Solving Apple's Delima

[Muzukun]

I've used that analogy for a while now, where Nintendo tends to be like Apple: Less, but better, where Sony is like the PC world: more, but more crap to wade through to find the good stuff.

cool happy that someone else sees things the same way that I do ^-^

Don't get me started on sony though... you should have seen my roomie's laptop. First year I new him he was telling me how great sony was, and that he hadn't seen anyone who had a problem with it... NEXT year it crashed, oh and did it ever crash. As if software wasn't bad enough this had to be some sort of complete and total hardware crunch resulting in something wrong with the motherboard itself and the LCD screen breaking... this happening to a laptop that had it's worst moments resting on the stomach of this guy... which was like a giant soft pillow ^_^ ... I'm guessing.

Only thing I have from sony is my glorified DVD player... AKA PS2

 

[nucFlash]

I'm more interested in the company rather...

"Awoke to a terrible truth."

What terrible truth? Apple is doing better now than ever before, and unlike most computer companies, making a profit.

If Apple developed OS X for X86, the Mac platform would simply disappear. Why would people (besides us faithful) buy a Mac when they could cobble together any 'ol computer for $500-$1000 and run Apple's OS on it?

No offense or anything, but nucflash, you really are an idiot.

than any one of their products. The two main products Apple computer is built on are their computers and their operating system. While it is true that Apple now has several other profitable ventures, these first two things are truly the rocks they rely one. If the Power Macintosh computer could compete directly with the X86 market by running a PowerPC version of the Windows operating system (which as I said earlier, is currently impossible to allow as Apple also has to support it's own operating system), they would easily rise to the challenge.

Even with higher prices (as has been said, a top end PC can be bought for around $2000), it would be a much easier sell to individuals and general corporate buyers (as opposed to only those Audio/Visual Corporate buyers) if the argument could be made that for the higher price ($3000 for a top end Mac running Windows versus $2000 for a top end PC running Windows) simply because the Macs use the most powerful processors in the Desktop market.

At the same time Apple Computer is doing this, the alternative company (BTW, when I said Next, I didn't literally mean resurrecting NeXT, it was more or less a private joke on my part) charged with developing the Mac OS could simultaneously be working to gain ground on the X86 platform. The one thing no one seems to understand is that I'm talking two separate companies working two separate strategies. Apple Computer trying to build it's hardware business by actively encouraging the porting of the most widely used operating system to the most power computing platform while at the same time the alternative company in charge of the Mac OS is moving to unseat Windows as the main operating system on the X86 platform.

This is basically a reverse interpretation of one of the oldest strategies known to man, divide and conquer. It is reversed of course because the conquer would be dividing to surround the enemy.

 

[Sun Baked]

At the same time Apple Computer is doing this, the alternative company (BTW, when I said Next, I didn't literally mean resurrecting NeXT, it was more or less a private joke on my part) charged with developing the Mac OS could simultaneously be working to gain ground on the X86 platform. The one thing no one seems to understand is that I'm talking two separate companies working two separate strategies. Apple Computer trying to build it's hardware business by actively encouraging the porting of the most widely used operating system to the most power computing platform while at the same time the alternative company in charge of the Mac OS is moving to unseat Windows as the main operating system on the X86 platform.

The PPC Platform is more stable than it's been, since the month before Microsoft canceled Window NT for PPC -- which is back in some form and running on PowerMac G5s for XBox2 development.

But MS has a great method for killing competition, kill their support of the competitor product/platform or give their version away free.

If Apple jumps onto x86, it's likely MicroSoft Mactopia will be hosting a bunch of dead products.

Look how quickly MS reacted to Apple's new browser...

 

[themadchemist]

A company exists by maximizing profits, not market share. Maybe it's time for everyone to realize that strong profits do not require large market share and that large market share does not guarantee strong profits.

 

[superbovine]

Think about it. Without being tired to a specific platform, Next Computing Corp. (the theoretical company formed after Apple Computers split) would be free to move Mac OS X to every popular hardware platform in existence. Mac OS X Server could move from strictly Macintosh servers to any server platform it liked. It would have deep financial interests in moving to IBM's line of high end PowerPC processors. Later, it could be ported to the full range of Dell's popular line of PowerEdge Servers.

