Andy Ihnatko's rumor might be true after all.. - Page 5

I doubt that they would port the pro apps, since this is a longtime mac audience, and I can't see something like final cut on windows, it would be sacrilege.

That being said, offering iLife and iWork to windows users in a huge "F- you" to microsoft office would be fun. I don't think it would be a great move by apple, and I don't see why they'd do it, but I would like to see Balmer's head explode.

If iLife/iWork (more iLife) was available for Windows, I think it would reverse the trend of people switching to the Mac platform (or at least slow it down). I would bet that for a large percentage of current Mac users, iLife remains one of the reasons why Mac users stay Mac users...

Wait, 4k display, 12 core Mac pros and Blu ray come after home cloning software?

Straws are there to be grasped, I guess.

Oh, I agree 100% with that. The fact that it comes on your computer when you buy it is a huge bonus, and a good "apple tax" response. Now if iWork was also preinstalled at no additional cost, that really might bring the switchers.

Says the guy who's pushing the rest of us into the lake. \

It would also persuade me to start using it, as opposed to MS for Mac which I already own.

If i buy a new computer that has iWork, and I like it, i'm likely to shell out the 80 dollar upgrade for the next iteration. I'm less likely to switch to iWork blindly.

So, personally, I think it makes sense to include iWork for free: but I suppose it all depends on how well it is selling now, market share, etc., stuff that i'm in no means qualified to even hazard a guess at.

You read it here first:

The main products to appear until mid-February 2009:

- An updated Mac Mini in reduced form factor;

- An iPhone Nano;

- a 25th Ann. Mac with a 30-inch display and FrogDesign-like lines.

Off to the asylum with you.

Next.

Ireland, dude, you can tell me I'll keep it on the dl!

You should post it online somewhere, and we all *promise* not to look until after the announcement. That way we'll know if you really knew anything.

He just sent all the details in a private message to my AI account. As you suggested, I have promised not to read it until after the event. Can't wait to see if he was correct.

Windows API's built into snow leopard?

This is it!!

It matches all the clues. Weather, software related but not exactly, not a buyout or merger...

Apple has a history of adopting open-source stuff and taking the lead, so it would be very likely that they take up the WINE-ish project if they made this move, possibly building on CrossOver, Cider, or one of the other such projects. Question is, how much of an advantage does Apple have over those groups, which haven't gotten very far towards a general purpose, works-with-anything-you-throw-at-it set of Windows APIs.

I don't see Windows ever licensing Apple to do this, so if they were to do something like that, Apple would still have to reverse-engineer the API's. Even with the advantage of legions of professional, paid programmers, I question how much more successful they'd be than the purely open-source efforts.

Assuming this is the big news (alright, alright, I know I'm getting away from myself here), it would definitely be as big, or bigger, of a game changer as the Intel transtion.

And worthy of Andy Ihnatko's (and Ireland's) reactions.

That would be BIG.

(And bad for Parallels and VMWare Fusion, at least as far as there desktop divisions are concerned.)

As someone who uses AutoCAD via Parallels on a daily basis, I would definitely welcome this, although I would rather see Autodesk stop being stubborn and put out a mac version. The last one was 12 (early 90s), and getting them to put out a new Mac version of their software is like getting Apple to update their desktops (and, I might add, both have lead people to look elsewhere).

Death of OS X - no-one has any reason to write Mac-specific software any more.

Nonsense. People don't buy OS X for the 3rd-party software that's available. It may decrease OS X 3rd party development, but as long as people are still buying the operating system, that's neither here nor there, except that it puts a huge onus on Apple to keep the API's working.

Also, even though it may be "seamless" and so on, there presumably would still be advantages to writing native software, for example, performance.

If Apple were really after market share gains, it would be a good way to do it. Later on when they have 30-40% market share (**pie-in-the-sky**) they could slow the release of Windows API's to encourage developers to develop specifically for mac.

I can't believe you guys are still going along with this.

There will be no compatibility layer because the WINE team who reverse engineer Microsoft's APIs have been doing this sort of thing for a while now and the compatibility is very poor. Oh but Apple have a magical license to recreate the Windows OS from the original source and it still won't bloat up the OS they are trying to reduce the footprint on?

It opens up security risks and it adds a support headache when users try to install software that just doesn't work. Lots of games require drivers now for content protection and they won't work.

