<strong>Outsider, If I remember correctly, the Power4-lite / GPUL or whatever is being designed for the desktop. Therefore, it begs the question of "what defines a desktop"? I just don't believe that IBM defines "desktop" as "workstation"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Desktop=workstation=personal computer=a multtitude of other things. Apple calls their PowerMacs workstations. But they are also desktop machines. "desktop" is so ambiguous, you can't define it any less broadly than that.
[[[Yellow Dog Linux has been busily integrating AltiVec acceleration into their distro. I haven't checked, but I assume that their work is going right back into the main code tree, Linux being what it is. If not, IBM has sunk eye-popping amounts of money getting Linux going on hardware that it wouldn't have dreamed of running on a couple of years ago; I can't imagine why they wouldn't cheerfully put a team of engineers to the task of optimizing it for a GPUL if it was part of a larger push, and if the YDL code was unavailable or for some reason undesirable. ]]]
You are missing my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, you're quoting me there, and I was just answering the question of where AV acceleration for Linux was.
On a more general note: Lay off the personal attacks, people. This thread has maintained a fairly high level of content for 19 pages, and I'd hate to see it fall apart now.
All this talk about dual boot systems makes me wonder about the intelligence of the mac community.
The biggest reason people stay away from macs is because of the hardware. Adding a pc proccessor will only get you a more expensive machine. When you have a mac, why in the world would you want a pc unless it was required in your business or something? A PC user isnt going to think- wow look at this under powered/non-upgradable computer that can run mac and windows. let me buy one. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not going to happen. The only way the mac will gain market share is by selling cheaper and smarter. Adding another CPU to your machines doesnt make them cheaper. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>All this talk about dual boot systems makes me wonder about the intelligence of the mac community.
The biggest reason people stay away from macs is because of the hardware. Adding a pc proccessor will only get you a more expensive machine. When you have a mac, why in the world would you want a pc unless it was required in your business or something? A PC user isnt going to think- wow look at this under powered/non-upgradable computer that can run mac and windows. let me buy one. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not going to happen. The only way the mac will gain market share is by selling cheaper and smarter. Adding another CPU to your machines doesnt make them cheaper. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the original idea was to migrate the whole Mac architecture to a platform that uses x86 RATHER than PowerPC.
Actually, the long term trend suggests that Apple will eventually go away, they're just taking their time about it. haha I've said before that Apple won't die, but if current trends continue they will be a very different company in a decade's time.
You're all arguing about the behavior of the pie and conflating that with Apple's performance relative to the pie -- their own piece. So you can find an indicator there, yes, people buy less during an recession, the pie shrinks. But despite Apple's spin, they lost market-share, and returned so-so/middling-decent profits (for today's economy at least) over the last 3 years -- World-wide, they're down; in education, they're down; and, for the first time in creative markets they have serious competition (3-d pros, audio, a/v.)
The condition of the market is NOT an excuse for performance relative to others who are all effected by the same conditions.
But wait, you should say, Apple has done quite well relative to the others, if not on market share at least at actually turning their share into net PROFIT! Yes, you're right, they deserve some credit. But to attribute loses to the price-war is somewhat (actually largely) misleading -- a little superficial.
Forget the small outfits that started after Apple and faded in the menatime. Start-up is huge, over-coming that is not easy. Look at established players. Who made money, who lost money, and where, and when (during the dot com bust and the communications melt-down?)
Companies like Compaq, HP, Xerox, and IBM had huge investments in all sorts of nonesense that tanked when people started realizing that only porn was actually making any money, and only porn looked like it had a reasonable model to keep doing that. The roots of telco and energy treachery go even deeper and lots of money was tied up there too. And companies started realizing this and panicking long before investors got a sniff of wind. Do you blame idiocy in exectutive control? Or worse, corruption? Nope. Price wars are a standard excuse, you start early and run with that.
