Let's say we realize that the licensing ship sailed away years ago, but some small part still wants to get back to it. What do we do? You can't take on the Windows juggernaut head on, no way. One way is to offer the whole widget, it's a good way, the software solutions are top notch. A lot of the hardware is pretty good too, but expensive. Something new, like an iPod, is certainly a way to get back into the consumer consciousness, making it into the digital music platform of choice through a sort of licensing/rebranding is a nice way to go.
Is there any market like that that might welcome the goodness of OSX without much of the windows-seperation anxiety that both consumers and potential 3rd party manufacturers often feel?
It's not like everybody wants to be on windows. How many server companies have wanted to build linux based boxen, if only to eek out that last bit of profit, or perhaps, for the sake of corporate ideology -- a la IBM, who will sell you any thing you want, but worries about Microshaft dominance?
Ironically, the switch could come from the other end. I see two markets, both just not quite there yet -- tablets and set-top boxes. Tablets, because if they're the right size and weight, they'll be somewhere between a palm and a small laptop. People already use PalmOS, LinuxDA, and WinCE (or whatever they call it now) the point is that none of it is Windows, not even the Microsoft stuff. You don't have to overcome seperation anxiety. A certain large percentage will always only buy windows, but a receptive audience lurks within that demographic.
The same is true of set-top boxes. XBox and PS2 are getting very close to being set-top boxes. While they're good at gaming, they suck at everything else. Why? Like WebTV, they're limited by the crappy res of standard def TV. Tivo and digital cable are other limited forms of single task set-top boxen. They can be combined, they will be, and they can be made ever more affordable... when HDTV hits?
Look out, the set-top box will truly come into it's own. True surfing from the couch. The first 1920x1080 PROGRESSIVE plasma display has been released by Samsung. Expect LCD, CRT, projection, and whatever other tech versions to follow in the next two years. That's real useable resolution. Enough for detailed web pages, documents, multi palette software, you name it. Whiel the set top won't typically get used that way, the point of all this is that your TV will finally make a good monitor, it won't look like crap. That's some room for a company to slide into a market comfortable with the idea of using Xbox, Tivo, PS2 or "proprietary" and "non-standard" OS. Again, a certain large percentage will immediately identify this machine as a traditional "computer" and probably only accept a "standard" (ie Windows, I know, I know...) but there is that room again.
Imagine entering this market with a machine that gives little reason to consider anything else: it hooks into your TV, serves a whole whack of multimedia content and operations, and it comes with some really cool software that lets you manage your "iLife"
A future is coming when the platform will not matter as much. The battle for the home wil be fought again, when technology and price allows. That may not be for another 5-7 years, but the time is coming. A few of the right partners, with the right strengths and reach, they could prove indispensible when that happens.
Apple may never see 10%+ again, but "the mac" just might.
Is Apple going back to the extremely unsuccessful Mac clones? And Apple will develop a PDA (if they do) themselves. I don't even know why they teamed up with HP, maybe Steve wanted help with something else (not just WMA)? Ummm... def somethign going on
Is Apple going back to the extremely unsuccessful Mac clones? And Apple will develop a PDA (if they do) themselves. I don't even know why they teamed up with HP, maybe Steve wanted help with something else (not just WMA)? Ummm... def somethign going on
Clones would be bad, but non-Macintosh products clearly branded could bring new users to the Mac.
Apple has repeatedly said no Apple PDA despite obvious pent-up demand. So let HP feed that demand producing iMaqs which work well with Windows but work GREAT with Macs - and of course can run Mac software written in XCode, RB or Revolution.
I have a message for those who want Mac OS X lite on a handheld: RELAX. What is Mac OS X lite in your understanding? Multiuser support, pre-emptive multitasking, a complicated window manager, an Aqua/brushed metal UI are surely overkill for a handheld. And these OS components make Mac OS X what we call Mac OS X. It is much easier to write a new OS from scratch, an OS which would be, say, binary-compatible with OS X (though I don't see any sense in binary compatibility).
Yeah, in some 5 years we can have a Gn+1 @ 5GHz sit inside a handheld. And even then I can't imagine my grandmother running top to find out the PID of frozen netinfod.
I have a message for those who want Mac OS X lite on a handheld: RELAX. What is Mac OS X lite in your understanding? Multiuser support, pre-emptive multitasking, a complicated window manager, an Aqua/brushed metal UI are surely overkill for a handheld. And these OS components make Mac OS X what we call Mac OS X. It is much easier to write a new OS from scratch, an OS which would be, say, binary-compatible with OS X (though I don't see any sense in binary compatibility).
Yeah, in some 5 years we can have a Gn+1 @ 5GHz sit inside a handheld. And even then I can't imagine my grandmother running top to find out the PID of frozen netinfod.
