Some thoughts... (thoughtful Mac on x86 discussion)
(Admins, I know there are a bunch of mac+intel threads, but they're all bogged down in "Roxors!" vs. "Suxors!" level debates. So I'm trying to start a fresh one. But I leave it to you better judgment to merge it/ lock it/ whatever.)
OK. This caught me off-guard. I was on vacation and dealing with an insane father-in-law, and completely forgot that WWDC was this week.
So I got back last night and was kind of in shock. My first reaction was "Holy shite!!!!!"
Then came "Wow." And a blank stare.
My next reaction was "Ewwwwwwww!" followed by a "Hmmmmmmm..."
After sleeping on it and reading a lot of the angry & visceral anti-Intel stuff, as well as the completely gullible 180-degree "This is the best thing ever because Steve said so" posts, I think I can now start doing some actual thinking.
First question: why would Apple restrict the sale of its OS to Mac-only boxen? And why would it announce this at a Developer conference? Is there a real strategic business reason for doing this? I would imagine that announcing such a thing would only piss off the developers, because it keeps the cost of switching to OS X high. Can anyone think of another reason? I know there's the extremely obvious reason of Apple wanting to extort money out of hardware sales, but I honestly don't buy it. If their margins are 15-20% on hardware, that's one thing (say $80 on a mini). That's versus a--what?--98% margin on a box of OS X ($127).
I know of at least a dozen people that would pay full price for a copy of OS X to run on their x86 PCs, including some hardcore computer geeks.
The one thing I can really think of is that Apple wants to make the transition slow and steady. My guess is they want to work out the kinks on a relatively small and stable hardware subset. That way, they can say "Oh, OS X keeps crashing on your system worse than Windows did? That's because your system isn't supported. You have an unsupported motherboard and an unsupported audio card. Not our fault."
But slowly, they have to open up (or at least I hope they do). Remember, this is all new to them. Slowly, they'll build up a relationship with manufacturers, and some type of quality assurance program for driver quality and possibly even hardware reliability. Probably a logo program too: "Designed to work with Mac OS X" or something like that. It'll probably begin with PCI cards. Graphics, audio, etc. But it will probably move to motherboards and AMD processors pretty quickly after the transition is complete, say three years out (Spring 2008). (My guess is that Sony is the first liscensee.)
Why do I think this? If they don't open up, hackers will open it up for them.
OK. Now for some other thoughts. Is this a "Good Thing"(TM)? Well, after careful consideration, I'd have to say yes. IBM and Freescale have other fish to fry and other markets to pursue. Apple would just be a red-headed step-child, getting sloppy seconds (or thirds) after the console makers (IBM) and mobile phone makers (Freescale).
This is kind of like the failure of success. IBM uses Apple to show off its new digs and capabilities, IBM works out the kinks on Apple, and then IBM says "See what we can do!" Sony, Toshiba, MS, and Nintendo all say "Cool!" And sign contracts for about 300 million processors. Apple, chugging away at half a million a year, gets forgotten about.
Ugh...Gotta go... More later... Tawk amongst yuhselves...
OK. This caught me off-guard. I was on vacation and dealing with an insane father-in-law, and completely forgot that WWDC was this week.
So I got back last night and was kind of in shock. My first reaction was "Holy shite!!!!!"
Then came "Wow." And a blank stare.
My next reaction was "Ewwwwwwww!" followed by a "Hmmmmmmm..."
After sleeping on it and reading a lot of the angry & visceral anti-Intel stuff, as well as the completely gullible 180-degree "This is the best thing ever because Steve said so" posts, I think I can now start doing some actual thinking.
First question: why would Apple restrict the sale of its OS to Mac-only boxen? And why would it announce this at a Developer conference? Is there a real strategic business reason for doing this? I would imagine that announcing such a thing would only piss off the developers, because it keeps the cost of switching to OS X high. Can anyone think of another reason? I know there's the extremely obvious reason of Apple wanting to extort money out of hardware sales, but I honestly don't buy it. If their margins are 15-20% on hardware, that's one thing (say $80 on a mini). That's versus a--what?--98% margin on a box of OS X ($127).
I know of at least a dozen people that would pay full price for a copy of OS X to run on their x86 PCs, including some hardcore computer geeks.
The one thing I can really think of is that Apple wants to make the transition slow and steady. My guess is they want to work out the kinks on a relatively small and stable hardware subset. That way, they can say "Oh, OS X keeps crashing on your system worse than Windows did? That's because your system isn't supported. You have an unsupported motherboard and an unsupported audio card. Not our fault."