This, in fact, would be the perfect place to start in a migration to the X86 platform simply because Dell is already showing a growing defiance against Microsoft. They have been experimenting with introducing Linux for years, now that Microsoft cannot seriously fight back without risking D.O.J. intervention; they are more than likely simply waiting for the right opportunity.

as to porting to the x86 the kernel has been ported by apple to the x86.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

the thing you don't realize in all this software development, the kernel is open source under the open darwin project.

http://www.opendarwin.org/

your big plan to split up apple to actually compete with each other is stupid in itself. however, you ignore that fact that the kernel, please note i said *KERNEL* has been ported to x86. its been done, that is it. there goes your big marketing plan.

to answer your dilemma problem, about market share that isn't the dilemma. apple is making money. they are an eight billion dollar company. high market share doesn't mean they don't make money.
i have posted this link many times, but you should read it.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3921

 

[LethalWolfe]

nucFlash,
Aside from the fact that changing from a closed computer system to an open computer system would introduce many of the windows/x86 worlds problems into the Mac world while removing many of the advantages Macs offer you have to realize where Apple makes it's money. Hardware sales. Apple software (OS X, iLife, FCP, etc.,) is sold at low prices (especially the pro line of software) to get people to buy the hardware. Spinning off the hardware and software into two companies would require a complete restructure of how the company makes money.

I think you are falling to realize how important the control Apple has over it's hardware and software is. OS X running free and wild in the x86 world wouldn't fare any better than Windows XP. Actually, it would probably fare worse considering MS is used to "dealing with" all the problems associated w/"supporting" millions of combonations of hardware, software, firmware, and drivers.

BTW, there is a reason why "divide and conquer" refers to dividing your enemy and not fighting against yourself.


Lethal

 

[nucFlash]

Apple will not...

be developing anything for the X86 platform. They would continue to build computers based on the PowerPC platform. The computers they build would simply be running a version of Windows for PPC. This would allow them to compete against other PC vendors on a simple matter of performance. With both Apple and other X86 vendors supported by Windows, Apple could justify its higher costs simply by pointing out its higher performance.

On level ground, Apple could succeed.

 

[neoelectronaut]

be developing anything for the X86 platform. They would continue to build computers based on the PowerPC platform. The computers they build would simply be running a version of Windows for PPC. This would allow them to compete against other PC vendors on a simple matter of performance. With both Apple and other X86 vendors supported by Windows, Apple could justify its higher costs simply by pointing out its higher performance.

On level ground, Apple could succeed.

When has their ever been level ground in the computer business?

 

[rainman::|:|]

A few points here.

1. It is unbelievably egotistical to believe you can "solve Apple's dilemma". They have the best (proven!) minds in the industry at their disposal for advice and business planning. And, again, I don't see a dilemma in the first place. If you were really the genius you think you are, companies would be knocking down your door to hire you as a restructuring consultant. You're a layperson with a big ego, not a genius.

2. Apple will NEVER stop making the Mac OS, as long as they exist as a computer company. To suggest otherwise is pointless, because it's not going to happen.

3. Splitting would NOT be a good thing for Apple. Both companies would be dead in less than two years. Well, one might be relegated to digital music.

4. Idle speculation is *so* boring when it's done by uninformed people that do not know Apple's history or Apple's corporate style. You must understand these to predict (or even suggest) things the company will do.

paul

 

[Sun Baked]

3. Splitting would NOT be a good thing for Apple. Both companies would be dead in less than two years. Well, one might be relegated to digital music.

paul

Let's keep our eye on Amiga, since the current OS distribution rights, hardware design, and trademarks are all owned by different companies.

Heck, even the OS is programmed by a 3rd party.

If Amiga can make it work, Apple should be able to do it with their eyes closed.

Problem is Amiga is in bankruptcy, the G3/G4-based AmigaOne hardware is out of date, and they still have to get past the Beta stage on the OS.