Every time Apple don't do something for a while, the same old laundry lists of really great things Apple could do get dusted off only to be put back when Apple actually do something and it's completely underwhelming.

The rules to satisfaction are simple: believe no-one, hope for nothing. It's not as if they pay attention to what users are asking for.

The software we know is coming includes Snow Leopard and that alone is worth waiting for. The hardware we can be pretty sure is coming include Gainestown Mac Pros and at worst updated iMacs and Minis with the latest Core 2 Duos and Nvidia chipsets. I don't see that there needs to be a fictional holy grail when those things sound pretty good to me. They just need to get a move on and release them.

come on Ireland give us a clue...

if not all windoze APIs in OSX what about something to do with... youtube? no - gaming definitely gaming.

100% agree with you...

Putting the Windows API in Mac OS X is stupid Putting Cocoa and XCODE onto Windows might be possible. It a lot of work. But possible....

This would hurt OS X and Mac marketshare. No more exclusivity of Apple apps would be a bad thing.

Perhaps there is a clue in the fact that Apple has trademarked OS X - without the "Mac" part.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...ithout-the-mac

C.

So we could buy OSX and install it on a PC? Like what some geeks are already doing.
Sure it would hurt mac sales but wouldn't huge OS sales offset that?

What about an App Store for standard Mac applications and games? I believe it has been mentioned before but not in this thread. However, I don't know really if that would qualify as something that "obvious" and "jaw-dropping" as this rumor tells about...

Personally, I think it would a be a good thing. Especially if Apple only licensed OS X to companies who deliver an airtight driver solution.

Apple has a unique opportunity to do an OS land grab - and pull the rug out from under Microsoft.

C.

But there are plenty of people who think that Apple's hardware sales would take a titanic nosedive if they could get OS X on a cheaper Dell or a Sony.

I can't believe people are still discussing this as a possibility - OSX on generic Windows hardware.
This is not going to happen. Not unless Apple is short of going bust.

Steve Jobs was there once and has done exactly that with NeXT. NeXT was a hardware/software company not unlike Apple and when NeXT hardware didn't sell too well (they were just too expensive compared to generic PC hardware), Jobs had the OS port to generic Intel Hardware and tried to sell NeXTStep as an alternative to Windows and OS/2.

It didn't work. In fact it made matters worse.
Two reasons:

1.) Many 'home users' don't actually pay for OS licenses.
People just use the OS that comes pre-installed, and never bother to upgrade.
Alternatively they know a friend of a friend who has a copy (or download it off the Internet).
So not much money to be made here...

2.) Business users are notoriously sluggish in regards to change. It takes ages for them to even consider, let alone test and install, any new OS. It will be years, if not a decade, until any OSX would have a chance there.
So not much money to be made here either...


On the flip side, many current Mac buyers will simply opt for other hardware - as choice is good. They will buy DELL, Sony, HP, Acer or OQO hardware and install OSX on it.
With the dire result that Apple suddenly only sells a single copy of OSX to these users - instead of a whole piece of hardware.
So a lot of money to be lost here...


Those were the reasons NeXT nearly went under and had to be sold to Apple back in the late 1980ies.

And I hope Steve Jobs learnt his lesson and will never even consider turning OSX into an operating system for the 'generic PC' market.
The moment this happens, OSX will have sealed its fate and 5-10 years later it will be no more.

Apple should (and will) only do this if they
a) have no other choice, as a last ditch effort to save Apple from going bankrupt or
b) no longer care about Mac OSX and just want to eek out a few more software sales.


The reason why Apple applied for an 'OSX' trademark is very likely the introduction of a new set of devices, tablets perhaps, Internet terminals or netbooks running the iPod/iPhone variant of OSX, which is technically not a 'Mac OSX' but simply 'OSX'.

Apple's business model is built around making money on the hardware. That's why a) they have very lax piracy protection, and b) they sell the OS for so cheap.

In order for the OS X on PC's to work, they would have to a) raise the price, and more importantly b) have a large business base (business don't pirate like consumers do.)

With Windows, for example, the percentage of consumers that go out and buy new versions of the OS is extremely low. New Windows gets legally distributed by company IT depts rolling out upgrades, and on new computers sold to consumers.

(Besides which Steve Jobs isn't dead yet- the chances he'd bring back the clone business, giving the history is pretty low.)

