I'm just wondering if anyone knows whether or not marklar will run on standard x86 PCs out of the box, or will it require a special???? mobo.
It seems unlikely, but I don't see why they wouldn't (aside from profit on hardware).
Apple's Phil Schiller has stated that Mac OS X will NOT run on any x86 PC but you could run Windows on the Intel-Mac if you wanted to and they were not going to prohibit anyone from doing so.
Apple's Phil Schiller has stated that Mac OS X will NOT run on any x86 PC but you could run Windows on the Intel-Mac if you wanted to and they were not going to prohibit anyone from doing so.
MacOS X should be able to boot any computer that can boot from Darwin. It makes no sense to have two separate builds of Darwin for Apple and non-Apple Intel-based computers. I think it no coincidence that just a few weeks prior to Apple's announced switch to Intel, Apple leaked that several other Intel-based computer manufacturers have been strongly lobbying it for access to MacOS X. I find Phil Schiller's statement denial that MacOS X will run on non-Apple computers interesting, but I don't think it is the final word.
I find Phil Schiller's statement denial that MacOS X will run on non-Apple computers interesting, but I don't think it is the final word.
Well you continue to believe that if you want but conventional wisdom states that Apple cannot fund their company properly by selling OSX for use on all computers. When a VP of Apple says "you have to run OSX Intel on Macs" I tend to take that as fact.
MacOS X should be able to boot any computer that can boot from Darwin. It makes no sense to have two separate builds of Darwin for Apple and non-Apple Intel-based computers.
The lock is obviously not in Darwin, and I don't think the Mac OS X Intel Darwin will be any different than the x86 Darwin.
Well you continue to believe that if you want but conventional wisdom states that Apple cannot fund their company properly by selling OSX for use on all computers. When a VP of Apple says "you have to run OSX Intel on Macs" I tend to take that as fact.
Well, maybe Jobs has changed his mind on licensing. Apple could license the OS to other Manufacturers and still prevent general installation on generic PC's. While, historically, Jobs has been averse to licensing, aftre this week, anything is possible.
If he doesn't license, he may see the hardware sales evaporate anyway, much as the IBM did in the 80's. Licensing would take anyway some of the incentive of reverse engineering of Apple specific hardware/software/firmware required for OSX
Well you continue to believe that if you want but conventional wisdom states that Apple cannot fund their company properly by selling OSX for use on all computers.
Have you heard about a very large company called Microsoft? They have been extremely successful doing exactly what you say Apple cannot afford to do. Conventional wisdom is worthless.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
When a VP of Apple says "you have to run OSX Intel on Macs" I tend to take that as fact.
Really? I tend to take it as the current bussiness plan, subject to change at any moment without warning and for any reason.
This discussion reminds me of college, reading about Herman Kahn's ladder of escalation on the way to nuclear war. One side argues "Thinking the unthinkable" is bad because it makes the unthinkable likely, the other argues that "thinking the unthinkable" is necessary for deterrence.
Yes, Apple today is one step closer to competing head-to-head against Microsoft in the generic PC space. But it hasn't happened yet, and there are good reasons for both Apple and Microsoft not to take the next steps up the escalation ladder.
For Apple, it makes too much money from hardware, and besides IMHO Apple likes being able to innovate at its own pace, in its own space. For Microsoft, it makes money from MacOffice, and Apple's continued independent existence has some real advantages, as an anti-trust defense and as a de facto R & D lab.
We won't know whether Mac x86 changes the fundamental balance of power on the desktop until we know if Apple can successfully prevent OS X/x86 from migrating onto generic PC hardware. If Apple can successfully defend its unique hardware space, then OS X/x86 doesn't change the status quo that much. Apple gets its niche, continuing to reap profits from unique hardware, and Microsoft gets to dominate the rest of the PC ecosystem.
If Apple can't defend its unique hardware space, its current business model is destroyed and it would be compelled to release OS X for generic PC's to maximize revenue. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has a group of employees working on this possibility, as a back-up strategy if hardware sales crash.
We will never see anything like XPostFacto for generic PC's, for example. To defend its unique hardware space, Apple is going to have to go after anyone that makes it too easy to put OS X/x86 on generic PCs - you'll see lots of Apple DMCA lawsuits to try and keep the genie in the bottle.