I'm not sure if Apple were smart or lucky, but I do know things were pretty bleak. While other companies showed enough bank account to use a carpet bomb approach to buying potential technologies -- treating venture capital like some cross between a hoard and a slot machine -- Apple had to (and was) a lot more careful. Maybe they didn't make horrible investments and expansions/ventures because they were in no position to even think about it? But all those other companies blaming price wars (now) didn't (and don't) lose their money undercutting the other guy, they lost it a while ago, and they're 'fixing' things. Even when Dell was a nobody, he was undercutting the other guy and not losing any money doing it. The price war excuse ignores the obvious reality of how cheap components have actually become. Profits are huge, but they're tempered so that they don't show up at the retail check-out, or the stock report. Look at the P/E ratio of any company and appreciate just how miserably the investor gets treated, even by celebrated successes. What do you get? A couple of dollars per year in the best case. It's always funny when I see high prices defended under the aegis of the 'investors', as if those profits somehow found their way to the investors. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> If we had to depend on earnings per share we may all just as well get out of the stock market today and put our money under our matresses.
You can hardly be blamed for your misconceptions, they're epidemic: they're the reason why many small investors have lost a lot. Dot.com and communications (and energy to a lesser degree) fall-outs were preceded by a orgy of ineptitude and un-abashed (and unfounded) optimism (and corruption) on a mass executive scale. Correcting those errors now, after-the-fact, is what eats the profits of most companies, not the price war.
Anyway, did I have a point? I don't remember, but, as I predicted the insider trading scandals well over 2 years ago, I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now. Any in-depth look at corporate practice from '95 till present would make you cringe.
There is a lot of room for price compitition if you have a healthy company.
Do I buy the cheapest all the time? Nope. I buy the best value. Sometimes it's the cheapest, and sometimes it's not.
<strong>hey, well, remember, Apple offered PC bridgeboards for machines like my old 6100/60
486/100MHz processor, 16MB ram, etc... you can still find them around.
They used the NuBus slot. I forgot if you actually could boot into DOS or DOS/Windows opened in a separate window with MacOS.
Also, too bad OrangeMicro stopped making those 'all-in-one PCs on a PCI card' things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i got one when i bought my 8500, way back when. it had a p100 16mb ram and a so-so ati intergrarted graphics chip all on a PCI card. when you booted up windows, it took over the machine, no os in a window like VPC. you could toggle back and forth with little or no problems. you could even copy and paste between environments. however, in order to pass documents back and forth you had to create a shared volume. wasn't to bad of a setup,as i remember. you took a small speed bite (10-15%), better than VPC in that regards. would be interesting to see what kind of performance could be had with current hardware, but i'm sure the PCI interface would be a considerable bottle neck.
In a discussion <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=11449"; target="_blank">here</a>, about the timing of future OSX versions, Dorsal - or a Newbie calling himself that - gives a time line for the release of 10.3 and couples it together with the next major hardware release.
In a discussion <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=11449"; target="_blank">here</a>, about the timing of future OSX versions, Dorsal - or a Newbie calling himself that - gives a time line for the release of 10.3 and couples it together with the next major hardware release.
For my money, you're one of Apple's sharpest critics. You call it as you see it and don't try to apple-o-gize for their stingy memory bundles, 'average' cpus or premium pricing or rigid marketing. Apple aren't above criticism. They're as flawed as they are brilliant. (Hey, what can you say about a company that signed away their crown jewels to M$ and chose profits over critical mass. But hey, I know less about economics that Apple does... )
You make an interesting point about Apple being on a slow road...not to death...but to being a very different company. To me, they'll either price themselves into insignificance or reach 10% market share. History doesn't favour the latter. It's going to take kind of Herculean push for Apple to reach 10%. Who knows. Maybe the retail strategy will be part of that Steve Jobs miracle. He's been treading water over the last four years.
Apple need to kill a couple of sacred cows to reach the next level of ascension for Saint Jobs. 'Growth'. They need more than 'growth' too. They need a product that will not only 'hit a home run' but reach critical mass. They don't just need an 'iMac'...but quite a few of them or one that will go beyond 'niche'. Apple used to sell over a million units a quarter. They sell less than that now. It's a pattern that has been spiralling down long before the 'economy' hit the *&%^.
