Let's look at this Marklar rumour from a slightly different perspective... Linux.
You can run Linux on X86, on SPARC, on ALPHA, on PPC, etc...
All it takes for the software to work on your system is a recompile geared towards your hardware configuration. Yes, there is a bit of tweaking involved, but most of the time, it's as simple as recompiling the software.
SO, if Linux software can run on various versions of Linux and on different hardware configurations, why the hell can't the Mac be hardware agnostic and have software available for it on different platforms? If in fact there is a version of X that runs on X86 and is up to par with the PPC version, then that means the ENTIRE OS, Aqua included, has already been ported. One can assume that everything else about OSX for intel will be exactly the same - the location of the libraries, the file structure etc..., so the difference are some kernal extensions for different hardware and a few new libraries.
All I'm saying is, Mac OS X is unix. It can run on different hardware and I suspect that people are overestimating how much work it will take to port a program over to a new processor - the OS is still the same, why should it be that hard?
If you're ADOBE, you come out with a single installer that will choose which hardware version to install. That's it. No separate packaging, no crazy resources involved. I don't see a problem from a technical standpoint.
Anyway, this is my 5-step plan for Apple World Domination:
1) re-invent the Mac as a unix operating system that can be ported to any hardware.
2) convince developers to update their software with a bridge environment called carbon and encourage new developers to use cocoa
3) build a suite of insanely easy to use applications and technologies that are either open source or free (including a fully functional Open Office)
4) When the OS is mature and kick-ass enough to be a no-brainer switch, release a version for X86 at the same time as a major software vendors announce compatible versions of their software.
5) Beat Microsoft into the proprietary hell-hole from which it spawned by selling a better OS with free software.
<strong> 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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but Apple doesn't have to build those laptops. Apple branded laptops could continute to be built and marketed by apple and if someone like IBM wants to mac a Mac OS X motebook on intel hardware, power to them.
All it means to me is that Apple sells more operating systems - which it will gain from, and even if it does loose a bit in sales of its own hardware at first, the long-term picture is that if Mac OS X can and does take off on X86, more people are going to be interested in buying Apple hardware than they were before... if the software on both hardware platforms is compatible, Apple hardware may become a choice where it isn't now because the 'office uses windows'.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Why would Apple try a last ditch effort to foil M$ if Bill already stopped making Office for Mac? Or even if they did stop making office for mac, what would be the logic in releasing an os for x86 that can't run office? (They already have that, it's called linux)
This argument is self defeating, pointing out Apple's dependence on office, and their hatred for M$. It is something I don't think Apple has any control over, and they just have to sit there and live with the situation as it is.
Cut off nose, spite face.
Don't forget, Microsoft needs Apple too. They have to show that there is another commercially viable OS platform that they "compete" against or the lawyers will have a feeding frenzy.
1) re-invent the Mac as a unix operating system that can be ported to any hardware.
2) convince developers to update their software with a bridge environment called carbon and encourage new developers to use cocoa
3) build a suite of insanely easy to use applications and technologies that are either open source or free (including a fully functional Open Office)
4) When the OS is mature and kick-ass enough to be a no-brainer switch, release a version for X86 at the same time as a major software vendors announce compatible versions of their software.
5) Beat Microsoft into the proprietary hell-hole from which it spawned by selling a better OS with free software.
I figure we're at stage 2-3 right now.
Gonna be an interesting few years i think...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo. Apple can not reamin a hardware business forever, they must evolve. But they have a very powerful brand to get them through this. Apple will transform into a predominately services and applications (system software being one), with hardware revenue being spread out among many different niches. The plan is pretty clear to me. Get a kick-ass, stable OS happening with some great free apps, support open standards and fair use rights, and go processor agnostic.
The only way to ever gain ground on MS is to take the battle to them. Open source is an arrow headed straight to MS's heart, and Apple is going to hitch a ride on that arrow.
<strong>Bingo. Apple can not reamin a hardware business forever, they must evolve.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am trying to figure out why this is such "common wisdom". WHY can't Apple remain in the hardware business forever? WHY MUST they evolve (in the way you suggest)? WHY is Microsoft (which is the unspoken comparison) the ONLY model which makes sense?
