Wow, this makes very little sense to me...please explain. Apple needs market share like pagans need Jesus and the only way to get it is to get OS X into the hands of the masses. Do you know how many geeks want OSX but don't want the current Apple hardware?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very few, actually, at least relative to the mass population of computer users, most of whom don't really understand what an OS even is. Before it went away the "OS X on Intel" petition garnered about 20,000 signatures, which, even if every single one of those people adopted the OS, is still not enough to recoup the considerable engineering costs as well as the revenue lost to x86 box makers.
Here are the standard arguments against the x86 port (there should be an FAQ of this somewhere):
- Apple makes its money on hardware sales, not software sales. Even if releasing an x86 compatible OS gave them substantially increased market share (and I don't think it would), it would not be enough to enable them to continue to innovate at their current pace.
- Historically it has been extremely difficult to make a living selling operating systems. Microsoft suceeded through a combination of business saavy and "right time, right place" good luck. People who say selling OSes "seems to work for Microsoft" (har har) don't realize that MS' success is an aberration that only came about because of an extremely rare set of conditions.
- In order to grow market share, Apple needs to offer something unique, something the Windows world can't match. Their strongest selling point is the reliability of an integrated platform: the software is written to work with the hardware, and that's why Macs are so simple to set up and so reliable to use. That advantage would evaporate under x86. Even if Apple could support all possible PC hardware configurations, there's no way the experience of using the machine would be as good--it would no longer be a Mac, just a slightly different-looking Windows.
If MOTO went bust then so would apple. As for apple would tie with IBM, AMD etc., If they could they would have done so already. Seriously, if you were in charge of apple would you really rely on a company that couldn't deliver or even keep up with the competition. MOTo has been stuck for a number of years now and there has been no indication that apple has looked elsewhere or that any kind of animosity has grown between MOTO and Jobs.
I think apple are tied into MOTO too tightly for comfort.
If Moto went bust, then there would definetely be an escape hatch out of any binding contracts. Apple is a PPC partner and would have the right to buy out all G4/Altivec patents. They in turn could turn to IBM and give them an Altivec license with the agreement to produce desktop workstation class processors with Altivec that both IBM and Apple could use.
Apple needs market share like pagans need Jesus and the only way to get it is to get OS X into the hands of the masses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what use is market share if ~80% of it would be a near-zero-profit-affair?
Realistically, how many geeks do you expect to go and shell out $130 for OS X?
And how many of them will just tell you that, in their opinion, software should be free anyway, and thus a CD-R will do?
And even *if* a significant amount of customers would buy it, people keep telling that Apple make most of their profits from hardware sales, which would basically all but come to a complete halt once people would realize they could get the Mac's usability out of cheap x86 hardware.
Sure, a lt of people would die to have Apple release OS X for x86, but I think from a business point of view, it would be suicidal.
There was a rumor about a year ago (or maybe shortly before the last MWNY) that Apple had cut a deal with Motorola for 1st dibs on part of its chip biz. Can't remeber where I read it-probably on MOSR or ATAT.
Thanks programmer for pointing out that even if Apple ported Mac OS X, all the Applications would have to be rewritten.
iMac user: Will this work on my G4 iMac?
Salesperson: No, you need a G-64 based Mac.
iMac user: What's that? But it says 'Mac' on the cover!?
Also, Apple has 4.4 billion cash-on-demand, and 8 billion dollars liquid. Apple could theoretically buy the ENTIRE Moto SPS if it wanted. Also, if moto goes under all Apple has to do is pay IBM to fab G4s/G5s as a temporary measure before a more permanent arrangement would be worked out. Apple is a BIG company, they have ways out worked out for that kind of thing.
Barto
PS It's been revealed that Intel will be developing a 64-bit extension to IA-32 *cough*Wake up and smell the Hammer*cough* For future P7 chips! LOL!
<strong>PS It's been revealed that Intel will be developing a 64-bit extension to IA-32 *cough*Wake up and smell the Hammer*cough* For future P7 chips! LOL!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I had to laugh when I saw that. IA-64 must be in real trouble for that to happen. Anyone want to take bets on whether its going to be compatible with the AMD extension?
Yeah, I had to laugh when I saw that. IA-64 must be in real trouble for that to happen. Anyone want to take bets on whether its going to be compatible with the AMD extension?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rumor has it that Yamhill is indeed compatible with x86-64, infact it's said that they simply took the specifications right off of AMD's <a href="http://www.x86-64.org"; target="_blank">www.x86-64.org</a> website and designed their version from that. AMD doesn't seem interested in liscensing x86-64, they would rather it be an open standard. With Intel support this will force Microsoft to support x86-64 in Windows making it a standard and providing a big boost for AMD.
