Marklar

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.macuser.co.uk"; target="_blank">http://www.macuser.co.uk</a>;



They say it's of more strategic importance than previously thought.



Not just a 'suicide fail safe'...



Could Apple allow a custom dual boot PPC/Intel or Clawhammer m/b to be vended by Dell, IBM and HP?



With Palladium coming up...



...dare we think the unthinkable?



HOW can they make it work? That would be my emphasis on this topic. Politics aside, how could they pull this off?



Is Steve Jobs serious?



Lemon Bon Bon
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 72
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Where's the yawn smilie when you need it. Moving to x86 would be just so stupid.
  • Reply 2 of 72
    drboardrboar Posts: 477member
    That would mean that Apple would be a company based on software revenues instead of hardware as now. Apple would also get into the same cage as the 800 pund gorilla Microsoft. We all know how visits in this cage end up. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    In a couple of years if Apple has some core technologies (DTP and video etc) it might just work. Also the need to support pre OS X application need to be gone.



    Looking in any PC catalog shows the complexity of the market at any one time there is servel dozens of motherboard out there, many many graphicla cards and so on. How much work is there to support all of them?

    MS has decades of experience in supporting stuff that other put together. Apple on the other hand is used to control the hardware.



    OS X is a very good laboratory for the what if?

    How difficult is it to switch endian format?

    How will OS X perform with a different CPU?

    How is different mother boards etc to support?



    Speed is a elusive thing to measure.

    In the x86 the celeron is as fast as a Pentium in some tasks but much slower in other.

    In the power PC family we have the same thing.



    OS X will give Apple a way to evaluate different hardware options. Without it they could never be able to know how feasable a migration is,



    If the power PC was at 6-8 GHz and Wintel had to use dual CPUs to not get totaly smoked I am sure Microsoft would have a internal version of WinXP running on PPC.





    Barring a total catastrophe, ie IBM 970 going Motorola on us for years to come I do not see Apple going to becoma a software company anytime soon!
  • Reply 3 of 72
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Sure. It can happen.



    If the PPC970 family lives to up to the hype -- and then some.

    If AppleWorks can evolve into a true competitor for MS Office.

    If Apple can find a source of revenue that will make up for all the lost hardware sales.



    (And if you have an answer to that last one, do share.)



    2011, anyone?
  • Reply 4 of 72
    Apple wouldn't have to support all of the combination of mobos, chipsets and periferals themselves. Asus or Via could fix a lot of the support for x86-chipsets, and they probably would jump at the opportunity to take a bite out of Intel. AMD surely wouldn't hesitate at a proposal from Apple, their CEO has even said so himself.



    So.. Apple wouldn't nesessarily have to do it all alone.



    But.. If Apple were to really compete with Microsoft, they'd need the support from the likes of Dell and HP. That's not likely to happen anytime soon.
  • Reply 5 of 72
    quickquick Posts: 227member
    [quote]

    MacUser:

    Marklar would have no such limitations built in, allowing Apple to appeal to Windows users frustrated by the restrictions on how they use their computers.<hr></blockquote>

    Palladium (TCPA) is not a software implementation. It basically is a hardware implementation (Fritz chip) and will soon be embedded into CPUs. The irony is that Motorola and IBM have joined TCPA, so there is no emergency exit for Apple if this damn thing comes to reality.

    [quote]

    Apple has taken the stance that users should be free to use their computers how they wish, and that it is up to copyright holders to encourage people to use them responsibly. <hr></blockquote>

    How do you encourage people not to violate copyrights? TCPA!
  • Reply 6 of 72
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Quick:

    <strong>

    How do you encourage people not to violate copyrights? TCPA!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    How do you not violate "Fair use" with TCPA, or any number of copy protection schemes? Fair use is a consumer's right that has been backed up by the courts, yet some of the copy proteciton systems would require me to buy a seperate version of every CD, Album, what have you, for every CD player, DVD Player, Compter, or whatever that I own or listen to music on, and this is a clear violation of Fair Use, and is not enjoyed by any non-electronic media source. I am well within my rights under "Fair use" to make a copy of a page of a book at the library for personal use, I can even make a direct quote from someone without permission, as long as I give credit and it does not exceed a set number of words. How do you encourage people not to violate copyright laws? The media companies might try giving a "fair price" for the product that they sell. For example CD's cost less to make than tapes, yet CD's tend to cost more than tapes.
  • Reply 7 of 72
    quickquick Posts: 227member
    [quote]Originally posted by JCG:

    <strong>



    How do you not violate "Fair use" with TCPA, or any number of copy protection schemes?...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree.

    My question/answer was meant to be sarcastic.



    [ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 72
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Didn't someone post an entire article on Apple's next products, the story behind moto, IBM and also the story behind Marklar? This sounds about the same, that it's not a backup bankruptcy type move.
  • Reply 9 of 72
    [quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:

    <strong>Sure. It can happen.

    ......

    If Apple can find a source of revenue that will make up for all the lost hardware sales.

    anyone?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <a href="http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-976829.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news"; target="_blank">THIS</a>

    is a step in the right direction...
  • Reply 10 of 72
    Oh yeah, makes perfect sense...