Regarding the x86 question. Who knows. It was someone else that brought up the point of a 'targeted' x86 dual boot approach 'just' for education. Not moi. I merely thought that it was an interesting idea, a 'tactical nuke' against the juggernaut Dell in a key market. ie have a slice of the 'pie' rather than none at all. Faced with the kind of erosion they've had over the last two, can anybody suggest why they're not going to lose the same again in two years when Dell are finished with them? ...er...and what Apple are going to do about it? The eMac is not the answer at the moment. Still not cheap enough.
I will concede that going x86 isn't necessarily the single strategy that will kill Apple's worst enemy over the years, the Dragon of Critical Mass. Time and time again, Matsu, the 'dragon' has pushed Steve and his 'Round Table' of Knights back. How will Steve slay this one? Can he? Does he need to? To be the Apple we know and love today: yes.
I still think that Apple needs the IBM 'G5' for their workstation 'power'Macs and a cheap edu' box to really get them going.
Despite one recent analyst predicting doom for Apple in 2003...I remain optimistic that Apple will have a better 2003 than they had 2002.
There are basically two ways to open the platform should Apple grow balls, get really desperate, and/or figure out a plan.
They can be bought out or they can get out of the hardware business. X86 and it's ilk would probably point to an eventual departure from the hardware space. Apple becomes the purveyor of an extremely well integrated OS, and internet communications and support services for consumers and box makers -- with exclusive content (apps) -- in the same way that console makers invest value in first party software. But that requires computers to be even cheaper than they are now. They maintain the platform, start with a limited number of vendors who sell 'macs' exclusively and compete on price. Apple collects licensing fees. On the other end, Apple sells price-is-no-object professional solutions to the server, science and creative markets using custom hardware and software with VERY big sticker prices. The problems here are that computers are rapidly becoming fast enough for 'arts' (scientists will always have more demanding applications waiting.) When photorealism and 3-D merge and deliver instantaneous results, when the idea 'render' disappears from the average digital arts lingo, even a cheap box will be good enough most of the time: in the same way that most budget PC's are good enough for 'Office' most of the time. Workstations for 'arts' are gonna be a tough sell in 10 years.
A buy-out could furnish them with a lot of cash and a wealthy parent. But who? Sony? Pathetic, wrong company, wrong philosophy, wrong brand. Forget any childish, but they know consumers objections. Sony cannot solve Apple's problems. Sony doesn't sell security, it sells a wierd kind of Japination to the Tommy Hilfiger set. They only have a brand and style to bank on, Apple has it's own brand and style, they don't need Sony.
What's left? M$. Yes, M$, but the fallout would be huge, M$ wouldn't dare touch Apple (other than to bludgeon it, and even then)
IBM? hmmm... people have said no. And I myself don't think it will happen. But IBM has the money and the know-how to scratch it's own hardware itch. They can go it alone as a platform. The also have a near absence of style, something Apple could provide. And they have a lot of business and infrastructure customers who would buy their OS because they trust IBM's implied security in a way that they will never trust Apple's. It could be a kind of brand-fusion. Mac becomes the platform, IBM becomes the backbone, and Apple continues as the consumer experience techno love-in cult of style. What Sony does, but different.
But most likely, what Steve is waiting for, what, for better or worse, he will probably go for, is the day when computing power increases to such a degree that platforms become largely irrelevant insofar as they can limit appliction content, inter-connectivity, etc etc... "write once-read anywhere" could actually work. Open standards, a move towards cyber-libertarianism (only, again, insofar as it mitigates prices to a level consumers consider reasonable) might eventually point the way to file and software distribution that is largely platform agnostic. There could be a time when we have a prolifiration of platforms that can all live together with little complaint.
So actually, that's three scenarios, and they're all a ways off. But rest assured, Apple simply cannot continue in it's current form for the long term. It will change.
That doesn't retort it. Every such sale, whether to Dell or to Apple, expands the Windows codebase.
