aswitcher said:
Some musings
If Macs could run Windows ( 😱 ) more Macs would sell. Macs look cool and switching would not be a hurdle...
Even more interesting, if OSX could run on PCs, less Macs would sell. OSX is pretty cool and if people could dual boot, then geeks and students could get their cheap hardware and run an excellent os.
I regret to inform you that there are some flaws in this reasoning, much as I would love to see it be the truth and happen myself.
If Apple were to, let's say, work with MS for a PPC version of Windows that could run natively on G4s and G5s, it would stratetically undermine their position, because it would be tantamount to admitting defeat and throwing in the towel. The plan would not only backfire for that reason but also because there are very few people out there who would want to spend the money on the Apple premium hardware. It would also fail to work because the OS wouldn't be the only thing to recode, but so would all the apps, too. To say nothing of the fact that the
WHOLE POINT IN SWITCHING would be moot.
So, why not just have Apple put out their own brand of x86 hardware? Well, first, it would be another strategic and psychological defeat for Apple. Second, again, an insufficient number of people would pay a premium for Apple-branded hardware to run an OS they could run on anybody's cheap hardware. Third, other than switching brands, this would hardly be a "switch" in the sense we're talking about.
Which brings us to having Mac OS X available
for the x86 platform. This would be the best strategy of those offered here because it would bring a viable OS alternative to the x86 masses. However, it would more likely be a strategic problem, if not out-and-out failure, for Apple because it would have the effect of canabalizing their hardware sales. And, for a hardware-driven company like Apple, this
really doesn't help anyone.
If, theoretically, Apple were to truly envision themselves as a software company and not a hardware one, this would, of course, obviously be the basic strategy they'd go with, assuming they didn't decide to abandon OS development which, I think, would fundamentally be suicide for Apple, and would be the death of the Mac platform.
Oh, and by the way, you'd still have the "switching hurdle" because people would then have to switch to running Mac OS X/x86 apps. Really, what's the difference between that and rebuying apps that also happen to run on a different hardware platform? The software cost for the consumer would be the same because you'd still have the same fundamental redevelopment costs.
aswitcher said:
Some musings
Many people dont want the hassle of learning something new and thinking they will loose access to software like games and shareware programs. Office is really important to the Mac for easing switchers across.
This does go to the core of the argument of people not being interested in technology. This, unfortunately, a company by itself, and perhaps the whole computer industry together, cannot strategize around or against. It is what it is. The only way to change it is to effect societal change, which is unlikely, unwieldly, costly, and time-consuming.
Regarding the iPod cutting across the Mac and PC markets and stubbornly being popular despite it's price point, I would argue that this phenominon is due to marketing and trendy-ness more than any particular technological prowess on Apple's part, much though I might wish to the contrary.
Mike