Bottom line - we're a step closer to the ultimate OS battle, but such a battle is still against the fundamental interests of both players. Apple and Microsoft have less margin for error now, but as long as they play it cool everything should remain pretty much the same.
Have you heard about a very large company called Microsoft? They have been extremely successful doing exactly what you say Apple cannot afford to do. Conventional wisdom is worthless
Of course I know Microsoft....."I invented it"<algore voice>
The problem with comparing Apple's licensing to Microsofts is.
1. Microsoft doesn't rely on hardware sales to subsidize software development.
2. The extremely vast market for X86 PC allows Microsoft to make pentajillions of dollars Licensing the OS for what is probably around $40 a computer.
Apple's reality is different. They tried cloning and licensing at Microsoft pricing and almost died. They don't have the economies of scale to license OS X cheap enough to Sony or HP and still hope to survive.
Apple licensing OS X means product activation or at the least serial numbers. Mac users need to look at the benefits that we have in this regard before we longingly look at that Sony Vaio and dream of running OS X on it. It is this holistic view about licensing that is missed by many.
Quote:
Really? I tend to take it as the current bussiness plan, subject to change at any moment without warning and for any reason.
True. And I'm not ruling that out either but giving the points above how does Apple make money this way. Yes opening OS X does generate more sales but it also generates more support calls and the need for staffing. It's a double edged razor sharp ceramic sword here.
Apple's reality is different. They tried cloning and licensing at Microsoft pricing and almost died.
I don't think one can draw useful conclusions from that experiment. First of all, Apple hardware engineers were having a tough time keeping up with the clone hardware makers. I remember the clone makers releasing faster CPU models before Apple did on a regular basis. Secondly, Apple only licensed the OS to Mac clone makers, which represented a tiny percentage of all personal computers being sold back then.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple licensing OS X means product activation or at the least serial numbers.
I agree with that.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yes opening OS X does generate more sales but it also generates more support calls and the need for staffing. It's a double edged razor sharp ceramic sword here.
Again I point to Microsoft. They have proven that revenue from additional OS sales exceed the cost of additional technical support. If that wasn't the case then Microsoft would be trying to reduce OS sales instead of incresing them, wouldn't you think?
If OSX86 could capture 40% market share, wouldn't that vastly exceed the hardware revenues Apple has today? And if OSX is as good as we all claim it to be, why would it not be able to do at least that well in the X86 world?
The move to X86 may involve a couple of factors. One may be DRM... but save that for another time.
They could be setting the table.
I think it's inevitable that a dedicated group will be able to bring OSX to 3rd party HW by some means of emulation, and that Apple will fight some sort of legal battle to stop it.
Depending on how it's down, they may succeed, they may not...
But in the mean time they continue to roll out their products and strategy. Apple has gotten used to fat margins, but they have perhaps been more dependent on them in the past, less enticing software to sell, no iPods, no music store... As their competency and breadth increases in these other areas, and attracts more revenue, direct computer profits may be less important, especially if they are forced to compete on price...
There is some potenial to get back up to the +10% of the market when you add up all the things Apple is doing. Intel does nothing more than make sure the part supply is abundant and reliable.
Don't expect cost pressures to abate. Computers will get cheaper, and the day may come when Apple can make more money selling a copy of OSXI than they do selling a low end machine with a copy loaded on "for free" ...
I don't think one can draw useful conclusions from that experiment. First of all, Apple hardware engineers were having a tough time keeping up with the clone hardware makers. I remember the clone makers releasing faster CPU models before Apple did on a regular basis
There's a couple reason for that. Apple did a lion's share of the asic and motherboard designs. Powercomputing, Supermax and Motorola were able to modify the generic motherboards to meet their needs. Since neither clone manufacturer sold in huge numbers comparitively speaking they could ship a higher Mhz processor because their needs for quantity were smaller than Apple. That is incorrect about licensing. Apple not only licensed the OS but they also licensed the asics and other motherboard stuff. They did so at a price that was unsustainable as well hence Steve's return and promptly calling the cloners "leaches". If you doubt me try and find some R&D figures for ANY of the cloners back in the day. They gave nothing back to the platform. I'm glad they're gone honestly.