Now, put yourself in a developer's shoes: You can target OS X, which is pretty spiffy, but which has a necessarily smaller market share (it doesn't run on Dells, or on any of the white box machines that make up the majority of the market). Or you can have one codebase, with the attendant reductions in cost, trouble, documentation and personnel, and target Windows exclusively, in which case - for the first time ever - your product will run on both PCs and Macs. In other words, while the hybrid boxes might expand OS X's market share by some number of machines, it will expand Windows' by the same number of machines. This probably wouldn't affect hardcore Mac developers like Bare Bones, since they have one codebase already on the Mac side. But all the cross-platform apps? Sure, OS X is prettier from a technical standpoint, but computer science is littered with the corpses of things that were prettier from a technical standpoint. Sadly, that buys you very little.
There's no analogy to VPC, because VPC is not standard equipment, it's expensive, it's sluggish, and its compatibility and (especially) its capabilities are limited - it can't run games or 3D apps in any satisfactory way. I'd be surprised if a significant percentage of PC or Mac users knew it existed at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How doesn't it retort it? You almost understand. For every sale yes, it may expand the windows user base but it also gains in sales from those who would have never bought a mac. There are some very big clients that would purchase macs if they dual boot. It would help additional switchers transition to mac. The bottom line is to expand market share and while this would expand windows it would expand macs more so then any current forumla. I personally believe *nix is the future tho maybe not near I see signs of PC makers turning away from M$ (IBM going red hat, DELL & HP dropping M$ Office for Corel Wordperfect) and if Apple could present an easy way to buy a machine that would eventually, when their budget allows, allow companies to fully switch to X it would be a sweet deal. A dual boot would do that just like it did and is doing for OS 9 users.
The Dual Boot Macs that came with PC cards never took the world by storm.
The concept sounds nice however I believe computer purchases come with a committment. Once a user decides on a Platform they make the decision to deal with what that Platform offers. I believe Apple's past problems revolved around not only poor hardware but poor software as well. They're getting back on track with the software and I fully expect the hardware to follow. Is it a little too late? I don't know. Now that OSX is in a useable state I think the bar must be raised on Apple for both hardware and software. They must anticipate what consumers will need without being told.
Adding PC capability sounds nice however any focus on anything but Apple is a division of resources for Apple as well as their consumers.
You guys don't understand. The reason apple has survived so long is because they don't run windows. Everyone knows windows sucks all that is needed to get apple that 10% is better hardware. Once they have a G5 in their PowerMacs and lower priced iMacs they will be set. Don't expect business's to adopt the Mac OS any time soon, but there are plenty of windows sick PC users who would be glad to switch to a Mac. They just can't justify the price Vs performance right now (especially with the economy the way it is).
\tFor example our PowerMac G4 867 with 17" apple studio display cost more than 3300$ A friend got a PC that is just as fast if not faster for under 2000 with a monitor (granted it doesn't have a Superdrive). Also granted it is a cheap PC that looks like shit but thats the point.
\tApple can not compete with the price war on the low end because they do not have enough sales. However, if apple can compete in the highend with dual G5's then they will sell more Powermacs. They will slowly be able to lower iMac prices and with the G5 up performance. Soon they will be on a more competitive price level.
\tCompetitive prices, very good looks, great performance, and magnificent OS/software will be the equation. Then some good advertising and time will be all that is needed. Apple's will always cost more than an equal PC because they run the Mac OS. That is what people will really pay for. Many of you have already said that PC users love Mac OS 10.2 and this is the truth. The last thing they want is to be able to boot windows. Windows is not the reason they have not switched. PRICE VS PERFORMANCE IS!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS WHY THE GPUL WILL SAVE APPLE. BY SAVING THEIR POWERMAC LINE THEY SAVE ALL THE OTHERS.
\tFor example a car company always brag about their best car in order to give a reason to buy all of their cars. Apple will be fine as soon as the G5 comes out especially if it's made by IBM.
Comments
<strong>Outsider, If I remember correctly, the Power4-lite / GPUL or whatever is being designed for the desktop. Therefore, it begs the question of "what defines a desktop"? I just don't believe that IBM defines "desktop" as "workstation"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Desktop=workstation=personal computer=a multtitude of other things. Apple calls their PowerMacs workstations. But they are also desktop machines. "desktop" is so ambiguous, you can't define it any less broadly than that.
