OS X Unleashed

[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!

 

[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.

 

[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

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!

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

 

[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

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. 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. 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.