And it's all happening today... but the future doesn't look bright for them to win a significant place in the PowerPC marketspace.

 

[alanbuilds]

Lost Atlantis of Open Platform Chip Architecture?

as to porting to the x86 the kernel has been ported by apple to the x86.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

Hi! Even though these posts are getting kind of long, perhaps someone can explain this to me:

Before the first Power PC chips were originally released, they were repeatedly announced and reported to be open-platform/platform-independent, that is, they were said to be able to run MacOS, IBM’s new OS that never seemed to happen, AND Microsoft Windows natively. Mac users were salivating in anticipation --- Power PC was a major blow-the-doors-off-anything-previous speed step forward (was it the change from 16 bit to 32 bit computing?) that was available months before the PC side had their Pentium. The Macintosh PowerPCs were actually priced somewhat lower than the Pentium (which, embarrassingly, could not add correctly in its first iteration -- whoops!) competition turned out to be. And now the major objection to anyone buying a Mac, “It won’t run my software” would no longer apply! Macs would be the universal platform, Intel could still only run Microsoft, MACS WOULD RULE!

(Although, surprise, surprise, Apple had a tough time meeting its huge waiting list/backorder demand if you didn’t have an early preorder. . . they didn’t have the manufacturing capacity set up to take over the world . . . Sound familiar?)

Shortly before roll-out of the PowerPC Macs, it was announced by IBM that the chip would NOT run Windows natively. Speculation in the press was that Microsoft might have pressured IBM to pull the plug on that capability.

WAS there a plug to pull?
Does this make any sense at all? (It got a lot of newspaper and general-interest magazine coverage at the time . . . )

(And the other promise of open platform, the new IBM OS just seemed to be perpetually “in development” and “a few months away” from being finished. Their print ads and catalogues advertised PowerPC Thinkpads for sale. I needed PowerPC because I was told it was the only thing powerful enough to run the new voice recognition program IBM was working on, and , believe it or not, Apple was very slow getting into the laptop computer market (!), so I called IBM to order a PPC Thinkpad. The sales rep was hesitant. “Yes, we do have it; and I COULD sell it to you . . . but . . . what would you DO with it? There’s no operating system available for it, you know . . .” )

 

[billyboy]

It is hell of a job making wholesale changes in your own professional life. Multiply that up to a "split an $8bn Apple in half" scenario and I bet SJ and the cool guys at Apple would soon be as demented as that Steve Bulmer guy. If you looked at increasing marketshare by taking Apple up a few levels overnight even by concentrating on what they do best ie quadrupling iPod production, opening 20 stores in each country in Europe, setting up Xserve departments all round the corporate world, you can bet they would have more than $60m profit at the end of the year, and a shedload of new users, but at what cost? The $5bn slush fund and the combined knowledge at Apple would be sorely tested and quality control would suffer and what Apple does best would end up a few levels lower.

Rome was not built in a day, and neither will Apples technical and financial glory be coming any day soon. But going as they are they are doing alright, because their formula is pretty solid and nothing like the competition's.

 

[applebum]

On level ground, Apple could succeed.

Let's see - Apple has the largest, best online music store around; actually turning a profit with it even though that wasn't expected. They have the number 1 music player, that everyone is trying to topple. They have a butt load of cash and they are one of only 2 computer companies turning a profit. Had you invested in Apple in April of last year, your investment would have grown by almost 150%. The worlds 3rd fastest computer (is it cluster?) is made up of Apple computers.

Geez I hope not all shareholders are as unpleasable as you - what the hell is your definition of success? Is marketshare the only thing that matters to you?

 

[janey]

than any one of their products. The two main products Apple computer is built on are their computers and their operating system. While it is true that Apple now has several other profitable ventures, these first two things are truly the rocks they rely one. If the Power Macintosh computer could compete directly with the X86 market by running a PowerPC version of the Windows operating system (which as I said earlier, is currently impossible to allow as Apple also has to support it's own operating system), they would easily rise to the challenge.