Has anyone every considered other business models? Why is it only Microsoft?
I think Apple has an opportunity to be something different. A mix of Microsoft, Sony, perhaps with some Sun thrown in.
What Apple NEEDS to do is develop compelling, competitive products (whether they are all software, all hardware or a mix of the two), leveraging their skill and expertise in combining software, digital hardware into devices that are easy to use and redefine how work is accomplished by people.
Because Apple gives too many indications that it is unable or unwilling to really compete on price. If Apple can't do it now, how will they do it when computers become even cheaper? And they will continue to become much cheaper over the next ten years.
<strong>Because Apple gives too many indications that it is unable or unwilling to really compete on price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But everyone always assumes that this the only way Apple can compete. I argue this is faulty thinking. Price is ONE way a company can lead the market. But not the ONLY way.
[quote]<strong>And they will continue to become much cheaper over the next ten years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naw, the aliens in the bubbles, with a single eye, and tentacles. They show up several times, once they impregnate Marge (Maggie is their kid), once they take over the presidency election, etc, etc.
I could swear there was a similar gimmick of using the same word over and over with them, predating the Southpark use by a few years.
A recompile of a UNIX OS would probably be just an annoyance for me but it would scare my wife half to death and my Dad would never get it done. People that use Linux and Solaris are geeky and computer savy enough to do this but how many Apple customers that own an iMac or iBook fit that description? I know what your saying but unless you could make such an operation transparent to the user it's just too much to ask. This is one of the reasons that Linux is so slow to make inroads in the desktop market.
In regards to portables your right Apple could continue making PPC based portables but x86 portables with OSX on them would likely not sell well because a direct comparison would reveal a very profound difference in performance in favor of the Apple built models.
The only exception might be if a Transmeta chip was used to give the device an extreme size advantage. However since the crusoe isn't x86 native any more than it is PPC native, which version of OSX it ran doesn't much matter.
Comments
You can run Linux on X86, on SPARC, on ALPHA, on PPC, etc...
All it takes for the software to work on your system is a recompile geared towards your hardware configuration. Yes, there is a bit of tweaking involved, but most of the time, it's as simple as recompiling the software.
SO, if Linux software can run on various versions of Linux and on different hardware configurations, why the hell can't the Mac be hardware agnostic and have software available for it on different platforms? If in fact there is a version of X that runs on X86 and is up to par with the PPC version, then that means the ENTIRE OS, Aqua included, has already been ported. One can assume that everything else about OSX for intel will be exactly the same - the location of the libraries, the file structure etc..., so the difference are some kernal extensions for different hardware and a few new libraries.
All I'm saying is, Mac OS X is unix. It can run on different hardware and I suspect that people are overestimating how much work it will take to port a program over to a new processor - the OS is still the same, why should it be that hard?
If you're ADOBE, you come out with a single installer that will choose which hardware version to install. That's it. No separate packaging, no crazy resources involved. I don't see a problem from a technical standpoint.
Anyway, this is my 5-step plan for Apple World Domination:
1) re-invent the Mac as a unix operating system that can be ported to any hardware.
2) convince developers to update their software with a bridge environment called carbon and encourage new developers to use cocoa
3) build a suite of insanely easy to use applications and technologies that are either open source or free (including a fully functional Open Office)
4) When the OS is mature and kick-ass enough to be a no-brainer switch, release a version for X86 at the same time as a major software vendors announce compatible versions of their software.
5) Beat Microsoft into the proprietary hell-hole from which it spawned by selling a better OS with free software.
I figure we're at stage 2-3 right now.
Gonna be an interesting few years i think...
<strong> 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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but Apple doesn't have to build those laptops. Apple branded laptops could continute to be built and marketed by apple and if someone like IBM wants to mac a Mac OS X motebook on intel hardware, power to them.
All it means to me is that Apple sells more operating systems - which it will gain from, and even if it does loose a bit in sales of its own hardware at first, the long-term picture is that if Mac OS X can and does take off on X86, more people are going to be interested in buying Apple hardware than they were before... if the software on both hardware platforms is compatible, Apple hardware may become a choice where it isn't now because the 'office uses windows'.