Of OSX could obtain a much higher marketshare then licensing becomes feasible. I agree with that but Apple will be much smarter the next go'round.
Give me a break, if Apple began selling OS X for generic x86 boxes, it would start a WAR between them and Microsoft. Microsoft has enough resources to buy Apple several times over, so I don't such a war would be a wise move for Apple. History shows us that Microsoft wins market wars not by innovating or creating, but by bullying and stealing. Such a war would destroy Apple; even if Apple won, they wouldn't be recognizable to us anymore because they would have to play down at Microsoft's level to win.
No, Apple will be content to let hackers get OS X running on their home built PCs, and generate a buzz around OS X among the more subversive elements of the computer world. Apple will offer OS X for generic x86 boxes when the market is clamoring for the move and war against Microsoft is already won. Think of this move to Intel as the beginning of the Apple insurgency against Microsoft (and prey that Bushco do not label Apple as a "terrorist company" that "hates freedom and loves terror".)
I used to think that too until Microsoft gave me a book showing their software portfolio. It's far deeper than Mac users give them credit for. Apple would sooner march on and take Mordor before toppling the Redmond 3200lb Gorilla.
Of course I know Microsoft....."I invented it"<algore voice>
I don?t know whether its ignorance, sarcasm, or embracing a good lie but the constant ?Al Gore invented the internet? references have gotten really tired. I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply but the original quote that was perverted into ?I invented the internet? by Dick Army was from a 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer.
?During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.?
Yes, Gore should have said, ?funding the creation? instead of creating but he certainly never claimed to invent anything.
Some other quotes:
Vincent Cerf, Senior VP, MCI Worldcom: "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
Newt Gingrich: ?Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.?
David Maraniss: ?Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ?70s.?
Sadly, ?never letting the truth get in the way of a good lie? has moved from humorous adage to political philosophy.
Thanks. I just get a kick out of that line but I'm glad that I know the history behind it. I have no problems with Al Gore. Thanks...didn't meant to inject politics into this discussion. All the best.
Thanks. I just get a kick out of that line but I'm glad that I know the history behind it.
No Problem, and I didn't mean to single you out. It's just amazed (and obviously annoyed) me how a lie made up as part of a political campaign has made its way into the lexicon.
Based on your early replies to the "Jobs worst business decison" thread I think that you are one who can empathize with stong feelings on a subject.
Comments
And I'm pretty sure it won't run on non-Apple machines.
Originally posted by slughead
I'm just wondering if anyone knows whether or not marklar will run on standard x86 PCs out of the box, or will it require a special???? mobo.
It seems unlikely, but I don't see why they wouldn't (aside from profit on hardware).
Apple's Phil Schiller has stated that Mac OS X will NOT run on any x86 PC but you could run Windows on the Intel-Mac if you wanted to and they were not going to prohibit anyone from doing so.
Originally posted by spyder
Why not call it 10.5?
Because when the first Intel based Macs are released, we will still be on 10.4.x
Is mr jobs building a 4th reich?
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Apple's Phil Schiller has stated that Mac OS X will NOT run on any x86 PC but you could run Windows on the Intel-Mac if you wanted to and they were not going to prohibit anyone from doing so.
MacOS X should be able to boot any computer that can boot from Darwin. It makes no sense to have two separate builds of Darwin for Apple and non-Apple Intel-based computers. I think it no coincidence that just a few weeks prior to Apple's announced switch to Intel, Apple leaked that several other Intel-based computer manufacturers have been strongly lobbying it for access to MacOS X. I find Phil Schiller's statement denial that MacOS X will run on non-Apple computers interesting, but I don't think it is the final word.
I find Phil Schiller's statement denial that MacOS X will run on non-Apple computers interesting, but I don't think it is the final word.
Well you continue to believe that if you want but conventional wisdom states that Apple cannot fund their company properly by selling OSX for use on all computers. When a VP of Apple says "you have to run OSX Intel on Macs" I tend to take that as fact.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
MacOS X should be able to boot any computer that can boot from Darwin. It makes no sense to have two separate builds of Darwin for Apple and non-Apple Intel-based computers.
The lock is obviously not in Darwin, and I don't think the Mac OS X Intel Darwin will be any different than the x86 Darwin.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Well you continue to believe that if you want but conventional wisdom states that Apple cannot fund their company properly by selling OSX for use on all computers. When a VP of Apple says "you have to run OSX Intel on Macs" I tend to take that as fact.