<strong>Gamblor:
[[[Yellow Dog Linux has been busily integrating AltiVec acceleration into their distro. I haven't checked, but I assume that their work is going right back into the main code tree, Linux being what it is. If not, IBM has sunk eye-popping amounts of money getting Linux going on hardware that it wouldn't have dreamed of running on a couple of years ago; I can't imagine why they wouldn't cheerfully put a team of engineers to the task of optimizing it for a GPUL if it was part of a larger push, and if the YDL code was unavailable or for some reason undesirable. ]]]
You are missing my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, you're quoting me there, and I was just answering the question of where AV acceleration for Linux was.
On a more general note: Lay off the personal attacks, people. This thread has maintained a fairly high level of content for 19 pages, and I'd hate to see it fall apart now.
Thanks.
The biggest reason people stay away from macs is because of the hardware. Adding a pc proccessor will only get you a more expensive machine. When you have a mac, why in the world would you want a pc unless it was required in your business or something? A PC user isnt going to think- wow look at this under powered/non-upgradable computer that can run mac and windows. let me buy one. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not going to happen. The only way the mac will gain market share is by selling cheaper and smarter. Adding another CPU to your machines doesnt make them cheaper. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>All this talk about dual boot systems makes me wonder about the intelligence of the mac community.
The biggest reason people stay away from macs is because of the hardware. Adding a pc proccessor will only get you a more expensive machine. When you have a mac, why in the world would you want a pc unless it was required in your business or something? A PC user isnt going to think- wow look at this under powered/non-upgradable computer that can run mac and windows. let me buy one. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not going to happen. The only way the mac will gain market share is by selling cheaper and smarter. Adding another CPU to your machines doesnt make them cheaper. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the original idea was to migrate the whole Mac architecture to a platform that uses x86 RATHER than PowerPC.
486/100MHz processor, 16MB ram, etc... you can still find them around.
They used the NuBus slot. I forgot if you actually could boot into DOS or DOS/Windows opened in a separate window with MacOS.
Also, too bad OrangeMicro stopped making those 'all-in-one PCs on a PCI card' things.
<strong>
Also, too bad OrangeMicro stopped making those 'all-in-one PCs on a PCI card' things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They had to. The PII and PIII cards would suck down more power than the PCI spec would allow.
You're all arguing about the behavior of the pie and conflating that with Apple's performance relative to the pie -- their own piece. So you can find an indicator there, yes, people buy less during an recession, the pie shrinks. But despite Apple's spin, they lost market-share, and returned so-so/middling-decent profits (for today's economy at least) over the last 3 years -- World-wide, they're down; in education, they're down; and, for the first time in creative markets they have serious competition (3-d pros, audio, a/v.)
The condition of the market is NOT an excuse for performance relative to others who are all effected by the same conditions.
But wait, you should say, Apple has done quite well relative to the others, if not on market share at least at actually turning their share into net PROFIT! Yes, you're right, they deserve some credit. But to attribute loses to the price-war is somewhat (actually largely) misleading -- a little superficial.
Forget the small outfits that started after Apple and faded in the menatime. Start-up is huge, over-coming that is not easy. Look at established players. Who made money, who lost money, and where, and when (during the dot com bust and the communications melt-down?)
Companies like Compaq, HP, Xerox, and IBM had huge investments in all sorts of nonesense that tanked when people started realizing that only porn was actually making any money, and only porn looked like it had a reasonable model to keep doing that. The roots of telco and energy treachery go even deeper and lots of money was tied up there too. And companies started realizing this and panicking long before investors got a sniff of wind. Do you blame idiocy in exectutive control? Or worse, corruption? Nope. Price wars are a standard excuse, you start early and run with that.