Um no, Apple's cashcow is their hardware. Apple makes almost no real profits from their OS. Their pro software is more profitable than their operating systems, but above all, its their hardware that pulls in all the money for Apple to spend on r&d and marketing and all that stuff. and um Apple and Microsoft have experimented with cross-platform operating systems. Take into account the earlier versions of PPC compatible Windows NT, and from Apple, Rhapsody and Darwin.

Even with higher prices (as has been said, a top end PC can be bought for around $2000), it would be a much easier sell to individuals and general corporate buyers (as opposed to only those Audio/Visual Corporate buyers) if the argument could be made that for the higher price ($3000 for a top end Mac running Windows versus $2000 for a top end PC running Windows) simply because the Macs use the most powerful processors in the Desktop market.

Dude, do you even know how much it costs to buy a high end PC that can fairly compete with something like the Power Mac G5? Don't try Pentium 4s or AMD Athlon 64s. But even using an Athlon 64, try costs in the area of more than $2 grand, ie http://alienware.com/ALX_pages/aurora_alx.aspx . And since when have Macs used thte most powerful processors in the desktop market? And really most people dont care about how powerful the computer is (except for `geeks` and gamers and people who work with computers as their primary job). Corporations will go for the platform that has a nice balance of both features and cost, consumers will go for whatever works with their needs.

At the same time Apple Computer is doing this, the alternative company (BTW, when I said Next, I didn't literally mean resurrecting NeXT, it was more or less a private joke on my part) charged with developing the Mac OS could simultaneously be working to gain ground on the X86 platform. The one thing no one seems to understand is that I'm talking two separate companies working two separate strategies. Apple Computer trying to build it's hardware business by actively encouraging the porting of the most widely used operating system to the most power computing platform while at the same time the alternative company in charge of the Mac OS is moving to unseat Windows as the main operating system on the X86 platform.

no point in porting OS X, sorry. You might as well just start from scratch and that will take a long time. And Microsoft might want to port Windows to PPC, but encouraging any use for it is not Apple's job. Apple doesnt manufacture these chips. And the day OS X is ported to x86 and becomes popular is the day I will ebay any Mac i have and buy some more PCs so I can use Linux. And really people already use whatever they need, they're not going to switch to another OS just like that. It would take too long and its just pointless and needlessly complicated.
For what it's worth, it will be easier and cheaper to just do something like Google does for power - get a cluster of computers PPC isnt entirely that great either.

This is basically a reverse interpretation of one of the oldest strategies known to man, divide and conquer. It is reversed of course because the conquer would be dividing to surround the enemy.

and its not going to work. give up, your strategy has been hacked into zillions of pieces and everyone's told you twice over that what you say isnt going to work.

 

[sgarringer]

well, heres my take on the whole situation.

instead of concentrating on porting OS X over to the i386 (a bloted platform anyway) why not port i386 over to OS X. What I mean is, projects like Darwine hold a grand amount of potential in running Windows native apps in OS X. I realize this is a long, long way away, but if apple can maintain both Intel and PPC builds of OS X, I would think that investing a small amount of developers into Darwine (or a similar project) could yeild promising results in a short amount of time.

This may be some of Microsofts reasoning behind purchasing VPC, not soon, but down the road they can market an application which supports running Windows apps right inside OS X without all the need to display the lower levels of windows (it would look similar to what xWindows looks like on OS X right now). I think that is one of the main reasons that Apple doesnt gain market share. I have persuaded many of my computer literate friends to switch, but the ones who havnt, havn't given the standard "Stupid" mac reasons (slow, outdated, etc) but they have given the arguement that "My existing software wont work, I'll need to purchase all new software." Well, that is a valid point, one that could be elimited once projects like Darwine are more mature (I do realize that Wine isnt even very stable at this point, let alone wine on non-intel processors, but if some serious development was put into it, it probably could be)

Also look at businesses. Again, the key is being able to run legacy applications until they decide to upgrade. Sure, the applications might run slightly slower than on an Intel Windows PC. But the Macs are immune from 90% of the viruses out there. The IT department I work in is getting pretty tired of the monthly virus outbreak.