<strong>my point - and the Bloomberg article's - is that the steps they're taking are not merely the steps a company would take during a recession. They've indentified serious problems with the way they've done things, and they're fixing them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's good to hear. It's the first in a long time time I've heard of any reports other than negative ones about their existing management practices. If Bloomberg hit the mark then perhaps there is some hope for Mac the Black Sack, crusader for AIM and all that is just.
By the way Mr. Sack (sorry, couldn't resist), sorry if I came off as condescending. I was just using an informal tone for whatever reason - nothing personal. The wake up thing was mostly because you didn't seem to elaborate much on your "MOT ain't gonna die" comment (paraphrasing). It seemed you were on the "Motorola is too big to go down" platform but I guess I was mistaken on that count.
That said I still think shareholders will have a lot to do with Motorola's future success, being a highly visible and publicly held company. Just having big reserves in the bank doesn't mean they are safe from their own poor management practices. That 6B could dry up in a hurry with a few more poor quarters across their various industry lines. They're in an expensive line of work
(R&D, remaining fab plants, purchase of raw materials, hazardous waste disposal, etc). Takes a lot to keep those things going if you're not turning a profit....
Apple is stuck with PPC. For a LONG time to come. They cannot abandon their developers like that. They should be making it easier if anything for them by updating compilers and providing much OS X info.
Could Big Blue suprise us all and bid for Apple? Seems to me that if you look at IBM's history they invented the PC and always made their money from hardware sales. IBM lost the PC market because of ...Microsoft... IBM-Apple could make a lot of sense to IBM. Corporate America would take a fresh look at Apple Products and give MS something to really think about.
It would also resolve the processor issue, because IBM's intrests would also be Apples (IBM's)
Just a thought. I am sure some people here would be horrified at the thought but it must be a possibility.
Ford did buy Jaguar...and Mercedes bought Chrysler...Autonomy is such a high priority for Apple's ego and image though...it might be like U2 performing at the Superbowl or something like that
<strong>Could Big Blue suprise us all and bid for Apple? Seems to me that if you look at IBM's history they invented the PC and always made their money from hardware sales. IBM lost the PC market because of ...Microsoft... IBM-Apple could make a lot of sense to IBM. Corporate America would take a fresh look at Apple Products and give MS something to really think about.
It would also resolve the processor issue, because IBM's intrests would also be Apples (IBM's)
Just a thought. I am sure some people here would be horrified at the thought but it must be a possibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Problem: Steve wants to be the head honchO... his word must rule not goona happen @ IBM...
I thought that Chrysler and Daimler merged. There was squabling by execs and investors from both companies when it appeared afterwards that more Daimler execs remained in charge of key areas, but technically they merged.
Comments
<strong>
The processor architecture doesn't count as "hardware" in this case. The
OS together with the drivers provides a layer between the applications and
the non-processor hardware, but the applications are coded specifically
for the processor. The code is compiled into PowerPC assembler, or hand
coded in PowerPC assember, and if they were to switch to another processor
ALL software would need to be recompiled at the very least. This
works for 95% of the code, but the other 5% takes a lot more effort.
Switching processors would not be as easy as you think, and would be
hugely disruptive. This time around I think it would kill
Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thankyou all the same, but I am acutely aware of the above
switching ISAs, precisely where did I assert that switching ISAs would be
easy?
<strong>
Wow, this makes very little sense to me...please explain. Apple needs market share like pagans need Jesus and the only way to get it is to get OS X into the hands of the masses. Do you know how many geeks want OSX but don't want the current Apple hardware?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very few, actually, at least relative to the mass population of computer users, most of whom don't really understand what an OS even is. Before it went away the "OS X on Intel" petition garnered about 20,000 signatures, which, even if every single one of those people adopted the OS, is still not enough to recoup the considerable engineering costs as well as the revenue lost to x86 box makers.
Here are the standard arguments against the x86 port (there should be an FAQ of this somewhere):
- Apple makes its money on hardware sales, not software sales. Even if releasing an x86 compatible OS gave them substantially increased market share (and I don't think it would), it would not be enough to enable them to continue to innovate at their current pace.
- Historically it has been extremely difficult to make a living selling operating systems. Microsoft suceeded through a combination of business saavy and "right time, right place" good luck. People who say selling OSes "seems to work for Microsoft" (har har) don't realize that MS' success is an aberration that only came about because of an extremely rare set of conditions.
- In order to grow market share, Apple needs to offer something unique, something the Windows world can't match. Their strongest selling point is the reliability of an integrated platform: the software is written to work with the hardware, and that's why Macs are so simple to set up and so reliable to use. That advantage would evaporate under x86. Even if Apple could support all possible PC hardware configurations, there's no way the experience of using the machine would be as good--it would no longer be a Mac, just a slightly different-looking Windows.
I think apple are tied into MOTO too tightly for comfort.
<strong>
Apple needs market share like pagans need Jesus and the only way to get it is to get OS X into the hands of the masses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what use is market share if ~80% of it would be a near-zero-profit-affair?
Realistically, how many geeks do you expect to go and shell out $130 for OS X?