But slowly, they have to open up (or at least I hope they do). Remember, this is all new to them. Slowly, they'll build up a relationship with manufacturers, and some type of quality assurance program for driver quality and possibly even hardware reliability. Probably a logo program too: "Designed to work with Mac OS X" or something like that. It'll probably begin with PCI cards. Graphics, audio, etc. But it will probably move to motherboards and AMD processors pretty quickly after the transition is complete, say three years out (Spring 2008). (My guess is that Sony is the first liscensee.)
Why do I think this? If they don't open up, hackers will open it up for them.
OK. Now for some other thoughts. Is this a "Good Thing"(TM)? Well, after careful consideration, I'd have to say yes. IBM and Freescale have other fish to fry and other markets to pursue. Apple would just be a red-headed step-child, getting sloppy seconds (or thirds) after the console makers (IBM) and mobile phone makers (Freescale).
This is kind of like the failure of success. IBM uses Apple to show off its new digs and capabilities, IBM works out the kinks on Apple, and then IBM says "See what we can do!" Sony, Toshiba, MS, and Nintendo all say "Cool!" And sign contracts for about 300 million processors. Apple, chugging away at half a million a year, gets forgotten about.
Ugh...Gotta go... More later... Tawk amongst yuhselves...
Comments
And why would it announce this at a Developer conference? Is there a real strategic business reason for doing this?
They're trying to give evelopers who've already written apps for OS X a 1 year head start with the transition, instead of blindsiding them with new hardware, for once. This was a very astute move that I'm sure most devs appreciated. If they can take care of this transition seamlessy within most developer's standard software upgrade cycle, then the whole transition will be better for everyone involved.
Windows may run on Mac hardware, but probably not without some effort.
Apple is only switching CPU suppliers, they are not starting a war with Microsoft.
Originally posted by DCQ
First question: why would Apple restrict the sale of its OS to Mac-only boxen? And why would it announce this at a Developer conference? Is there a real strategic business reason for doing this? ...
Well, if they have any future or current intention of allowing OSX to run on any Intel box, it would have truely been suicide to announce it now. It's one thing to contemplate the wisdom of buying a PPC at this time, but imagine if they announced OSX would run on ANY PC? Sales of Macs wouldn't just languish, they would DIE.
I have not completely discounted the idea that they may allow OSX on any Intel box, either directly or indirectly (by not stopping hacks). If this is their plan, we will not know about it until Apple has completely phased out the PPC Mac.
On the other hand, I, and many others, use their Macs for real paying work and as such, realize that computers are just a tool. But I think part of what makes Apple, is wanting to be more than just a computer or just an OS but to be something truly desirable and different. That would be hard to maintain without the whole widget.
Thats what I think of this combo.
It's not rare though.
It's less common in hierarchically-structured forums where we can have/ignore sub-threads.
I hate 'flat' message boards, they don't reflect the way people correspond in the real world.
The real trouble for Apple is going to be in their 3rd party developer community. Windows software is going to be able to run in a VirtualPC-style environment at full speed. Apple won't provide this, but somebody will -- probably Microsoft. If a developer can have their software run on the Mac without doing any work at all, why would they do extra work?
I think Apple realizes this. That's why Xcode comes free with every Mac. That's why they are investing in technologies to make a developer's life easier (Cocoa, CoreData, CoreImage, etc). If they are smart they'll continue to focus on making the Mac the best development environment they possibly can so that developers not only develop for the Mac, but salivate at the thought of it. If they don't the whole Mac eco-system is going to shrivel up and die over the next 5 years or so.
Originally posted by Programmer
..That's why they are investing in technologies to make a developer's life easier (Cocoa, CoreData, CoreImage, etc). .... If they don't the whole Mac eco-system is going to shrivel up and die over the next 5 years or so.
I'm guessing these technolgies don't just make the platform fun to develop for but also help create a Mac ecosystem. I'm thinking many new or small developers will use these tools to build Apps they couldn't build on the dark side. thus, they will be Mac only developers. My guess is that the big guys (Adobe et al.) may not use these tools to any great extent and muscle their way around them. I'm saying this because I imagine that the legacy code as well as the task of keeping Wintel and Mactel versions in lock step will keep them away from OSX specific programming tools.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong since I freely admit to knowing nothing about programming.
Currently Adobe makes a Mac version and a windows version of its software. You dont get them both on the same disk anymore, you either get the mac version or the windows version.
If I am purchasing for a mixed platform environment... why wouldn't I go with windows versions of everything. The windows versions will run fine on my macs and in a contingency i.e. a mac goes down, I can have it up and running on a windows box while the mac is being repaired.
This is only a conundrum for companies and individuals purchasing software from a publisher that currently supports two versions of their product. It will make sense after the switch to x86 to go with the windows version and have it run with Virtual PC or wine, whichever fits the bill, and have that flexibility in your office.
Simple as that.
Apple will still be Apple, wiht their Apple products, and Microsoft/PC will still be what they are, with their products.
everyone needs to calm down.