Just think about what I am recommending. The usual arguements that if OS X can run Windows apps, there would be no need to write native OS X apps will probably be brought up. I understand this, but I think of it this way. Apple doesnt make money selling apps. They make money selling hardware. They shouldnt care why you want the hardware, or what apps your going to run on it. They should care about getting you to buy the hardware. If they can get you to buy PPC, and suddenly, PPC is hovering at 20% market share, I think that developers will do some serious reconsidering. Its just that hurdle, those 5 to 10 maybe even years before its reached the 50% mark, then we'd really see some amaizing shifts.

 

[nucFlash]

Thank you...

well, heres my take on the whole situation.

instead of concentrating on porting OS X over to the i386 (a bloted platform anyway) why not port i386 over to OS X. What I mean is, projects like Darwine hold a grand amount of potential in running Windows native apps in OS X. I realize this is a long, long way away, but if apple can maintain both Intel and PPC builds of OS X, I would think that investing a small amount of developers into Darwine (or a similar project) could yeild promising results in a short amount of time.

This may be some of Microsofts reasoning behind purchasing VPC, not soon, but down the road they can market an application which supports running Windows apps right inside OS X without all the need to display the lower levels of windows (it would look similar to what xWindows looks like on OS X right now). I think that is one of the main reasons that Apple doesnt gain market share. I have persuaded many of my computer literate friends to switch, but the ones who havnt, havn't given the standard "Stupid" mac reasons (slow, outdated, etc) but they have given the arguement that "My existing software wont work, I'll need to purchase all new software." Well, that is a valid point, one that could be elimited once projects like Darwine are more mature (I do realize that Wine isnt even very stable at this point, let alone wine on non-intel processors, but if some serious development was put into it, it probably could be)

Also look at businesses. Again, the key is being able to run legacy applications until they decide to upgrade. Sure, the applications might run slightly slower than on an Intel Windows PC. But the Macs are immune from 90% of the viruses out there. The IT department I work in is getting pretty tired of the monthly virus outbreak.

Just think about what I am recommending. The usual arguements that if OS X can run Windows apps, there would be no need to write native OS X apps will probably be brought up. I understand this, but I think of it this way. Apple doesnt make money selling apps. They make money selling hardware. They shouldnt care why you want the hardware, or what apps your going to run on it. They should care about getting you to buy the hardware. If they can get you to buy PPC, and suddenly, PPC is hovering at 20% market share, I think that developers will do some serious reconsidering. Its just that hurdle, those 5 to 10 maybe even years before its reached the 50% mark, then we'd really see some amaizing shifts.

sgarringer. It is very illuminating for someone to finally look at the situation with the same eye. This has been my point all along and every one else seems to simply gloss over my words. The point for spinning the Mac OS off into a company unto itself is to get the burden of a product that has a virtual (if not outright) zero percent profit margin off Apple's back and allow them to concentrate on the products that make them the most money, the Macintosh line of computers.

I certainly believe that Mac OS X is a capable product. I believe, as I have said before, that the Mac OS is a more than capable performer when it is not shackled to one platform. But as an investor, I am more concerned with the products that are proven performers, and not to put to fine a point on it, I really could care less if they run the Mac OS or not.

Although I hate to admit it, I really could care less if this new company could actually manage to make it work or not. Whether Macs run Mac OS X and a PPC version of Windows (and despite the fact they are both based on UNIX, I think there is room to follow Yellow Dog Linux's example and pre-install a PPC version of Linux as well, of course this would almost certainly be a built to order option) or only run a PPC version of Windows, Apple would stand to make far larger profits than they do now.

Our company recently purchased and installed a group of new PCs in our financial department. I was put in charge of fine tuning them after they arrived and were initially setup. My first thought was that they should have been Macs (and BTW, before someone accuses me of being a troll, my normal duties center around maintaining our Macs). And I'm not going to lie and say I specifically meant the Mac OS. I would have been perfectly satisfied with a superior built Power Macintosh running a PPC version of Windows. Most people here can disagree if they want (and that is certainly a freedom I encourage), but I'm afraid that when you ask people about Macs, you would find this opinion more than not.

