Agnostic Hardware??

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
We have all prayed, faithfully and even just occassionally to the various OSes of our own choosing. And like those faiths we have been devout and pure and have argued logically and passionately.



But is the future of computing, and our part in it, at

least let us say our chosen part to play in it at least

is not forced on us by default as the only choice.



Then perhaps the wave of the future... is hardware which

will run software that is just as compatible with windows as it is with mac or linux or unix or any of the other systems out there, or at least let us say, it is not

strictly propriatary.



So now I am a proud owner and operator of a hardware device that will sync with my mac at home, with my windows machine at work, with the unix machine my friend codes on, or the linux machine my open source activist friend enjoys so much.



In this way of course Apple can compete on an even basis with MS, and with Sony or Erickson or Phillips or Motorola or any of the other vendors out there. Because the playing ground will be equal for everybody. And customers can have whatever os or hardware they want, and it won't matter.



At least that is the ideal.



-Just some open source and open compatibility thoughts

to think about.



-MacintoshMan

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    Uummm, I'm not sure that is the eutopian scenario you actually want.



    Some of the main lures to owning an Apple computer are that the OS is elegant and easy to use, the software that comes with it is fantastic and the machines themselves are fashionable yet functional.



    Allowing someone to run Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever on an Apple branded machine (After all, without Mac OS, it's not really a Mac) is one thing. Allowing the Mac OS and all its software to run on an Intel/AMD/whatever machine will be of more detrement than good to Apple as a company.



    Think about it. How much did your last upgrade of iTunes cost? What about iPhoto? iMovie, iCal, iSync........ All free to download and use. Well, free to use if you have an Apple machine (lets call it a Mac now) and a version of the OS that will run it!!!



    If Apple charged you for every upgrade to iTunes would you download it? I definately wouldn't have got 4.1 if I had to pay for it (especially since the iTMS still isn't accessible from Australia.... or anywhere outside the US).



    My point is that Apple make very little from this software (which I think many would agree are the most popular apps running on a Mac). But what about hardware? iTunes drives iPod sales!!! Steve basically said it himself that the iTMS wasn't making profit but iPod sales had jumped since it was launched.



    If you talk to any Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever guy/gal and ask them why they don't use a Mac they will answer one of two ways: 1) It doesn't run Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever (I know.... "OSX is based on Unix" or something like that) or 2) they cost too much. So, if you make the Mac software run on an Intel/AMD/whatever machine, most of the people who decide to go with it will probably buy a cheap machine to run it on rather than buy an Apple branded machine.



    Apart from more hits on the Apple site, Apple stands to gain very little from this. Running iMovie, iPhoto, iCal, iSync etc on an Intel box only makes Macs look like a worse deal to the Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever guy/gal. Why buy a Mac when you can do all the good stuff on a cheap machine?



    Your proposition is probably a good idea for the individual (assuming that the companies involved were able to provide the same service they had been before) however, for Apple as we know them, it would be suicide.



    My 2 cents
  • Reply 2 of 6
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Is this Future Hardware? It sounds more like future software.



    Anyway, you can have that now. Just code in Java. It works very well.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    I should correct myself here, my ideas about running apple software on some universal hardware are probably as you mention, not a good idea for Apple as they would be undercut by cheap machines.



    I had originally started with the idea of a functional

    device, much like an iPod, or Newton or iPhone? that would

    not hold an allegiance to only one OS. But like the iTunes and iPod now, would interface with Macs as well as Windows.



    At the time I thought it seemed a way for Apple to get around the negatives that other users have for Macs and for Apple to sell more hardware. But I haven't analyzed this idea completely enough to know if it is feasable or just

    wishful thinking.



    My hope was for more Apple marketshare.



    But maybe there are other or better ways to do this?



    I'm just one mac fan whose throwing out ideas to see what

    may work.



    -MacintoshMan













    Quote:

    Originally posted by pooandwee

    Uummm, I'm not sure that is the eutopian scenario you actually want.



    Some of the main lures to owning an Apple computer are that the OS is elegant and easy to use, the software that comes with it is fantastic and the machines themselves are fashionable yet functional.



    Allowing someone to run Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever on an Apple branded machine (After all, without Mac OS, it's not really a Mac) is one thing. Allowing the Mac OS and all its software to run on an Intel/AMD/whatever machine will be of more detrement than good to Apple as a company.



    Think about it. How much did your last upgrade of iTunes cost? What about iPhoto? iMovie, iCal, iSync........ All free to download and use. Well, free to use if you have an Apple machine (lets call it a Mac now) and a version of the OS that will run it!!!



    If Apple charged you for every upgrade to iTunes would you download it? I definately wouldn't have got 4.1 if I had to pay for it (especially since the iTMS still isn't accessible from Australia.... or anywhere outside the US).



    My point is that Apple make very little from this software (which I think many would agree are the most popular apps running on a Mac). But what about hardware? iTunes drives iPod sales!!! Steve basically said it himself that the iTMS wasn't making profit but iPod sales had jumped since it was launched.



    If you talk to any Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever guy/gal and ask them why they don't use a Mac they will answer one of two ways: 1) It doesn't run Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever (I know.... "OSX is based on Unix" or something like that) or 2) they cost too much. So, if you make the Mac software run on an Intel/AMD/whatever machine, most of the people who decide to go with it will probably buy a cheap machine to run it on rather than buy an Apple branded machine.



    Apart from more hits on the Apple site, Apple stands to gain very little from this. Running iMovie, iPhoto, iCal, iSync etc on an Intel box only makes Macs look like a worse deal to the Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever guy/gal. Why buy a Mac when you can do all the good stuff on a cheap machine?



    Your proposition is probably a good idea for the individual (assuming that the companies involved were able to provide the same service they had been before) however, for Apple as we know them, it would be suicide.



    My 2 cents




  • Reply 4 of 6
    Quote:

    f you talk to any Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever guy/gal and ask them why they don't use a Mac they will answer one of two ways: 1) It doesn't run Windows/Linux/Unix/whatever (I know.... "OSX is based on Unix" or something like that) or 2) they cost too much. So, if you make the Mac software run on an Intel/AMD/whatever machine, most of the people who decide to go with it will probably buy a cheap machine to run it on rather than buy an Apple branded machine.



    Actually I don't think that's what most of them say at all, at least not any of the ones who actually have any vague concept of what a Mac is.



    The most common reasons I have heard are 1) I can't afford to buy a new computer every time I want a faster processor/extra internal drive/bigger case/etc - Macs don't let me upgrade my machine in the piecemeal fashion that Wintel boxes do, and 2) it won't play my favourite games (Half Life in particular, and all its derivatives such as CounterStrike).



    I know of almost no Windows users whatsoever who actually like Windows. Most of the ones I have met would be quite happy to run OSX on their system if their games and other software all worked too.



    Which is exactly why Apple can't afford to make OSX for Intel, because if they did nobody would buy Mac hardware, which is Apple's chief source of income.



    Socrates
  • Reply 5 of 6
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Didn't I just move this thread to General Discussion?



    The idea of agnostic hardware is nonsensical. It's far, far easier to have agnostic software, and that's already been done.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    It seems to me that as long as the data is formatted in a public format then you can use various kinds of hardware and software to process it. This was the promise of OpenDoc.
Sign In or Register to comment.