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
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