Also, I keep hearing about this hugh pile of cash Apple has amassed (BTW, I do not dispute this). Call me stupid, and several of you have , but I was taught as a child that money does not spontaneously give birth to money. There are several exceptions to this rule (Financial CDs, Savings Accounts, etc), but none of them provide nearly the return of wise investment. I would rather Apple talk about their Billions of dollars in investments rather than their billions of dollars in cash.

 

[LethalWolfe]

sgarringer. It is very illuminating for someone to finally look at the situation with the same eye. This has been my point all along and every one else seems to simply gloss over my words. The point for spinning the Mac OS off into a company unto itself is to get the burden of a product that has a virtual (if not outright) zero percent profit margin off Apple's back and allow them to concentrate on the products that make them the most money, the Macintosh line of computers.

I certainly believe that Mac OS X is a capable product. I believe, as I have said before, that the Mac OS is a more than capable performer when it is not shackled to one platform. But as an investor, I am more concerned with the products that are proven performers, and not to put to fine a point on it, I really could care less if they run the Mac OS or not.

Although I hate to admit it, I really could care less if this new company could actually manage to make it work or not. Whether Macs run Mac OS X and a PPC version of Windows (and despite the fact they are both based on UNIX, I think there is room to follow Yellow Dog Linux's example and pre-install a PPC version of Linux as well, of course this would almost certainly be a built to order option) or only run a PPC version of Windows, Apple would stand to make far larger profits than they do now.

Our company recently purchased and installed a group of new PCs in our financial department. I was put in charge of fine tuning them after they arrived and were initially setup. My first thought was that they should have been Macs (and BTW, before someone accuses me of being a troll, my normal duties center around maintaining our Macs). And I'm not going to lie and say I specifically meant the Mac OS. I would have been perfectly satisfied with a superior built Power Macintosh running a PPC version of Windows. Most people here can disagree if they want (and that is certainly a freedom I encourage), but I'm afraid that when you ask people about Macs, you would find this opinion more than not.

Also, I keep hearing about this hugh pile of cash Apple has amassed (BTW, I do not dispute this). Call me stupid, and several of you have , but I was taught as a child that money does not spontaneously give birth to money. There are several exceptions to this rule (Financial CDs, Savings Accounts, etc), but none of them provide nearly the return of wise investment. I would rather Apple talk about their Billions of dollars in investments rather than their billions of dollars in cash.

No one is glossing over your words it's just that most people don't agree with you (this topic gets brought at least once a month).

Mac, as a platform, "works" because Apple controls the hardware & the OS (as well as a good portion of the software). The great software, at relatively low prices, is a lure, not a burden (it's link cheap printers & ink refills, iTMS & the iPod, or shaving razors and razor blades). If you want the software you have to buy the hardware. And the hardware is only avaible from Apple (when Apple let other companies make clones it almost killed them). The software is low profit because Apple want's it to be low profit. It's not low profit because Apple couldn't sell it at a higher price. The software makes the sale and the hardware makes the profit. There is no compelling<sp?> reason to sell one w/o the other. A "hardware only" Apple isn't any different than any other computer company and will throughly get it's ass kicked by Dell (just like everyone else).

It's the Apple hardware+the Apple software that makes the platform a viable alternative.

Apple isn't like any other computer company so the standard "rules" other companies live by don't apply. And, as others have pointed out, w/the Dell and Apple are the only computer companies that are turning profits.


Lethal

 

[rainman::|:|]

No one is glossing over your words it's just that most people don't agree with you (this topic gets brought at least once a month).

Mac, as a platform, "works" because Apple controls the hardware & the OS (as well as a good portion of the software). The great software, at relatively low prices, is a lure, not a burden (it's link cheap printers & ink refills, iTMS & the iPod, or shaving razors and razor blades). If you want the software you have to buy the hardware. And the hardware is only avaible from Apple (when Apple let other companies make clones it almost killed them). The software is low profit because Apple want's it to be low profit. It's not low profit because Apple couldn't sell it at a higher price. The software makes the sale and the hardware makes the profit. There is no compelling<sp?> reason to sell one w/o the other. A "hardware only" Apple isn't any different than any other computer company and will throughly get it's ass kicked by Dell (just like everyone else).

