and installs the rest. So the inital download is quite small and doesn't require a 650 mb download or more. They actually suggest this method over doing the whole package. For obvious reasons you'd want broadband and a bit of know how.

[bennetsaysargh]

i never tryed linux. i don't know why, but like you said, average people won't try an OS for a month or 2.

[tazo]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i never tryed linux. i don't know why, but like you said, average people won't try an OS for a month or 2. I tried redhat linux on my pc for about oh 3 days. then i gave up on it. if I cannot get on the internet easily, download any program, and have to use a command line just to burn a cd, Its not usable to me. sorry.

-tazo

[jayb2000]

Since Intel and AMD are both moving away from that architecture, why spend millions of dollars and probably at least a couple of years to port OS X and the iApps and all the other software to a processor line that is marked for death? :confused:

I could sort of see pushing to get on Itanium or Opteron (I think thats the new one from AMD), but to push backwards seems like it would provide very minimal payoffs.

However, Apple has built its reputation and its billions in cash on its hardware AND software packages. Sure, they can increase their market share by licensing to anyone or porting, but why is market share so important? They are profitable, and based on the trends I have seen on MR over the past year or so, it seems like a fair amount of the users are just waiting for 970 to go buy some systems.

Combine that with the iTMS and iPod, and I think you can get a larger share of market, both from current Windows and Linux users. :D

I do agree that they need better hardware, but I think they need to maintain the control and put out a wider range of products, rather than trying to rewrite so much of their code.

A $500 2ghz G3 box for the home internet surfer/picture taker with a year of .Mac free would get an awful lot of people.

If you look at HP, Dell, Gateway, they do not have just cheap machines, they have a mix. That's because margins on PCs are under 10% (and usually 3-5). They put cheap components in some machines so they can cut the price and they put expensive ones in other machines and charge more for it.

Apple has much higher margins because they only sell the higher end equipment.
It keeps their market share down, but their revenue high.

I work with XP, Win2k, NT, HP-UX, and Sun daily. My home machine is an iMac G3 400mhz. Its slow, but even running iTunes (constantly, I am re-ripping my CDs), iChat, Safari, Apache with PHP, My SQl and Folding (of course :cool: ) it has yet to crash. That is in 6 months.

On the other hand, I got a new laptop Monday for work, and running XP and it bluescreened on Tuesday.

Market share may increase revenue, but if it means Apple has to relinquish some control and their software becomes 20% more buggy or faulty - then the heck with market share.

I guess I just would want a better understanding of the trade offs before I supported porting the OS.

Expanded hardware I can see.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by jayb2000


However, Apple has built its reputation and its billions in cash on its hardware AND software packages. Sure, they can increase their market share by licensing to anyone or porting, but why is market share so important? They are profitable, and based on the trends I have seen on MR over the past year or so, it seems like a fair amount of the users are just waiting for 970 to go buy some systems.

Combine that with the iTMS and iPod, and I think you can get a larger share of market, both from current Windows and Linux users. :D



You're right except that in percentage terms they dont make much of a profit. Less than 1%. Compare that to about 30% fom M$ and I can see PG's thinking, there is a lot of money in mass marketed software. Like you and Apple though, I think there is a lot to be said for quality before quantity. It doesnt make for fantasmagorical business figures, but its steady and Apple customers are more than happy with the software by and large.

I think though that henceforth there will be a shift up of gears and Apple can start to cash in on their conservative business plan. If their quality and innovation conviction hadnt been so strong in the past, I dont think they could expect many people to be waiting in anticipation of something really special over the coming 6 months.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by billyboy
You're right except that in percentage terms they dont make much of a profit. Less than 1%. Compare that to about 30% fom M$ and I can see PG's thinking, there is a lot of money in mass marketed software. Like you and Apple though, I think there is a lot to be said for quality before quantity. It doesnt make for fantasmagorical business figures, but its steady and Apple customers are more than happy with the software by and large.