Personally, I want MacOS X *full* on my handheld. It's just Unix, and Linux handhelds work fine. I agree it would need a lighter Aqua but that's easy enough - it doesn't need transparency or genie effects to make it MacOS X at all.
It currently runs pretty well on a G3 400MHz with no QE, which is similar to a lot of PocketPC devices. And remember we're talking 640x480 at most so theres no need for highend GPUs.
Binary compatibility is essential though, otherwise you launch with no apps.
If true, in any form, this will cause Bill Gates head to explode.
Is HP, or a third party, capable of writing a GUI interface on top of BSD? It wouldn't have to be nearly as complex as OS X, would it? Maybe Apple isn't involved except for compatiblity with OS X? How compatible would a Unix based hp-pac be with Windows?
That said, this rumor sounds kind of off the wall, but it would be worth seeing Bill Gates and Microsoft's reaction. I can see it now, Microsoft rep quoted as saying, "this is unbelievable, Microsoft is all about open standards and customer choices, this HP/Apple partnership represents a closed system,limiting customers choices, exactly like the ipod and the iMusic store!"
It currently runs pretty well on a G3 400MHz with no QE, which is similar to a lot of PocketPC devices. And remember we're talking 640x480 at most so theres no need for highend GPUs.
I agree, but Apple would have to shave A LOT from it's installation which in present form eats up 3 GBs och hard drive and eats at least 128 MB of RAM.
Slimming it down to lets say 32 MB in size and with similar RAM requirements would be a herculean feat. Something that would benefit the desktop too though.
I have no opinion on whether a MacOS X Lite will happen, but it is *very* interesting. If Microsoft can make a Windows lite, and Linux is going into handheld devices, then I see no reason Apple could not do this. It also gives Apple a new direction for its consumer oriented devices, like iPod and whatever is next.
Regarding the clone issue, OS X Lite is different because Apple will license it for a PDA, which Apple does not make. So these are sales of an OS that will not hurt sale of Apple hardware products. In fact, it will give Apple added product sales if Apple re-brands the HP device and sells it, the way HP re-brands the iPod.
Remember the iPod OS wasn't written by Apple, so only proves a willingness to license things.
An 'embeded' OS X lets Apple provide us with a Mac handheld without making one themselves, or making Jobs look like a liar.
Bring on the HP iMaq!
that's why it is impossible.
if Apple is so interested in embedding MacOSX into Consumer Electronics devices, why don't they start by putting OSX in iPod ? why do they have to waste money on licensing other third party OS ?
I agree, but Apple would have to shave A LOT from it's installation which in present form eats up 3 GBs och hard drive and eats at least 128 MB of RAM.
Slimming it down to lets say 32 MB in size and with similar RAM requirements would be a herculean feat. Something that would benefit the desktop too though.
While I agree they should, they actually don't need to. The 10GB iPod drive is now very cheap as is 256MB RAM. By losing Classic they can slim it down a lot. My 10.3 uses just 1.24GB for System and I'll wager the graphics used by Aqua use a lot.
if Apple is so interested in embedding MacOSX into Consumer Electronics devices, why don't they start by putting OSX in iPod ? why do they have to waste money on licensing other third party OS ?
iPod doesn't need to run OS X, it would be total overkill and cost more to re-engineer X for simple MP3 playing than buy a dedicated OS. It doesn't need video support, PCI, AGP, multi-user access, mice, etc etc...
I'd love to have OS X "full" on a handheld, it would be great, cos it's so easy to use with one mouse button so you wouldn't lose as much functionality as you do with windows tablets.
iPod doesn't need to run OS X, it would be total overkill and cost more to re-engineer X for simple MP3 playing than buy a dedicated OS. It doesn't need video support, PCI, AGP, multi-user access, mice, etc etc...
An iPod at the moment wouldn't but Apple are developing upgrades for the iPod to be released in April, these will distinguish between the minis and the new technology 802.15.3? or something, it won't be a PDA but a digital hub! Very exciting stuff.
. . . if Apple is so interested in embedding MacOSX into Consumer Electronics devices, why don't they start by putting OSX in iPod ? why do they have to waste money on licensing other third party OS ?
I'd like to comment on this too. Apple was working on an OS for iPod, but it became clear that iPod hardware would be ready far earlier than the OS. Apple licensed an OS so iPod could get to market quickly. Apple's license is minimal, good for the iPod and one other device. That second license may be more insurance than for a specific product. Back then, if Steve saw small consumer devices in Apple's future, it would make sense to continue working on an Apple OS for these devices.
Comments
Originally posted by musicaltone
I dont see how a French rumour site is going to be particularly reliable given that Apple are a US company.