It's the Apple hardware+the Apple software that makes the platform a viable alternative.

Apple isn't like any other computer company so the standard "rules" other companies live by don't apply. And, as others have pointed out, w/the Dell and Apple are the only computer companies that are turning profits.


Lethal

Thank you Lethal, on par as always. Fact is, without the Mac OS, no one would ever buy a Mac. Why on earth would they? If they can get a machine that runs the same software at half the cost, why on earth would another Mac be sold, period.

The hardware only works with the software, and the software only works with the hardware. Clearly some people have a difficult time understanding that business model... and why it works.

paul

 

[nucFlash]

Ok, Ok,...

Ok, I'm not above admitting I might have been a little over eager. So let's scale back my initial design a little.

Let's cut the whole splitting up part and not talk about the Power Macintosh line at all for a moment. Lets talk about servers.

Unlike the rest of the computer lines, Apples servers (xServes) are one of the lowest priced entries in the marketplace. As far as servers go, UNIX is still the preferred operating system to Windows NT so Apple is in the majority with Mac OS X Server. The problem is that even though Mac OS X Server is UNIX, most companies are only looking at buzzwords like Linux. I say buzzwords because we all know that all UNIXs are pretty much the same. As long as they are POSIX compliant (AIX, Linux, xBSD, Mac OS X Server, etc) then they can be pretty readily mixed. But most administrators don't want to mix. They want to run the same version of UNIX so that they no only can run the same applications, but so the same operating rules apply.

Would it not then make sense for Apple to offer Linux a a built to order option for their line of servers? It is obvious Apple is already considering this eventuality by allowing Yellow Dog Linux to sale servers and Macs with YDL pre-installed along side the Mac OS (although I think this is little more than window dressing, sense someone who went to this much trouble to purchase a Mac or Mac server with Linux pre-installed would most likely never use and delete the Mac OS to save space).

BTW, no one has yet given me a quip about my opinion of Apple cash stockpile .

 

[LethalWolfe]

Ok, I'm not above admitting I might have been a little over eager. So let's scale back my initial design a little.

Let's cut the whole splitting up part and not talk about the Power Macintosh line at all for a moment. Lets talk about servers.

Unlike the rest of the computer lines, Apples servers (xServes) are one of the lowest priced entries in the marketplace. As far as servers go, UNIX is still the preferred operating system to Windows NT so Apple is in the majority with Mac OS X Server. The problem is that even though Mac OS X Server is UNIX, most companies are only looking at buzzwords like Linux. I say buzzwords because we all know that all UNIXs are pretty much the same. As long as they are POSIX compliant (AIX, Linux, xBSD, Mac OS X Server, etc) then they can be pretty readily mixed. But most administrators don't want to mix. They want to run the same version of UNIX so that they no only can run the same applications, but so the same operating rules apply.

Would it not then make sense for Apple to offer Linux a a built to order option for their line of servers? It is obvious Apple is already considering this eventuality by allowing Yellow Dog Linux to sale servers and Macs with YDL pre-installed along side the Mac OS (although I think this is little more than window dressing, sense someone who went to this much trouble to purchase a Mac or Mac server with Linux pre-installed would most likely never use and delete the Mac OS to save space).

Doing something in such a specific market is one thing. Doing it across the entire company is quite another. I can't really comment on it any more than that 'cause server's aren't my thing.

BTW, no one has yet given me a quip about my opinion of Apple cash stockpile .

No one brought up Apple's cash reserves in an effort to say, "Hey, Apple can sit on it's butt 'cause it's got money in the bank." Apple's cash reserves were mentioned to help illistrate<sp?> the sucess of Apple's business model. Not only are they one of the only two currently profiting computer companies but they also have X amount of money sitting in the bank. They're doing better than "scraping by", I believe, is the point people are trying to make.


