If that happened it would be stupid - why buy a Mac to run Windows?
You don't buy a Mac to run Windows. But having the possibility to run Windows, you always have a fallback plan when you run into software issues. Developers will take notice. The software development for the Intel-Macintosh platform will be in serious trouble. Then comes the trouble for the OS itself. Who will want to run this GREAT OS when the available applications will be more and more limited? Seems familiar...
You have too much faith in the mean user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?
Where are all those GREAT systems of the past? What? To the grave? Right. Guess where OS X will be once Apple makes Windows installation on an Intel-Mac completely painless.
Applications, same as anyone else around here. If I need an application to do my job then I will use it. I may not prefer Windows but I will use it if I need to, I use the Mac because I want to. I really don't see why Apple would make installing Windows easy, in fact they will work to make it impossible. They have a chance to be playing in the same pool as Dell, why would they screw that up? Apple will first use any and all resource savings to make themselves better competition for the hardware sellers. OSX is already better than Windows, and Leopard is coming. Apple would first work with developers to port their products to OSX and will have a compelling reason for them to do that. If the difference is the OS why would Apple invite competition on their own machines?? Makes no sense. If someone put a gun to Steves' head, then maybe but until then Apple will continue to woo those developers that they think they need to the Mac. Remember Apple was growing at 40% the rest at 7%, Apple will be able to offer more compelling products, not have to educate the masses about the advantages of PPC, and may be able to reduce pricing. I know that parts out of the gate are priced the same, but the total cost is reduced rapidly on the PC side due to economies of scale. All of the parts have fallen into place at the right time. Apple is now moving to extend that 40% number, and that may compel more developers to port their products. The hardware is the only thing that is going to change.
You don't buy a Mac to run Windows. But having the possibility to run Windows, you always have a fallback plan when you run into software issues. Developers will take notice. The software development for the Intel-Macintosh platform will be in serious trouble. Then comes the trouble for the OS itself. Who will want to run this GREAT OS when the available applications will be more and more limited? Seems familiar...
Developers wont abandon the Mac platform because you can run Windows on your Mac. The majority switch to get away from Windows - not to run two OSs.
The funny thing is, why would a company that already has a code base up and running on PPC ditch it if they have, say, 1 month (worse case scenario) of tweaking to recompile for x86? Abandoning 2-15 years of support and working code over the frustration of 1 month of tweaking and recompile is a bit silly. I don't think any company would do this.
The only companies that might slip out are those that have code that makes heavy use of Altivec. That'll be a shame, but I'd understand why. They'd pretty much have to rewrite huge portions of their code. Still, I'd be surprised if they just abandoned everything.
If someone is worried, on the other hand, that companies that have never ported their program to Macs won't, then nothing has changed. You still won't get that PC program and everything will remain the same...with the exception that you will be able to run it under Windows XP on your Mac. Will the company in question know you bought the app for your Mac to run it under XP? Nope.
If someone is worried, on the other hand, that companies that have never ported their program to Macs won't, then nothing has changed. You still won't get that PC program and everything will remain the same...with the exception that you will be able to run it under Windows XP on your Mac. Will the company in question know you bought the app for your Mac to run it under XP? Nope.
You're right but I doubt many users will want to run two OSs. I could be wrong - I have been before!
You have too much faith in the average user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?
Where are all those GREAT systems of the past? What? To the grave? Right. Guess where OS X will be once Apple makes Windows installation on an Intel-Mac completely painless.
You are completely mis-reading the situation. NeXT, BeOS and OS2 were never mainstream systems that you could buy in the high street. They had neither the public mind-share nor the breadth of applications that Apple has today. Apple is an established company that's not going anywhare. Whether people use its products or not everybody knows the name and is aware of the brand values. This move will make it easier in the future for developers to port to OS X and we will actually see an increase in applications for the Mac (including all those stupid "Design your own Garden" programs). The move to Intel also removes another reason for Joe Fuckwit not to buy a Mac.
I can't wait to see the first review comparison between the top Dell, Acer or Alienbrain laptop and the top Mac laptop. They will be the same price, they will have the same processor, but the Mac will be better designed, easier to use, provide integrated access to all the clever dodads on the motherboard and may even be slightly faster due to OS X optimisations. It will also come with a slew of class-leading applications, and get this; it'll run Windows anyway! It's a complete no-brainer buying decision and I serioulsy expect to see Apple marketshare gains over the next five years.
Mac sales will tank for the next year, no doubt about it, but the campany is in the best position it has ever been to survive this period. There will be a stream of music and home entertainment products to keep the momentum going.
At a market inflexion point, which this move represents, buying behaviour is not linear, it tips one way or the other. For NeXT, BeOS and OS2 it slid down the wrong side of the probability slope. Apple have clearly made the calculation that for them it will tip the other way and I have to agree with them.
me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.
me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.
Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.
Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
Lower Margins on hardware? yes.
Software - No.
.Mac - No
OSX updates - No
iPod - No
iTunes and later iMovie - No
Currently Apple invests huge dollars designing and paying for fabbing of the Apple chip. MB design can be a huge investment. Bridge chips can cost big dollars as well especially when the economies of scale are barely applied. My guess is that Apple can lower margins, on hardware and still apply big savings. It is the software, Apple is becoming a software company, in that they no longer need to redesign themselves around an entire industry. MBs and support chips are off the shelf on the PC side where Apple had to design these before. The difference between Apple and Dell is volume and software. It would be very difficult for Dell to catch Apple in software. Apple stands to make more money through market expansion and software than any of the other hardware vendors.
Currently Apple invests huge dollars designing and paying for fabbing of the Apple chip. MB design can be a huge investment. Bridge chips can cost big dollars as well especially when the economies of scale are barely applied. My guess is that Apple can lower margins, on hardware and still apply big savings. It is the software, Apple is becoming a software company, in that they no longer need to redesign themselves around an entire industry. MBs and support chips are off the shelf on the PC side where Apple had to design these before. The difference between Apple and Dell is volume and software. It would be very difficult for Dell to catch Apple in software. Apple stands to make more money through market expansion and software than any of the other hardware vendors.
Apple aren't becoming a software company. They have always made software for the Mac. Secondly I don't see Apple giving up it's margins - they even have the highest margins in the MP3 market on the iPod.
It is interesting some of the coments heard about performance. Since I'm not up to speed on what was implemented in the test systems I have to ask did they have SMT working?
SMT could account for some of the snappynest being talked about on all the MAC forums I've seen lately. The other consideration of course is the far superior intel integer performance. SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.
All in all I'm still not happy about the transition, but that is what Linux is for.
me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.
If you compare prices today at the same levels of functionality and build quality Mac are competetive and have been for a good three years or so. This situation can only improve with Intel components.
I can't wait for the whole PC/Mac argument to be turned on its head - "hey, macs run faster, with the same frickin' chip!". The Longhorn/Leopard bake off is going to be brilliant.
Can you tell I'm getting excited about this stuff?
I SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.
All in all I'm still not happy about the transition, but that is what Linux is for.
Dave
What on earth does that mean? Adobe CS for Linux? I don't think so. MS Office for Linux? I don't think so. Final Cut Pro for Linux? I don't think so. If anything the Mactel move gves the Linux movement a severe kicking, especially considering the other Linux problems at this point in time.
Remember that Mactel portables won't be out for 18 months yet and they certainly won't be based on Centrino. Much more likely to be a variant of the dual-core Yonah.
OK which statement is the one that you are going to stick with.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
Later you said:
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple aren't becoming a software company. They have always made software for the Mac. Secondly I don't see Apple giving up it's margins - they even have the highest margins in the MP3 market on the iPod.
Well if Apple does not need to invest huge dollars into the MB design and Designing the support chips then they are becoming a software company that sells their own hardware. In other words, Apples' R&D dollars need only chase new applications of existing hardware. Will margins lower yes as a function of overall hardware cost lowering. 10% of $3000 is less than 10% of $2700. So Apple will still sell Apple hardware but the MB and the support chips and the CPU could be Intel, reducing Apples' costs. I imagine that Apple could see that growth chart and see that if IBM did not make Apple priority #1 than Apple may have hotter chips that are difficult to design around and still not get enough of a supply. By going to Intel they get cooler chips with great performance, lower costs (in many ways), and almost no supply issues. Apple will still be able to sell at lower costs and still offer more as far as software goes and still make more off of the sale due to things like software, and services. So lower prices for us, similar margins for Apple after the savings are applied, and no supply constraints. Apple and Intel will partner to bring to market all of the new technologies that Intel would like to bring to the market. A few examples are Bluetooth and 802.11x among others but these were things that Intel could see the value in but MS would not integrate them into their OS as rapidly as Intel would have liked. Now Intel can partner with Apple to show the masses how new technologies can benefit them, which could sway MS into following the Apple lead and that means bigger sales for Intel. Apple will get great pricing, the chairman of the board said so a few years back, I guess that still applies.
If you compare prices today at the same levels of functionality and build quality Mac are competetive and have been for a good three years or so. This situation can only improve with Intel components.
I can't wait for the whole PC/Mac argument to be turned on its head - "hey, macs run faster, with the same frickin' chip!". The Longhorn/Leopard bake off is going to be brilliant.
Can you tell I'm getting excited about this stuff?
What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.
What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.
Unix OSs tend to run faster, time will tell. Ask a few NeXTies, they are around here.
Comments
Originally posted by MacCrazy
If that happened it would be stupid - why buy a Mac to run Windows?