Well, maybe Jobs has changed his mind on licensing. Apple could license the OS to other Manufacturers and still prevent general installation on generic PC's. While, historically, Jobs has been averse to licensing, aftre this week, anything is possible.
If he doesn't license, he may see the hardware sales evaporate anyway, much as the IBM did in the 80's. Licensing would take anyway some of the incentive of reverse engineering of Apple specific hardware/software/firmware required for OSX
A mac "emulator" running on essentially the same architecture, would have a very minimal performance hit...
Maybe a linux version of "VirtualMac"?
hmmm...
Originally posted by hmurchison
Well you continue to believe that if you want but conventional wisdom states that Apple cannot fund their company properly by selling OSX for use on all computers.
Have you heard about a very large company called Microsoft? They have been extremely successful doing exactly what you say Apple cannot afford to do. Conventional wisdom is worthless.
Originally posted by hmurchison
When a VP of Apple says "you have to run OSX Intel on Macs" I tend to take that as fact.
Really? I tend to take it as the current bussiness plan, subject to change at any moment without warning and for any reason.
Yes, Apple today is one step closer to competing head-to-head against Microsoft in the generic PC space. But it hasn't happened yet, and there are good reasons for both Apple and Microsoft not to take the next steps up the escalation ladder.
For Apple, it makes too much money from hardware, and besides IMHO Apple likes being able to innovate at its own pace, in its own space. For Microsoft, it makes money from MacOffice, and Apple's continued independent existence has some real advantages, as an anti-trust defense and as a de facto R & D lab.
We won't know whether Mac x86 changes the fundamental balance of power on the desktop until we know if Apple can successfully prevent OS X/x86 from migrating onto generic PC hardware. If Apple can successfully defend its unique hardware space, then OS X/x86 doesn't change the status quo that much. Apple gets its niche, continuing to reap profits from unique hardware, and Microsoft gets to dominate the rest of the PC ecosystem.
If Apple can't defend its unique hardware space, its current business model is destroyed and it would be compelled to release OS X for generic PC's to maximize revenue. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has a group of employees working on this possibility, as a back-up strategy if hardware sales crash.
We will never see anything like XPostFacto for generic PC's, for example. To defend its unique hardware space, Apple is going to have to go after anyone that makes it too easy to put OS X/x86 on generic PCs - you'll see lots of Apple DMCA lawsuits to try and keep the genie in the bottle.
Bottom line - we're a step closer to the ultimate OS battle, but such a battle is still against the fundamental interests of both players. Apple and Microsoft have less margin for error now, but as long as they play it cool everything should remain pretty much the same.
Have you heard about a very large company called Microsoft? They have been extremely successful doing exactly what you say Apple cannot afford to do. Conventional wisdom is worthless
Of course I know Microsoft....."I invented it"<algore voice>
The problem with comparing Apple's licensing to Microsofts is.
1. Microsoft doesn't rely on hardware sales to subsidize software development.
2. The extremely vast market for X86 PC allows Microsoft to make pentajillions of dollars Licensing the OS for what is probably around $40 a computer.
Apple's reality is different. They tried cloning and licensing at Microsoft pricing and almost died. They don't have the economies of scale to license OS X cheap enough to Sony or HP and still hope to survive.
Apple licensing OS X means product activation or at the least serial numbers. Mac users need to look at the benefits that we have in this regard before we longingly look at that Sony Vaio and dream of running OS X on it. It is this holistic view about licensing that is missed by many.
Really? I tend to take it as the current bussiness plan, subject to change at any moment without warning and for any reason.
True. And I'm not ruling that out either but giving the points above how does Apple make money this way. Yes opening OS X does generate more sales but it also generates more support calls and the need for staffing. It's a double edged razor sharp ceramic sword here.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple's reality is different. They tried cloning and licensing at Microsoft pricing and almost died.
I don't think one can draw useful conclusions from that experiment. First of all, Apple hardware engineers were having a tough time keeping up with the clone hardware makers. I remember the clone makers releasing faster CPU models before Apple did on a regular basis. Secondly, Apple only licensed the OS to Mac clone makers, which represented a tiny percentage of all personal computers being sold back then.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple licensing OS X means product activation or at the least serial numbers.