App store for iPhone only works because it is the only easily available, supported method for getting apps on the iPhone. If there was another way that was just as easy for everyone, and that Apple allowed, the App store would no longer be any good.

Therefore that would never work on OS X in its current condition.

haha, beat me to it, Hobbit. The only thing I'd add to your history lesson is that Apple was also licensing the OS to clones when Steve Jobs rejoined the company- one of the first things he did to get it back on track was to kill that policy.

The reason that business model works for Microsoft is because of their near-monopoly in the business segment, their close relationships with manufacturers (kind of like the relationship loan sharks have with their clients), and their huge market share advantage. If any one of those things slips significantly, Microsoft would have serious problems paying for themselves as well. (And I guess Microsoft also has a LOT of niche and not so niche software products besides the OS that can more than pay for themselves, again with an emphasis on their control of business market)

He he meelash! Might have beat you to it, but I think you expressed it better.

The problem with 'OSX on generic Intel hardware' is that this strategy has a lot of risks, with the majority of possible outcomes being Apple going bankrupt.
And history has a tendency to repeat itself, so better learn from it and don't do the same mistakes twice.

Even if Apple would limit OSX only to a handful of 'blessed' hardware manufacturers, we end up with the same situation that we had in the days of the Mac clones.
And as meelash pointed out - that didn't work either.
Apple just lost too many hardware sales, which is still 50% of its business.


I can see this happen though, many years from now, in a time when desktop PCs and notebooks are used by businesses only while the vast majority of home users have just mobile devices which dock into a bigger screen + keyboard at home.
At that point, when Apple like all other PC manufacturers focuses their traditional (Mac) hardware on the business market, Mac OSX could be sold as a separate software product, if Apple chooses to slowly exit the business hardware production.


Hopefully this is the end of that idea in this thread!
Unless Ireland tells me I'm dead wrong...

I'm not too sure I agree with this.

The only problem I see with a Mac app store is that it wouldn't have the breadth of the iPhone app store because iPhone are cross platform.

If I was a developer I don't think I'd mind having a centralized marketplace for my app that handles the bandwidth and financial transactions.

Though a Mac app store would have to offer demos, license conflict resolution and other things. That makes it a bit trickier.

The app store also takes 30% per copy, right? That's a good deal for some and not a good deal for others. Companies that don't like that deal will not be in the App store forcing people to go elsewhere for some of their software, which would then ruin the whole point of the App store, which is the EVERYTHING is available in one place.

Not so sure. My guess is that a $150 OEM Pack of OS X, iLife and iWork would generate more profit than a Mac Mini.

C.

Fully agree!
Yet also a vast number of potential MacBook buyers will buy cheaper Acer hardware and install OSX there.
And quite a few potential MacBook Pro customers will opt for a HP, Sony or DELL instead.

And all these will hurt Apple a lot as Apple makes a lot more than $150 on any of their notebooks.

How many licenses of OSX will they have to sell to make up for one lost MacBook Pro sale? 3, 4, 5? (Assuming Apple's profit margin is 27-28% on a $2500 laptop.)
Apple currently has a market share of ca. 10%. To sell 3, 4 or 5 times the OSX licenses as today, their market share would probably have to be 30%.
And at that point they only break even with sales lost on hardware...

This model only works if Apple can gain 50 to 60% market share, which is just not likely.

While I don't agree that Apple should license OS X, the argument Apple makes its profit on hardware may not be a good one.

Look at the gross margins of software companies and I think you will find that in most cases the software companies have a greater gross margin.

I am surprised how long it takes to see the obvious!?

I mentioned this several times, but I will try once more:

The main reason Apple does not sell the OS separately is because they view the hardware and the OS as a complete package:

• blue plastic macs - introducing Agua
• ...
• introducing FrontRow - all macs with remote
• introducing iChat video - all macs with iSight
• introducing gestures - all mobile macs with big multi-touch trackpad
• aluminum enclosures - change the OS to fit (not there yet, but moving)
• introducing OpenCL - all macs with capable video chips
• ...

The list is endless! Could you imagine how this could work if they sell OS only? Something like this:

• ...
• introducing OpenCL - who the fuck cares, selling the cheapest integrated video
• ...

Why you don't get it!!!? Haven't you noticed that the networked macs show with their actual icons? Haven't you noticed that some of the icons in the system preferences show the actual Apple hardware?