You don't buy a Mac to run Windows. But having the possibility to run Windows, you always have a fallback plan when you run into software issues. Developers will take notice. The software development for the Intel-Macintosh platform will be in serious trouble. Then comes the trouble for the OS itself. Who will want to run this GREAT OS when the available applications will be more and more limited? Seems familiar...
Originally posted by Rolo
You can see the innards here:
PowerPage
Small enough to drop that whole thing right into my MDD case
Originally posted by PB
You have too much faith in the mean user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?
Where are all those GREAT systems of the past? What? To the grave? Right. Guess where OS X will be once Apple makes Windows installation on an Intel-Mac completely painless.
Applications, same as anyone else around here. If I need an application to do my job then I will use it. I may not prefer Windows but I will use it if I need to, I use the Mac because I want to. I really don't see why Apple would make installing Windows easy, in fact they will work to make it impossible. They have a chance to be playing in the same pool as Dell, why would they screw that up? Apple will first use any and all resource savings to make themselves better competition for the hardware sellers. OSX is already better than Windows, and Leopard is coming. Apple would first work with developers to port their products to OSX and will have a compelling reason for them to do that. If the difference is the OS why would Apple invite competition on their own machines?? Makes no sense. If someone put a gun to Steves' head, then maybe but until then Apple will continue to woo those developers that they think they need to the Mac. Remember Apple was growing at 40% the rest at 7%, Apple will be able to offer more compelling products, not have to educate the masses about the advantages of PPC, and may be able to reduce pricing. I know that parts out of the gate are priced the same, but the total cost is reduced rapidly on the PC side due to economies of scale. All of the parts have fallen into place at the right time. Apple is now moving to extend that 40% number, and that may compel more developers to port their products. The hardware is the only thing that is going to change.
Originally posted by PB
You don't buy a Mac to run Windows. But having the possibility to run Windows, you always have a fallback plan when you run into software issues. Developers will take notice. The software development for the Intel-Macintosh platform will be in serious trouble. Then comes the trouble for the OS itself. Who will want to run this GREAT OS when the available applications will be more and more limited? Seems familiar...
Developers wont abandon the Mac platform because you can run Windows on your Mac. The majority switch to get away from Windows - not to run two OSs.
The only companies that might slip out are those that have code that makes heavy use of Altivec. That'll be a shame, but I'd understand why. They'd pretty much have to rewrite huge portions of their code. Still, I'd be surprised if they just abandoned everything.
If someone is worried, on the other hand, that companies that have never ported their program to Macs won't, then nothing has changed. You still won't get that PC program and everything will remain the same...with the exception that you will be able to run it under Windows XP on your Mac. Will the company in question know you bought the app for your Mac to run it under XP? Nope.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If someone is worried, on the other hand, that companies that have never ported their program to Macs won't, then nothing has changed. You still won't get that PC program and everything will remain the same...with the exception that you will be able to run it under Windows XP on your Mac. Will the company in question know you bought the app for your Mac to run it under XP? Nope.
You're right but I doubt many users will want to run two OSs. I could be wrong - I have been before!
Originally posted by PB
You have too much faith in the average user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?
Where are all those GREAT systems of the past? What? To the grave? Right. Guess where OS X will be once Apple makes Windows installation on an Intel-Mac completely painless.
You are completely mis-reading the situation. NeXT, BeOS and OS2 were never mainstream systems that you could buy in the high street. They had neither the public mind-share nor the breadth of applications that Apple has today. Apple is an established company that's not going anywhare. Whether people use its products or not everybody knows the name and is aware of the brand values. This move will make it easier in the future for developers to port to OS X and we will actually see an increase in applications for the Mac (including all those stupid "Design your own Garden" programs). The move to Intel also removes another reason for Joe Fuckwit not to buy a Mac.
I can't wait to see the first review comparison between the top Dell, Acer or Alienbrain laptop and the top Mac laptop. They will be the same price, they will have the same processor, but the Mac will be better designed, easier to use, provide integrated access to all the clever dodads on the motherboard and may even be slightly faster due to OS X optimisations. It will also come with a slew of class-leading applications, and get this; it'll run Windows anyway! It's a complete no-brainer buying decision and I serioulsy expect to see Apple marketshare gains over the next five years.
Mac sales will tank for the next year, no doubt about it, but the campany is in the best position it has ever been to survive this period. There will be a stream of music and home entertainment products to keep the momentum going.
At a market inflexion point, which this move represents, buying behaviour is not linear, it tips one way or the other. For NeXT, BeOS and OS2 it slid down the wrong side of the probability slope. Apple have clearly made the calculation that for them it will tip the other way and I have to agree with them.
Originally posted by vinney57
Joe Fuckwit
I love it
Originally posted by ZoranS
I love it
me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.
Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.
Originally posted by Brendon
Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
They also won't get anywhere near the volume discounts that Dell can pull off.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
Lower Margins on hardware? yes.
Software - No.
.Mac - No
OSX updates - No
iPod - No
iTunes and later iMovie - No
Currently Apple invests huge dollars designing and paying for fabbing of the Apple chip. MB design can be a huge investment. Bridge chips can cost big dollars as well especially when the economies of scale are barely applied. My guess is that Apple can lower margins, on hardware and still apply big savings. It is the software, Apple is becoming a software company, in that they no longer need to redesign themselves around an entire industry. MBs and support chips are off the shelf on the PC side where Apple had to design these before. The difference between Apple and Dell is volume and software. It would be very difficult for Dell to catch Apple in software. Apple stands to make more money through market expansion and software than any of the other hardware vendors.
Originally posted by Brendon
Currently Apple invests huge dollars designing and paying for fabbing of the Apple chip. MB design can be a huge investment. Bridge chips can cost big dollars as well especially when the economies of scale are barely applied. My guess is that Apple can lower margins, on hardware and still apply big savings. It is the software, Apple is becoming a software company, in that they no longer need to redesign themselves around an entire industry. MBs and support chips are off the shelf on the PC side where Apple had to design these before. The difference between Apple and Dell is volume and software. It would be very difficult for Dell to catch Apple in software. Apple stands to make more money through market expansion and software than any of the other hardware vendors.
Apple aren't becoming a software company. They have always made software for the Mac. Secondly I don't see Apple giving up it's margins - they even have the highest margins in the MP3 market on the iPod.
SMT could account for some of the snappynest being talked about on all the MAC forums I've seen lately. The other consideration of course is the far superior intel integer performance. SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.
All in all I'm still not happy about the transition, but that is what Linux is for.
Dave
Originally posted by MacCrazy
me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.
If you compare prices today at the same levels of functionality and build quality Mac are competetive and have been for a good three years or so. This situation can only improve with Intel components.
I can't wait for the whole PC/Mac argument to be turned on its head - "hey, macs run faster, with the same frickin' chip!". The Longhorn/Leopard bake off is going to be brilliant.
Can you tell I'm getting excited about this stuff?
Originally posted by wizard69
I SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.
All in all I'm still not happy about the transition, but that is what Linux is for.
Dave
What on earth does that mean? Adobe CS for Linux? I don't think so. MS Office for Linux? I don't think so. Final Cut Pro for Linux? I don't think so. If anything the Mactel move gves the Linux movement a severe kicking, especially considering the other Linux problems at this point in time.
Remember that Mactel portables won't be out for 18 months yet and they certainly won't be based on Centrino. Much more likely to be a variant of the dual-core Yonah.
Performance will absolutely not be an issue.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
Later you said:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple aren't becoming a software company. They have always made software for the Mac. Secondly I don't see Apple giving up it's margins - they even have the highest margins in the MP3 market on the iPod.
Well if Apple does not need to invest huge dollars into the MB design and Designing the support chips then they are becoming a software company that sells their own hardware. In other words, Apples' R&D dollars need only chase new applications of existing hardware. Will margins lower yes as a function of overall hardware cost lowering. 10% of $3000 is less than 10% of $2700. So Apple will still sell Apple hardware but the MB and the support chips and the CPU could be Intel, reducing Apples' costs. I imagine that Apple could see that growth chart and see that if IBM did not make Apple priority #1 than Apple may have hotter chips that are difficult to design around and still not get enough of a supply. By going to Intel they get cooler chips with great performance, lower costs (in many ways), and almost no supply issues. Apple will still be able to sell at lower costs and still offer more as far as software goes and still make more off of the sale due to things like software, and services. So lower prices for us, similar margins for Apple after the savings are applied, and no supply constraints. Apple and Intel will partner to bring to market all of the new technologies that Intel would like to bring to the market. A few examples are Bluetooth and 802.11x among others but these were things that Intel could see the value in but MS would not integrate them into their OS as rapidly as Intel would have liked. Now Intel can partner with Apple to show the masses how new technologies can benefit them, which could sway MS into following the Apple lead and that means bigger sales for Intel. Apple will get great pricing, the chairman of the board said so a few years back, I guess that still applies.
Originally posted by vinney57
If you compare prices today at the same levels of functionality and build quality Mac are competetive and have been for a good three years or so. This situation can only improve with Intel components.
I can't wait for the whole PC/Mac argument to be turned on its head - "hey, macs run faster, with the same frickin' chip!". The Longhorn/Leopard bake off is going to be brilliant.
Can you tell I'm getting excited about this stuff?
What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.
Unix OSs tend to run faster, time will tell. Ask a few NeXTies, they are around here.