I'm not sure if Apple were smart or lucky, but I do know things were pretty bleak. While other companies showed enough bank account to use a carpet bomb approach to buying potential technologies -- treating venture capital like some cross between a hoard and a slot machine -- Apple had to (and was) a lot more careful. Maybe they didn't make horrible investments and expansions/ventures because they were in no position to even think about it? But all those other companies blaming price wars (now) didn't (and don't) lose their money undercutting the other guy, they lost it a while ago, and they're 'fixing' things. Even when Dell was a nobody, he was undercutting the other guy and not losing any money doing it. The price war excuse ignores the obvious reality of how cheap components have actually become. Profits are huge, but they're tempered so that they don't show up at the retail check-out, or the stock report. Look at the P/E ratio of any company and appreciate just how miserably the investor gets treated, even by celebrated successes. What do you get? A couple of dollars per year in the best case. It's always funny when I see high prices defended under the aegis of the 'investors', as if those profits somehow found their way to the investors. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> If we had to depend on earnings per share we may all just as well get out of the stock market today and put our money under our matresses.
You can hardly be blamed for your misconceptions, they're epidemic: they're the reason why many small investors have lost a lot. Dot.com and communications (and energy to a lesser degree) fall-outs were preceded by a orgy of ineptitude and un-abashed (and unfounded) optimism (and corruption) on a mass executive scale. Correcting those errors now, after-the-fact, is what eats the profits of most companies, not the price war.
Anyway, did I have a point? I don't remember, but, as I predicted the insider trading scandals well over 2 years ago, I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now. Any in-depth look at corporate practice from '95 till present would make you cringe.
There is a lot of room for price compitition if you have a healthy company.
Do I buy the cheapest all the time? Nope. I buy the best value. Sometimes it's the cheapest, and sometimes it's not.
<strong>hey, well, remember, Apple offered PC bridgeboards for machines like my old 6100/60
486/100MHz processor, 16MB ram, etc... you can still find them around.
They used the NuBus slot. I forgot if you actually could boot into DOS or DOS/Windows opened in a separate window with MacOS.
Also, too bad OrangeMicro stopped making those 'all-in-one PCs on a PCI card' things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i got one when i bought my 8500, way back when. it had a p100 16mb ram and a so-so ati intergrarted graphics chip all on a PCI card. when you booted up windows, it took over the machine, no os in a window like VPC. you could toggle back and forth with little or no problems. you could even copy and paste between environments. however, in order to pass documents back and forth you had to create a shared volume. wasn't to bad of a setup,as i remember. you took a small speed bite (10-15%), better than VPC in that regards. would be interesting to see what kind of performance could be had with current hardware, but i'm sure the PCI interface would be a considerable bottle neck.
In a discussion <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=11449"; target="_blank">here</a>, about the timing of future OSX versions, Dorsal - or a Newbie calling himself that - gives a time line for the release of 10.3 and couples it together with the next major hardware release.
Is it him, or is it an imposter?
engpjp
<strong>*COMFIRMED!!! - BY DORSAL
In a discussion <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=11449"; target="_blank">here</a>, about the timing of future OSX versions, Dorsal - or a Newbie calling himself that - gives a time line for the release of 10.3 and couples it together with the next major hardware release.
Is it him, or is it an imposter?
engpjp</strong><hr></blockquote>
...or does it matter?
For my money, you're one of Apple's sharpest critics. You call it as you see it and don't try to apple-o-gize for their stingy memory bundles, 'average' cpus or premium pricing or rigid marketing. Apple aren't above criticism. They're as flawed as they are brilliant. (Hey, what can you say about a company that signed away their crown jewels to M$ and chose profits over critical mass. But hey, I know less about economics that Apple does...
You make an interesting point about Apple being on a slow road...not to death...but to being a very different company. To me, they'll either price themselves into insignificance or reach 10% market share. History doesn't favour the latter. It's going to take kind of Herculean push for Apple to reach 10%. Who knows. Maybe the retail strategy will be part of that Steve Jobs miracle. He's been treading water over the last four years.
Apple need to kill a couple of sacred cows to reach the next level of ascension for Saint Jobs. 'Growth'. They need more than 'growth' too. They need a product that will not only 'hit a home run' but reach critical mass. They don't just need an 'iMac'...but quite a few of them or one that will go beyond 'niche'. Apple used to sell over a million units a quarter. They sell less than that now. It's a pattern that has been spiralling down long before the 'economy' hit the *&%^.