Any irritation you sense in this thread isn't directed at you, per se, but at the topic you've brought up. Many people, for many years having been armchair quarterbacking Apple (and "predicting" it's downfall) and the one thing they all incorrectly assume is that Apple is like Dell, or Gateway, or HP/Compaq. Apple isn't like any of them. The model that works for them (or, I should say, works for Dell) doesn't fit Apple.


Lethal

 

[superbovine]

Would it not then make sense for Apple to offer Linux a a built to order option for their line of servers? It is obvious Apple is already considering this eventuality by allowing Yellow Dog Linux to sale servers and Macs with YDL pre-installed along side the Mac OS (although I think this is little more than window dressing, sense someone who went to this much trouble to purchase a Mac or Mac server with Linux pre-installed would most likely never use and delete the Mac OS to save space).

no, again apple wouldn't make competetion for itself. also, did you ever think if they offered yellow dog, they would also have to offer support would actually cost them more, because they would have to develop and infostructure to support yellow dog along with OS X. this includes software development to technical support. so think about it. consider the number of people who buy apple servers, then consider how many people would actually get yellow dog installed. now think about how much it would cost for software development (including testing), marketing, techinical support, supporting software developers for yellow dog, legal, etc etc etc. you get the idea. the cost won't be worth it.

 

[nucFlash]

I do not see why they would have to supply anything. If apple so chose to offer Linux as a Built-to-Order item they could simply contract with Yellow Dog Linux to do the actual grunt work associated with Linux itself. Basically Apple would tke on the roll of salesman to YDL's already existing service of preinstalling Linux on Macs (even if Apple itself only chose to give Linux as an option of their server line(s)).

I should think YDL would be more than earger to enter such an extended partnership sense a compnay is more likely to by an Apple Server from Apple itself with Linux preinstalled, even if they are actually subcontracting the Linux end to a third party, than they are purchasing an Apple server from YDL with Linux preinstalled. While it may seem to make no difference, a lot of compnaies do not see the reason to emabrace Apple into the Linux server market, even though their server have a better cost-to-performance ratio, simply because they do not feel Apple takes them seriously. If the computer maker doesn't take them seriously, why bother.

This is unlike X86 servers purchased with Linux preinstalled from compnaies like Dell and IBM which have shown an interest in the market for which they sell.

 

[superbovine]

I do not see why they would have to supply anything. If apple so chose to offer Linux as a Built-to-Order item they could simply contract with Yellow Dog Linux to do the actual grunt work associated with Linux itself. Basically Apple would tke on the roll of salesman to YDL's already existing service of preinstalling Linux on Macs (even if Apple itself only chose to give Linux as an option of their server line(s)).

I should think YDL would be more than earger to enter such an extended partnership sense a compnay is more likely to by an Apple Server from Apple itself with Linux preinstalled, even if they are actually subcontracting the Linux end to a third party, than they are purchasing an Apple server from YDL with Linux preinstalled. While it may seem to make no difference, a lot of compnaies do not see the reason to emabrace Apple into the Linux server market, even though their server have a better cost-to-performance ratio, simply because they do not feel Apple takes them seriously. If the computer maker doesn't take them seriously, why bother.

This is unlike X86 servers purchased with Linux preinstalled from compnaies like Dell and IBM which have shown an interest in the market for which they sell.

i don't think you understand. Apple is a brand associated with a specific image. they cannot let their reputation be in the hands of another company. they will control whatever software runs their servers that they sell. they might not mind that other people write OS for their handware, but that won't harm their brand because they are not responsible.

 

[nucFlash]

Servers are not bound by the same rules of desktop computers. The rules that govern server purchases are mainly price to performance ratio and good support in the even something goes wrong with the hardware.

If Apple were to forge a contract with YDL to install and support YDL under the Apple brand-name (which, as long as they received proper credit and financial incentive, I do not foresee why they would object to this), Apple would be able to maintain its brand-awareness, it would simply now extend to Yellow Dog Linux (running on Apple Xserves powered by the IBM PowerPC 970 processor).

 

[edesignuk]

Now, what does everyone else think?

I think it's