And how many of them will just tell you that, in their opinion, software should be free anyway, and thus a CD-R will do?
And even *if* a significant amount of customers would buy it, people keep telling that Apple make most of their profits from hardware sales, which would basically all but come to a complete halt once people would realize they could get the Mac's usability out of cheap x86 hardware.
Sure, a lt of people would die to have Apple release OS X for x86, but I think from a business point of view, it would be suicidal.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Thankyou all the same, but I am acutely aware of the above
switching ISAs, precisely where did I assert that switching ISAs would be
easy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here:
[quote]
So porting OS X wouldn't be a huge deal
<hr></blockquote>
iMac user: Will this work on my G4 iMac?
Salesperson: No, you need a G-64 based Mac.
iMac user: What's that? But it says 'Mac' on the cover!?
Also, Apple has 4.4 billion cash-on-demand, and 8 billion dollars liquid. Apple could theoretically buy the ENTIRE Moto SPS if it wanted. Also, if moto goes under all Apple has to do is pay IBM to fab G4s/G5s as a temporary measure before a more permanent arrangement would be worked out. Apple is a BIG company, they have ways out worked out for that kind of thing.
Barto
PS It's been revealed that Intel will be developing a 64-bit extension to IA-32 *cough*Wake up and smell the Hammer*cough* For future P7 chips! LOL!
<strong>PS It's been revealed that Intel will be developing a 64-bit extension to IA-32 *cough*Wake up and smell the Hammer*cough* For future P7 chips! LOL!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I had to laugh when I saw that. IA-64 must be in real trouble for that to happen. Anyone want to take bets on whether its going to be compatible with the AMD extension?
[QB][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Programmer: I was referring to the feasability of porting OS X, not the
feasability of switching an entire platform of users from one architecture
to another (as if it wasn't obvious, duh).
<strong>
Yeah, I had to laugh when I saw that. IA-64 must be in real trouble for that to happen. Anyone want to take bets on whether its going to be compatible with the AMD extension?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rumor has it that Yamhill is indeed compatible with x86-64, infact it's said that they simply took the specifications right off of AMD's <a href="http://www.x86-64.org"; target="_blank">www.x86-64.org</a> website and designed their version from that. AMD doesn't seem interested in liscensing x86-64, they would rather it be an open standard. With Intel support this will force Microsoft to support x86-64 in Windows making it a standard and providing a big boost for AMD.
<strong>my point - and the Bloomberg article's - is that the steps they're taking are not merely the steps a company would take during a recession. They've indentified serious problems with the way they've done things, and they're fixing them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's good to hear. It's the first in a long time time I've heard of any reports other than negative ones about their existing management practices. If Bloomberg hit the mark then perhaps there is some hope for Mac the Black Sack, crusader for AIM and all that is just.
By the way Mr. Sack (sorry, couldn't resist), sorry if I came off as condescending. I was just using an informal tone for whatever reason - nothing personal. The wake up thing was mostly because you didn't seem to elaborate much on your "MOT ain't gonna die" comment (paraphrasing). It seemed you were on the "Motorola is too big to go down" platform but I guess I was mistaken on that count.
That said I still think shareholders will have a lot to do with Motorola's future success, being a highly visible and publicly held company. Just having big reserves in the bank doesn't mean they are safe from their own poor management practices. That 6B could dry up in a hurry with a few more poor quarters across their various industry lines. They're in an expensive line of work
(R&D, remaining fab plants, purchase of raw materials, hazardous waste disposal, etc). Takes a lot to keep those things going if you're not turning a profit....
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>Programmer: I was referring to the feasability of porting OS X, not the
feasability of switching an entire platform of users from one architecture
to another (as if it wasn't obvious, duh).</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wasn't obvious because the two are inseperable. What's the point in having an OS with no developer and user base? Duh.
<strong>
It wasn't obvious because the two are inseperable. What's the point in having an OS with no developer and user base? Duh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is true, but once again, I was referring only to the ease with which Apple could port OS X to an alternative architecture.
It is true that tugging a whole developer and user community to a new arch would be difficult, but I didn't concern myself with that in my reply.
It would also resolve the processor issue, because IBM's intrests would also be Apples (IBM's)
Just a thought. I am sure some people here would be horrified at the thought but it must be a possibility.
<strong>Could Big Blue suprise us all and bid for Apple? Seems to me that if you look at IBM's history they invented the PC and always made their money from hardware sales. IBM lost the PC market because of ...Microsoft... IBM-Apple could make a lot of sense to IBM. Corporate America would take a fresh look at Apple Products and give MS something to really think about.
It would also resolve the processor issue, because IBM's intrests would also be Apples (IBM's)
Just a thought. I am sure some people here would be horrified at the thought but it must be a possibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Problem: Steve wants to be the head honchO... his word must rule not goona happen @ IBM...
[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: psantora ]</p>