Regarding the x86 question. Who knows. It was someone else that brought up the point of a 'targeted' x86 dual boot approach 'just' for education. Not moi. I merely thought that it was an interesting idea, a 'tactical nuke' against the juggernaut Dell in a key market. ie have a slice of the 'pie' rather than none at all. Faced with the kind of erosion they've had over the last two, can anybody suggest why they're not going to lose the same again in two years when Dell are finished with them? ...er...and what Apple are going to do about it? The eMac is not the answer at the moment. Still not cheap enough.
I will concede that going x86 isn't necessarily the single strategy that will kill Apple's worst enemy over the years, the Dragon of Critical Mass. Time and time again, Matsu, the 'dragon' has pushed Steve and his 'Round Table' of Knights back. How will Steve slay this one? Can he? Does he need to? To be the Apple we know and love today: yes.
I still think that Apple needs the IBM 'G5' for their workstation 'power'Macs and a cheap edu' box to really get them going.
Despite one recent analyst predicting doom for Apple in 2003...I remain optimistic that Apple will have a better 2003 than they had 2002.
Just a hunch.
lemon bon bon
<strong>
They had to. The PII and PIII cards would suck down more power than the PCI spec would allow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually it had more to do with the fact that its easier to cool a flipchip than it was to cool the cards.
Call it human interest....
engpjp
They can be bought out or they can get out of the hardware business. X86 and it's ilk would probably point to an eventual departure from the hardware space. Apple becomes the purveyor of an extremely well integrated OS, and internet communications and support services for consumers and box makers -- with exclusive content (apps) -- in the same way that console makers invest value in first party software. But that requires computers to be even cheaper than they are now. They maintain the platform, start with a limited number of vendors who sell 'macs' exclusively and compete on price. Apple collects licensing fees. On the other end, Apple sells price-is-no-object professional solutions to the server, science and creative markets using custom hardware and software with VERY big sticker prices. The problems here are that computers are rapidly becoming fast enough for 'arts' (scientists will always have more demanding applications waiting.) When photorealism and 3-D merge and deliver instantaneous results, when the idea 'render' disappears from the average digital arts lingo, even a cheap box will be good enough most of the time: in the same way that most budget PC's are good enough for 'Office' most of the time. Workstations for 'arts' are gonna be a tough sell in 10 years.
A buy-out could furnish them with a lot of cash and a wealthy parent. But who? Sony? Pathetic, wrong company, wrong philosophy, wrong brand. Forget any childish, but they know consumers objections. Sony cannot solve Apple's problems. Sony doesn't sell security, it sells a wierd kind of Japination to the Tommy Hilfiger set. They only have a brand and style to bank on, Apple has it's own brand and style, they don't need Sony.
What's left? M$. Yes, M$, but the fallout would be huge, M$ wouldn't dare touch Apple (other than to bludgeon it, and even then)
IBM? hmmm... people have said no. And I myself don't think it will happen. But IBM has the money and the know-how to scratch it's own hardware itch. They can go it alone as a platform. The also have a near absence of style, something Apple could provide. And they have a lot of business and infrastructure customers who would buy their OS because they trust IBM's implied security in a way that they will never trust Apple's. It could be a kind of brand-fusion. Mac becomes the platform, IBM becomes the backbone, and Apple continues as the consumer experience techno love-in cult of style. What Sony does, but different.
But most likely, what Steve is waiting for, what, for better or worse, he will probably go for, is the day when computing power increases to such a degree that platforms become largely irrelevant insofar as they can limit appliction content, inter-connectivity, etc etc... "write once-read anywhere" could actually work. Open standards, a move towards cyber-libertarianism (only, again, insofar as it mitigates prices to a level consumers consider reasonable) might eventually point the way to file and software distribution that is largely platform agnostic. There could be a time when we have a prolifiration of platforms that can all live together with little complaint.
So actually, that's three scenarios, and they're all a ways off. But rest assured, Apple simply cannot continue in it's current form for the long term. It will change.
