OS X Unleashed

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by pgwalsh, May 12, 2003.

  1. pgwalsh macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #1
    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
     
  2. pgwalsh thread starter macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #2
    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.
     
  3. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #3
    Although others may disagree, I find this to be a great idea. Imagine running OS X on a Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon...
     
  4. pgwalsh thread starter macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #5
    Yes I wrote this. So please excuse my grammar errors.
     
  5. bennetsaysargh macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #6
    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.
     
  6. pgwalsh thread starter macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #7
    Thanks!
    I agree that Apple should have a hardware business, but they should stick with unique designs unless they can compete on price.
     
  7. bennetsaysargh macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #8
    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!"
     
  8. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #9
    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
     
  9. pgwalsh thread starter macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #10
    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.
     
  10. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
    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.
     
  11. Latino macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #12
    and if apple this this

    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?
     
  12. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #13
    Re: and if apple this this

    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
     
  13. pgwalsh thread starter macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #14
    Re: and if apple this this

    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.
     
  14. benixau macrumors 65816

    benixau

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #15
    Re: and if apple this this

    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.
     
  15. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #16
    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
     
  16. bennetsaysargh macrumors 68020

    bennetsaysargh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #17
    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.
     
  17. pgwalsh thread starter macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #18
    Ah, loved the article. Just what I need to put on a smile. Now I hope jobs moves on it.
     
  18. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    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.
     
  19. Macpoops macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2002
    Location:
    PA
    #20
    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.
     
  20. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #21
    Antitrust law? Completely toothless.

    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.
     
  21. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #22
    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:
     
  22. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    Re: Antitrust law? Completely toothless.

    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.
     
  23. Billicus macrumors 6502a

    Billicus

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    Charles City, Iowa
    #24
    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
     
  24. Latino macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #25
    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! :)
     

Share This Page