Apple's HQ in Europe is in Paris. There's a lot of folks working there that's in the know.
An OS X 'Lite' to fuel HP's expansion into consumer gadjet electronics. 'X' is just the OS.
HP become the Intel of Apple's Microsoft.
And thus...could a new 'Wintopoly' be in the making?
Return of the King?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Intriguing speculation...
Anyone got a translation of that, nothing on Babelfish will touch it!?
Is there any market like that that might welcome the goodness of OSX without much of the windows-seperation anxiety that both consumers and potential 3rd party manufacturers often feel?
It's not like everybody wants to be on windows. How many server companies have wanted to build linux based boxen, if only to eek out that last bit of profit, or perhaps, for the sake of corporate ideology -- a la IBM, who will sell you any thing you want, but worries about Microshaft dominance?
Ironically, the switch could come from the other end. I see two markets, both just not quite there yet -- tablets and set-top boxes. Tablets, because if they're the right size and weight, they'll be somewhere between a palm and a small laptop. People already use PalmOS, LinuxDA, and WinCE (or whatever they call it now) the point is that none of it is Windows, not even the Microsoft stuff. You don't have to overcome seperation anxiety. A certain large percentage will always only buy windows, but a receptive audience lurks within that demographic.
The same is true of set-top boxes. XBox and PS2 are getting very close to being set-top boxes. While they're good at gaming, they suck at everything else. Why? Like WebTV, they're limited by the crappy res of standard def TV. Tivo and digital cable are other limited forms of single task set-top boxen. They can be combined, they will be, and they can be made ever more affordable... when HDTV hits?
Look out, the set-top box will truly come into it's own. True surfing from the couch. The first 1920x1080 PROGRESSIVE plasma display has been released by Samsung. Expect LCD, CRT, projection, and whatever other tech versions to follow in the next two years. That's real useable resolution. Enough for detailed web pages, documents, multi palette software, you name it. Whiel the set top won't typically get used that way, the point of all this is that your TV will finally make a good monitor, it won't look like crap. That's some room for a company to slide into a market comfortable with the idea of using Xbox, Tivo, PS2 or "proprietary" and "non-standard" OS. Again, a certain large percentage will immediately identify this machine as a traditional "computer" and probably only accept a "standard" (ie Windows, I know, I know...) but there is that room again.
Imagine entering this market with a machine that gives little reason to consider anything else: it hooks into your TV, serves a whole whack of multimedia content and operations, and it comes with some really cool software that lets you manage your "iLife"
A future is coming when the platform will not matter as much. The battle for the home wil be fought again, when technology and price allows. That may not be for another 5-7 years, but the time is coming. A few of the right partners, with the right strengths and reach, they could prove indispensible when that happens.
Apple may never see 10%+ again, but "the mac" just might.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Intriguing speculation on the HP partnership with Apple.
An OS X 'Lite' to fuel HP's expansion into consumer gadjet electronics. 'X' is just the OS.
HP become the Intel of Apple's Microsoft.
And thus...could a new 'Wintopoly' be in the making?
Return of the King?
Lemon Bon Bon
not even apple uses MacOS X on iPod (or any non computer devices) what makes you think Apple will let HP use it.
yeah it does sound very exciting / interesting, but pretty much impossible.
Originally posted by ihxo
not even apple uses MacOS X on iPod (or any non computer devices) what makes you think Apple will let HP use it.
yeah it does sound very exciting / interesting, but pretty much impossible.
Why impossible?
Remember the iPod OS wasn't written by Apple, so only proves a willingness to license things.
An 'embeded' OS X lets Apple provide us with a Mac handheld without making one themselves, or making Jobs look like a liar.
Bring on the HP iMaq!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Is Apple going back to the extremely unsuccessful Mac clones? And Apple will develop a PDA (if they do) themselves. I don't even know why they teamed up with HP, maybe Steve wanted help with something else (not just WMA)? Ummm... def somethign going on
Clones would be bad, but non-Macintosh products clearly branded could bring new users to the Mac.
Apple has repeatedly said no Apple PDA despite obvious pent-up demand. So let HP feed that demand producing iMaqs which work well with Windows but work GREAT with Macs - and of course can run Mac software written in XCode, RB or Revolution.
It could be a win win situation.
Yeah, in some 5 years we can have a Gn+1 @ 5GHz sit inside a handheld. And even then I can't imagine my grandmother running top to find out the PID of frozen netinfod.
Originally posted by costique
I have a message for those who want Mac OS X lite on a handheld: RELAX. What is Mac OS X lite in your understanding? Multiuser support, pre-emptive multitasking, a complicated window manager, an Aqua/brushed metal UI are surely overkill for a handheld. And these OS components make Mac OS X what we call Mac OS X. It is much easier to write a new OS from scratch, an OS which would be, say, binary-compatible with OS X (though I don't see any sense in binary compatibility).