<strong>
That doesn't retort it. Every such sale, whether to Dell or to Apple, expands the Windows codebase.
Now, put yourself in a developer's shoes: You can target OS X, which is pretty spiffy, but which has a necessarily smaller market share (it doesn't run on Dells, or on any of the white box machines that make up the majority of the market). Or you can have one codebase, with the attendant reductions in cost, trouble, documentation and personnel, and target Windows exclusively, in which case - for the first time ever - your product will run on both PCs and Macs. In other words, while the hybrid boxes might expand OS X's market share by some number of machines, it will expand Windows' by the same number of machines. This probably wouldn't affect hardcore Mac developers like Bare Bones, since they have one codebase already on the Mac side. But all the cross-platform apps? Sure, OS X is prettier from a technical standpoint, but computer science is littered with the corpses of things that were prettier from a technical standpoint. Sadly, that buys you very little.
There's no analogy to VPC, because VPC is not standard equipment, it's expensive, it's sluggish, and its compatibility and (especially) its capabilities are limited - it can't run games or 3D apps in any satisfactory way. I'd be surprised if a significant percentage of PC or Mac users knew it existed at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How doesn't it retort it? You almost understand. For every sale yes, it may expand the windows user base but it also gains in sales from those who would have never bought a mac. There are some very big clients that would purchase macs if they dual boot. It would help additional switchers transition to mac. The bottom line is to expand market share and while this would expand windows it would expand macs more so then any current forumla. I personally believe *nix is the future tho maybe not near I see signs of PC makers turning away from M$ (IBM going red hat, DELL & HP dropping M$ Office for Corel Wordperfect) and if Apple could present an easy way to buy a machine that would eventually, when their budget allows, allow companies to fully switch to X it would be a sweet deal. A dual boot would do that just like it did and is doing for OS 9 users.
I did retort, you just disagreed.
The concept sounds nice however I believe computer purchases come with a committment. Once a user decides on a Platform they make the decision to deal with what that Platform offers. I believe Apple's past problems revolved around not only poor hardware but poor software as well. They're getting back on track with the software and I fully expect the hardware to follow. Is it a little too late? I don't know. Now that OSX is in a useable state I think the bar must be raised on Apple for both hardware and software. They must anticipate what consumers will need without being told.
Adding PC capability sounds nice however any focus on anything but Apple is a division of resources for Apple as well as their consumers.
\tFor example our PowerMac G4 867 with 17" apple studio display cost more than 3300$ A friend got a PC that is just as fast if not faster for under 2000 with a monitor (granted it doesn't have a Superdrive). Also granted it is a cheap PC that looks like shit but thats the point.
\tApple can not compete with the price war on the low end because they do not have enough sales. However, if apple can compete in the highend with dual G5's then they will sell more Powermacs. They will slowly be able to lower iMac prices and with the G5 up performance. Soon they will be on a more competitive price level.
\tCompetitive prices, very good looks, great performance, and magnificent OS/software will be the equation. Then some good advertising and time will be all that is needed. Apple's will always cost more than an equal PC because they run the Mac OS. That is what people will really pay for. Many of you have already said that PC users love Mac OS 10.2 and this is the truth. The last thing they want is to be able to boot windows. Windows is not the reason they have not switched. PRICE VS PERFORMANCE IS!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS WHY THE GPUL WILL SAVE APPLE. BY SAVING THEIR POWERMAC LINE THEY SAVE ALL THE OTHERS.
\tFor example a car company always brag about their best car in order to give a reason to buy all of their cars. Apple will be fine as soon as the G5 comes out especially if it's made by IBM.
Apple has better price v usability* on every Mac. It won't be long before Apple's small gains in marketshare become larger gains
Barto
*usability = features * (raw performance + user friendliness)
[ 09-18-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
- KidRed
- Lemon Bon Bon
Do you guys think you could take your Mac on x86 / Windows on Mac posts somewhere else ?
The fact of the matter is, this issue has been fleshed out millions of times over. And no one really cares anymore.
This is a discussion about IBM. Try keeping it on topic.
[ 09-18-2002: Message edited by: naden ]</p>