    [quote]However, Marklar requires that OS X-native Carbon and Cocoa applications are recompiled to work on Intel processors, and there is no support for pre-OS X Classic applications.<hr></blockquote>



    No to mention no windows software will run on it.



    Yeah, lets take a stab at selling a platform with absolutely no software available for it. Oh wait, someone already tried that, what was it called? Oh yeah, Be.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 11 of 72
    [quote]Originally posted by lungaretta:

    <strong>



    <a href="http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-976829.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news"; target="_blank">THIS</a>

    is a step in the right direction...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple's QuickTime phones Japan



    Apple's QuickTime is poised to make headway as an audio and video delivery platform for mobile phones in Japan, with new standards-compatible software on its way and a fresh endorsement by leading wireless carrier NTT DoCoMo.



    Whoa, nelly.



    Something is starting to perk up here.



    Mandricard

    AppleOutsider
  • Reply 12 of 72
    we'll this may very well explain what iphone is, not a device at all, but software! imagine the functionality, using bluetooth and rendevous to transfer. are we getting the picture?
  • Reply 13 of 72
    [quote]Originally posted by Chucker:

    <strong>Where's the yawn smilie when you need it. Moving to x86 would be just so stupid.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    RESERVED.
  • Reply 14 of 72
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,773member
    I love the MacOS, When cut I bleed six colors...er...Aqua. But sorry, Marklar isn't going to cut it in a war with Microsoft.



    Nobody makes money selling operating systems - Nobody.



    If Apple ever decided to wage all out war with Redmond they'd release a full featured, easy-to-use office suite that was compatible with OS X, XP and Linux. And it would be free.



    That's where MS makes the real money to run the Empire. That's where the war will be fought.



    Marklar is exactly what it seems...a PPC exit strategy that, like its Star Trek predecessor, will never be released.
  • Reply 15 of 72
    uhh guys, this artical doesn't say Apple is switching away from PPC to x86 it's saying that they are basically considering the same strategy as they had for Rahpsody. One version for Apple built PPC and one for x86 boxes.



    It appears that the idea is to target current and future dissatisfied PC users especially. Nothing about Apple actually making x86 hardware. I think this is a bad idea considering the vast technical problems posed by a platform that is a rats nest of third party hardware (including chip sets). A lot of the techinical problems that occur with PC's are the fault of Windows but not all. You put OSX on computers that are put together by everybody and their brother with parts from god only knows where and all kinds of crazy stuff will happen.



    Apple being in control of the hardware that their OS runs on has bought us a lot lower cost of ownership. I don't see them doing this unless they think that Apple built PPC hardware they are planning can trounce any x86 box that someone might want to install the OS on.



    It is attractive at first glance if you ignore the techincal support nightmare it would create. As far as apps go I'm sure that if this project is real, the iApps have already been ported as well as Quicktime. An OSX for x86 version could also include a version of WINE or Lindows since there would be no emulation (as in Virtual PC) needed when using a x86 based processor.
  • Reply 16 of 72
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    This story is "bollocks".
  • Reply 17 of 72
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    I love my iBook. But it's at least 2 lbs overweight!



    Give me Marklar so I don't have to wait for an Apple subnotebook any longer!



    I would gladly pay even inflated MS-OS monopoly prices to be able to run OS X on an Intel or Transmeta subnotebook.



    Escher
  • Reply 18 of 72
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    There was one little comment about MS relations that might explain Marklar. It could be like the cold war, where both sides have a bomb. Marklar might just be Apple's bomb to counter MS's bomb, withdrawing Office for the Mac.
  • Reply 19 of 72
    [quote]Originally posted by Frank777:

    <strong>Nobody makes money selling operating systems - Nobody.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    [quote]<strong>That's where MS makes the real money to run the Empire.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You have no idea what you are talking about here.



    Read these to be educated on these two points:



    <a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-966696.html"; target="_blank">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-966696.html</a>;

    <a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-966219.html"; target="_blank">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-966219.html</a>;



    Summary:



    Microsoft made $2.5 BILLION in net profit on $2.9 BILLION in sales of operating systems.



    You are right that they make good $ on the office products too. But, not quite as much. Not quite the margins either.



    Combined though is looks like this:



    $4.4 BILLION in profits on sales of $5.3 BILLION.



    If Apple could do these kinds of margins, even if they only sold $1B worth of software, they would make around $800 million in profit. As I recall, that is nearly as good as their total annual profit selling hardware!



    Plus, they could KEEP selling hardware.
  • Reply 20 of 72
    This disscussion is already taking place in another thread in regards to the last rumor to come out about Marklar but I'll say the same thing here. Actually switching to x86 rathar than offering OSX for x86 and calling it good would kill Apple's portable business. Intel and AMD chips (intel especially) run too hot to put in anything but a copy of a PC notebook. In other words, an x86 iBook wouldn't be an iBook it would be just another PC notebook, underpowered and unremarkable.
Sign In or Register to comment.