Yeah, in some 5 years we can have a Gn+1 @ 5GHz sit inside a handheld. And even then I can't imagine my grandmother running top to find out the PID of frozen netinfod.
Personally, I want MacOS X *full* on my handheld. It's just Unix, and Linux handhelds work fine. I agree it would need a lighter Aqua but that's easy enough - it doesn't need transparency or genie effects to make it MacOS X at all.
It currently runs pretty well on a G3 400MHz with no QE, which is similar to a lot of PocketPC devices. And remember we're talking 640x480 at most so theres no need for highend GPUs.
Binary compatibility is essential though, otherwise you launch with no apps.
Is HP, or a third party, capable of writing a GUI interface on top of BSD? It wouldn't have to be nearly as complex as OS X, would it? Maybe Apple isn't involved except for compatiblity with OS X? How compatible would a Unix based hp-pac be with Windows?
That said, this rumor sounds kind of off the wall, but it would be worth seeing Bill Gates and Microsoft's reaction. I can see it now, Microsoft rep quoted as saying, "this is unbelievable, Microsoft is all about open standards and customer choices, this HP/Apple partnership represents a closed system,limiting customers choices, exactly like the ipod and the iMusic store!"
Originally posted by Blackcat
It currently runs pretty well on a G3 400MHz with no QE, which is similar to a lot of PocketPC devices. And remember we're talking 640x480 at most so theres no need for highend GPUs.
I agree, but Apple would have to shave A LOT from it's installation which in present form eats up 3 GBs och hard drive and eats at least 128 MB of RAM.
Slimming it down to lets say 32 MB in size and with similar RAM requirements would be a herculean feat. Something that would benefit the desktop too though.
Regarding the clone issue, OS X Lite is different because Apple will license it for a PDA, which Apple does not make. So these are sales of an OS that will not hurt sale of Apple hardware products. In fact, it will give Apple added product sales if Apple re-brands the HP device and sells it, the way HP re-brands the iPod.
Originally posted by Blackcat
Why impossible?
Remember the iPod OS wasn't written by Apple, so only proves a willingness to license things.
An 'embeded' OS X lets Apple provide us with a Mac handheld without making one themselves, or making Jobs look like a liar.
Bring on the HP iMaq!
that's why it is impossible.
if Apple is so interested in embedding MacOSX into Consumer Electronics devices, why don't they start by putting OSX in iPod ? why do they have to waste money on licensing other third party OS ?
Originally posted by Henriok
I agree, but Apple would have to shave A LOT from it's installation which in present form eats up 3 GBs och hard drive and eats at least 128 MB of RAM.
Slimming it down to lets say 32 MB in size and with similar RAM requirements would be a herculean feat. Something that would benefit the desktop too though.
While I agree they should, they actually don't need to. The 10GB iPod drive is now very cheap as is 256MB RAM. By losing Classic they can slim it down a lot. My 10.3 uses just 1.24GB for System and I'll wager the graphics used by Aqua use a lot.
But yes, a diet would be good.
Originally posted by ihxo
that's why it is impossible.
if Apple is so interested in embedding MacOSX into Consumer Electronics devices, why don't they start by putting OSX in iPod ? why do they have to waste money on licensing other third party OS ?
iPod doesn't need to run OS X, it would be total overkill and cost more to re-engineer X for simple MP3 playing than buy a dedicated OS. It doesn't need video support, PCI, AGP, multi-user access, mice, etc etc...
Originally posted by Blackcat
iPod doesn't need to run OS X, it would be total overkill and cost more to re-engineer X for simple MP3 playing than buy a dedicated OS. It doesn't need video support, PCI, AGP, multi-user access, mice, etc etc...
An iPod at the moment wouldn't but Apple are developing upgrades for the iPod to be released in April, these will distinguish between the minis and the new technology 802.15.3? or something, it won't be a PDA but a digital hub! Very exciting stuff.
Originally posted by ihxo
. . . if Apple is so interested in embedding MacOSX into Consumer Electronics devices, why don't they start by putting OSX in iPod ? why do they have to waste money on licensing other third party OS ?
I'd like to comment on this too. Apple was working on an OS for iPod, but it became clear that iPod hardware would be ready far earlier than the OS. Apple licensed an OS so iPod could get to market quickly. Apple's license is minimal, good for the iPod and one other device. That second license may be more insurance than for a specific product. Back then, if Steve saw small consumer devices in Apple's future, it would make sense to continue working on an Apple OS for these devices.