I agree with that.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yes opening OS X does generate more sales but it also generates more support calls and the need for staffing. It's a double edged razor sharp ceramic sword here.
Again I point to Microsoft. They have proven that revenue from additional OS sales exceed the cost of additional technical support. If that wasn't the case then Microsoft would be trying to reduce OS sales instead of incresing them, wouldn't you think?
If OSX86 could capture 40% market share, wouldn't that vastly exceed the hardware revenues Apple has today? And if OSX is as good as we all claim it to be, why would it not be able to do at least that well in the X86 world?
They could be setting the table.
I think it's inevitable that a dedicated group will be able to bring OSX to 3rd party HW by some means of emulation, and that Apple will fight some sort of legal battle to stop it.
Depending on how it's down, they may succeed, they may not...
But in the mean time they continue to roll out their products and strategy. Apple has gotten used to fat margins, but they have perhaps been more dependent on them in the past, less enticing software to sell, no iPods, no music store... As their competency and breadth increases in these other areas, and attracts more revenue, direct computer profits may be less important, especially if they are forced to compete on price...
There is some potenial to get back up to the +10% of the market when you add up all the things Apple is doing. Intel does nothing more than make sure the part supply is abundant and reliable.
Don't expect cost pressures to abate. Computers will get cheaper, and the day may come when Apple can make more money selling a copy of OSXI than they do selling a low end machine with a copy loaded on "for free" ...
I don't think one can draw useful conclusions from that experiment. First of all, Apple hardware engineers were having a tough time keeping up with the clone hardware makers. I remember the clone makers releasing faster CPU models before Apple did on a regular basis
There's a couple reason for that. Apple did a lion's share of the asic and motherboard designs. Powercomputing, Supermax and Motorola were able to modify the generic motherboards to meet their needs. Since neither clone manufacturer sold in huge numbers comparitively speaking they could ship a higher Mhz processor because their needs for quantity were smaller than Apple. That is incorrect about licensing. Apple not only licensed the OS but they also licensed the asics and other motherboard stuff. They did so at a price that was unsustainable as well hence Steve's return and promptly calling the cloners "leaches". If you doubt me try and find some R&D figures for ANY of the cloners back in the day. They gave nothing back to the platform. I'm glad they're gone honestly.
Of OSX could obtain a much higher marketshare then licensing becomes feasible. I agree with that but Apple will be much smarter the next go'round.
No, Apple will be content to let hackers get OS X running on their home built PCs, and generate a buzz around OS X among the more subversive elements of the computer world. Apple will offer OS X for generic x86 boxes when the market is clamoring for the move and war against Microsoft is already won. Think of this move to Intel as the beginning of the Apple insurgency against Microsoft (and prey that Bushco do not label Apple as a "terrorist company" that "hates freedom and loves terror".)
I used to think that too until Microsoft gave me a book showing their software portfolio. It's far deeper than Mac users give them credit for. Apple would sooner march on and take Mordor before toppling the Redmond 3200lb Gorilla.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Of course I know Microsoft....."I invented it"<algore voice>
I don?t know whether its ignorance, sarcasm, or embracing a good lie but the constant ?Al Gore invented the internet? references have gotten really tired. I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply but the original quote that was perverted into ?I invented the internet? by Dick Army was from a 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer.
?During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.?
Yes, Gore should have said, ?funding the creation? instead of creating but he certainly never claimed to invent anything.
Some other quotes:
Vincent Cerf, Senior VP, MCI Worldcom: "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
Newt Gingrich: ?Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.?
David Maraniss: ?Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ?70s.?
Sadly, ?never letting the truth get in the way of a good lie? has moved from humorous adage to political philosophy.
Thanks. I just get a kick out of that line but I'm glad that I know the history behind it. I have no problems with Al Gore. Thanks...didn't meant to inject politics into this discussion. All the best.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Thanks. I just get a kick out of that line but I'm glad that I know the history behind it.
No Problem, and I didn't mean to single you out. It's just amazed (and obviously annoyed) me how a lie made up as part of a political campaign has made its way into the lexicon.
Based on your early replies to the "Jobs worst business decison" thread I think that you are one who can empathize with stong feelings on a subject.