This argument is self defeating, pointing out Apple's dependence on office, and their hatred for M$. It is something I don't think Apple has any control over, and they just have to sit there and live with the situation as it is.
Cut off nose, spite face.
Don't forget, Microsoft needs Apple too. They have to show that there is another commercially viable OS platform that they "compete" against or the lawyers will have a feeding frenzy.
<strong>
1) re-invent the Mac as a unix operating system that can be ported to any hardware.
2) convince developers to update their software with a bridge environment called carbon and encourage new developers to use cocoa
3) build a suite of insanely easy to use applications and technologies that are either open source or free (including a fully functional Open Office)
4) When the OS is mature and kick-ass enough to be a no-brainer switch, release a version for X86 at the same time as a major software vendors announce compatible versions of their software.
5) Beat Microsoft into the proprietary hell-hole from which it spawned by selling a better OS with free software.
I figure we're at stage 2-3 right now.
Gonna be an interesting few years i think...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo. Apple can not reamin a hardware business forever, they must evolve. But they have a very powerful brand to get them through this. Apple will transform into a predominately services and applications (system software being one), with hardware revenue being spread out among many different niches. The plan is pretty clear to me. Get a kick-ass, stable OS happening with some great free apps, support open standards and fair use rights, and go processor agnostic.
The only way to ever gain ground on MS is to take the battle to them. Open source is an arrow headed straight to MS's heart, and Apple is going to hitch a ride on that arrow.
<strong>Bingo. Apple can not reamin a hardware business forever, they must evolve.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am trying to figure out why this is such "common wisdom". WHY can't Apple remain in the hardware business forever? WHY MUST they evolve (in the way you suggest)? WHY is Microsoft (which is the unspoken comparison) the ONLY model which makes sense?
Has anyone every considered other business models? Why is it only Microsoft?
I think Apple has an opportunity to be something different. A mix of Microsoft, Sony, perhaps with some Sun thrown in.
What Apple NEEDS to do is develop compelling, competitive products (whether they are all software, all hardware or a mix of the two), leveraging their skill and expertise in combining software, digital hardware into devices that are easy to use and redefine how work is accomplished by people.
I think they are doing this now.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>Because Apple gives too many indications that it is unable or unwilling to really compete on price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But everyone always assumes that this the only way Apple can compete. I argue this is faulty thinking. Price is ONE way a company can lead the market. But not the ONLY way.
[quote]<strong>And they will continue to become much cheaper over the next ten years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
<strong>Rumor has it that OS X on Intel will be especially strong in digital audio, and it will receive a new codename: Marky Marklar.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I don't know if this link has any relationship.
<a href="http://www.love.org/49/marklar.htm"; target="_blank">Marklar</a>
<strong>Does anyone know where this code name comes from?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Southpark
Simpsons.
The aliens.
<strong>*BZZZZT*
Simpsons.
The aliens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*BZZZZT*
Southpark.
This is gonna be one long winter...
<strong>
*BZZZZT*
Southpark.
This is gonna be one long winter...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh shush.
Alright, what was the highly similar Simpson's joke with the aliens?
<strong>
Oh shush.
Alright, what was the highly similar Simpson's joke with the aliens?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know... are you thinking of the X-files episode where Mr. Burns is mistaken for an alien? He comes in peas.
:cool: <-- simpsons & southpark nut
<strong>
I don't know... are you thinking of the X-files episode where Mr. Burns is mistaken for an alien? He comes in peas.
:cool: <-- simpsons & southpark nut</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naw, the aliens in the bubbles, with a single eye, and tentacles. They show up several times, once they impregnate Marge (Maggie is their kid), once they take over the presidency election, etc, etc.
I could swear there was a similar gimmick of using the same word over and over with them, predating the Southpark use by a few years.
Are we far enough OT yet?
In regards to portables your right Apple could continue making PPC based portables but x86 portables with OSX on them would likely not sell well because a direct comparison would reveal a very profound difference in performance in favor of the Apple built models.
The only exception might be if a Transmeta chip was used to give the device an extreme size advantage. However since the crusoe isn't x86 native any more than it is PPC native, which version of OSX it ran doesn't much matter.
[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: nebcon65 ]</p>
Marklar?