I think though that henceforth there will be a shift up of gears and Apple can start to cash in on their conservative business plan. If their quality and innovation conviction hadnt been so strong in the past, I dont think they could expect many people to be waiting in anticipation of something really special over the coming 6 months.

Where did you come up with the 1% figure. From all of the share holder meetings I have read about Apple holds around 30-36% net profit.

Also I agree about them getting ready to cash in. I think for the last 5 years or so Apple has been doing it right. They have been playing it safe and at the same time building up there company base, buying into new software, developing, etc.. I think they have done exceptionately well considering the tech market sectors economical down turn. Now that the economy is making a turn around they are set to pounce. It seems to me that a lot of technological achievements on there part are or have just come together and will make the next couple years very exciting. Also due to there ongoing new developemental model for there business I think there will be a continual out pouring of new items from them for many many years to come. The are truly set for a fantastic future.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Where did you come up with the 1% figure. From all of the share holder meetings I have read about Apple holds around 30-36% net profit.



Look to the right hand side of the following link pages.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=aapl&symbols=aapl

Gross profit is currently about 28%, the final net figure is a bit sad:(

Microsoft arent tagged M$ for nothing. Choke on these figures. Apple's business principles come at a price.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=msft&symbols=msft

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by billyboy
Look to the right hand side of the following link pages.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=aapl&symbols=aapl

Gross profit is currently about 28%, the final net figure is a bit sad:(

Microsoft arent tagged M$ for nothing. Choke on these figures. Apple's business principles come at a price.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=msft&symbols=msft

Wow, thanks for the links. It's always good to have the evidence to back up a claim. I guess the figures I heard were for gross margins. There Net is definitely sorry but that also could be due to there accounting practices. You know it's a lot beter on the taxes if you don't show a profit.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by MacBandit
There Net is definitely sorry but that also could be due to there accounting practices. You know it's a lot beter on the taxes if you don't show a profit.

Mayb with the emphasis on innovation there is also not a lot left in the kitty to pay tax on. Still, in the future lets hope they have to pay so much tax they're sick.

[GregA]

Originally posted by jayb2000
If you look at HP, Dell, Gateway, they do not have just cheap machines, they have a mix. That's because margins on PCs are under 10% (and usually 3-5). They put cheap components in some machines so they can cut the price and they put expensive ones in other machines and charge more for it.

Apple has much higher margins because they only sell the higher end equipment.
It keeps their market share down, but their revenue high.Just wondering - if Dell makes "10%" on a $2000 system, that means their cost was $1820.

If apple makes "30%" - on a $2000 system - that means their cost was $1540.

The thing is, the Dell cost includes paying MS for WindowsXP. Does the Apple cost include paying for the ongoing OS development etc? If we said that MacOSX charge was $200 (upgrades are then cheaper), that makes Apples profit 15%.

Anyone know if Apple counts the OS cost?

[GregA]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i don't think you'd want to download an OS, and about letting people try it for a month, well tat's lik making the OS shareware! that's kinda stupid. I agree with the downloading - still free in some way though (via a DVD-Rom on a magazine?). If Apple releases an OS for Intel, I think there's merit in letting people try it free - and also merit in not charging them anything until they've checked it works with all their hardware.

A trial version stops some people from complaining and may save some headaches for Apple.

[GregA]

Originally posted by GregAussie
Could an Apple software division profitably sell Final Cut, AppleWorks, WebObjects, Keynote, & Quicktime etc for Windows & Linux? What about cross platform iApps (cheaply with free upgrades).
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I hope they don't sell those apps for Windows or Linux. If the do theres less of a reason to switch. I'm personally all about OS X and the apps. I think this would be a bad move.I do agree with the 'whole package' attractiveness. But this could work against Apple too.

If people are thinking they can't go 'half way' with Apple, they may steer clear. ("If I have windows I can swap and change hardware, OS, and apps. Apple just does Apple stuff")

I also think that if Apple wants to 'play nicely' as the media centre of house, branching out is a signal to everyone that they're playing nicely.