[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>If you decide to start another one, it would go in General Discussion, because the choice impacts not only hardware, but software, corporate politics and strategy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Feel free to move this post where you feel it fits.
wow, a lot to answer... :eek:
<strong>And keep in mind that Apple makes most of their profit on hardware. How are they going to justify selling an Apple X86 box for 20-40% more than a comparably configured Windows XP box? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, Apple's profit design
right now is based on perceived value
rather than actual value
. It is dependant upon people who do not yet realize PCs have become a commodoty market. It leeches off of what I call the Loyal Apple User Base (LAUB), locking us into a proprietary system that only Apple can control. Like you say, this means we pay extra for hardware that is outperformed by the competition--just because it looks pretty.
As far as selling an x86 box for 20% more... are you saying that we're paying more for the G4 processor itself? We're really paying for Apple's perceived value/goodwill. There is a great misconception that an x86 in the Apple PC would lower value, when it could actually raise it. How? That magic word Apple loves: perceived value
As far as Apple restructuring its profit design--Apple already knows PCs are a commodity market, that's why they are setting up Apple stores. They just don't want anyone else to know the PC market is a commodity market. Steve Jobs is the man behind the curtain--and I think he's getting too comfortable back there.
For example, I don't know how much longer Apple can try and convince the public the G4 is a better choice over x86 in the consumer market, no matter how many "Genius Bars" they set up. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]From Algol <strong>
For right now, though, apple can not afford another huge change. OS X was a big enough change that for apple to make another one so soon would cause wide spread panic among the developers. Etc., etc., etc. I'm afraid that there will not Be x86 for apple in the near future and for that matter I suspect never. X86 is old and befuddled and not something apple will base their future on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is another misconception I always see from the "developers" point of view--that somehow another transition from Apple would cause a worldwide panic and engineers everywhere would rise up in disgust and burn the house down.
From a business point of view, what has to be done, has to be done...
"You can handle people more successfully by enlisting their feelings than by convincing their reason." -- Paul P. Parker
Even if the migration to x86 seems unlogical from a developers' perspective, it can still be done.
Everybody has a price.
If Apple moves to x86, they will die. They will not be able to compete on price with Dell and maintain a competitive operating system on their own. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just not true at all. In order to convince me otherwise, you'll have to go into greater detail of why
you believe Apple will not be able to compete with Dell on price or maintain a "competitive" OS. This argument always implies that Apple has seen its own shadow
and should hibernate for the next fifteen years.
If Microsoft didn't have an office app monopoly, they may have chance. But the reality is that MS leverages its office monopoly and operating system monopoly far too well. Maybe if OpenOffice makes a dent, Apple can transition, but its death right now. They will not be able to compete on price for something that is not different from other box makers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here I'm not clear on what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that MS Office provides the only differenciation between Dell and Apple? What about the "digital hub" Steve talks about all the time? What does this stuff have to do with the CPU inside the box?
Yet, AMD, a smaller company then Apple, will be able to compete with Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, in fact, AMD has been competing with Intel for quite some time now.
As long as AMD produces CPUs, it will always
compete with Intel within an oligopoly.
AMD hasn't been competing with Intel in the last 3 months, and that lag will only continue to grow in the future. AMD may be dead in year, let alone compete with Intel. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What else do you pull out of that hat of yours? Rabbits? I'm not sure where you got this information from, but it is erroneous
. As I've stated above, AMD, Intel, and any other company that produces CPUs are part of an oligopoly
. As long as they all make CPUs, they are always in competition. I haven't seen any facts that AMD is pulling out of the CPU manufacturing business any time soon.
[quote] from snoopy <strong>
It sounds like you think the x86 has some special marketing appeal to it, and consumers will reject the IBM 970 because it isn't an x86 type processor. Can you tell us why you think Joe or Jane consumer will change his or her mind about the Macintosh just because it is running an x86?
Firstly, why does one assume that when the 970 comes to market, Intel won't have something to compete with it?
Secondly, right now, the x86 kicks the G4s ass. Do you think another "Burn baby burn" revival is in order here? How long will it be this time around before Intel takes the spotlight over IBM?
Really what they care about is whether it will run their software, and an x86 Mac will not do that either. People will usually switch to the Mac when it gives them something they cannot get from their present Windows PC. There is nothing magic about the brand name of the processor inside, as long as the computer does what they want.
If this is the case, why don't we just slap an AMD Athlon in the iMac and call it a day?
Consumers care about a lot of things when it comes to computers--not everyone is the same. Something you don't mention is how quickly
people want to use their software, which is always an issue in a commodity market.
So, it is really a matter of performance, and we should pick the technology that will likely win the race, not just be ahead for the first few laps.
Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. Now you're asking me to have faith and walk down the same alley where we all got our asses kicked.
IBM is in no position, and never will be, to infiltrate the market created by Microsoft and Intel. Becuase AMD manufactures a CPU that can replace Intel's, it is in a better position to compete with Apple as a partner. It will position Apple's OS right next to
Windows, rather than having it in a completely different mindspace. Of course, this appears to be Steve Jobs' strategy, but things must change if Apple is to truly survive the next fifteen years.
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>