Ok, you want a conspiracy theory. I got the best one. But it's out there. Like years away out there. Apple using intel makes Mac OS Market share grow beyond Apples expectations. Hardware Hax0rz eventually figure out ways of running OS X on any PC box. Mac OS is on 100% of Mac's, and 85 to 95% of PC's, and has become the most popular OS nation wide (probably world wide) Steve Jobs eventually steps down from CEO of Apple computer. Avi Tevanian is appointed CEO of Apple computer. (<- I like that idea) PPC has never looked so good in 2011. IBM realises with Apples new market share they can make what ever processors Apple wants and will be able to meet all demands, and deadlines. Apple CEO Avi Tevanian switches back to PPC at WWDC 2012. You heard it here first!
That could happen but since Stevey J. is an alien from the planet Ttransorph so he is a Changeling so is more like to come back as someone that recently died.
You know the back from the dead resurrection thing, I hear it is a very effective way to start social movements on this time plain.
I personally believe that the future of Apple is not hardware but rather software. In all honesty why continue to try and compete with Dell, HP and such. A transition is coming but I do believe it is bigger than anyone relizes.
To that end I see Intel at some point buying AMD. (Here it goes I will get nailed for that statement.) It just makes since IMHO. Compaq bought Digital and put out some of the best servers out there. Then HP bought Compaq and had a real viable thin client. Intel doing a similar move would not be out of the range of possibilities. This would be beneficial for all parties involved business wise including AMD (Huge Payday for AMD). Then you have Intel producing processors for the PC market and IBM producing processors for the gaming console market.
Think about this over the last five or so years with all the hundreds of MFG?s out there look who is really left standing:
Dell and HP
Maxtor, Seagate and WD
NVIDIA and ATI
Intel and AMD
There are niche companies like Apple with dedicated customer base. But what is really driving Apple lately is OSX, iPods, App software and iTunes.
With all things being equal (And Apple?s switch to Intel it closes the gap in a huge fashion) it would be more cost effective for Apple to focus on MS Windows than Dell or HP. With a superior product like OSX and the problems plaguing Longhorn this could actually happen. Let?s face it; MS true flagship is not Windows but rather Office. People could live without Windows but Office; I think that would be highly questionable.
This is simple speculation and only my opinion. There is no need for people to get nasty.
edit...
Is it not funny how UNIX was the first and decades later is still the best. Steve Jobs saw this year's ago and that is why OSX is gaining so much popularity due to its stability. Bill Gates on the other hand could in effect kill Windows as the dominate desktop and server OS because of his inability to see the true root of the problem with his OS.
Let?s face it; MS true flagship is not Windows but rather Office. People could live without Windows but Office; I think that would be highly questionable.
This is incorrect. Microsoft generatates a majority of its income from Windows OS and Server products. Office is an important chunk but the engine that drives Microsft is owning the desktop.
Apple has no chance at penetrating the Enterprise and gaining significant marketshare. It's not their core competency nor focus. They will be content to own a few niche markets and market Macintosh.
Apple has no chance at penetrating the Enterprise and gaining significant marketshare. It's not their core competency nor focus. They will be content to own a few niche markets and market Macintosh.
Besides, Apple doesn't need Enterprise style backwards compatibility to start bogging them down. Fuck 'em.
This is incorrect. Microsoft generatates a majority of its income from Windows OS and Server products. Office is an important chunk but the engine that drives Microsft is owning the desktop.
Apple has no chance at penetrating the Enterprise and gaining significant marketshare. It's not their core competency nor focus. They will be content to own a few niche markets and market Macintosh.
Actually that is not true. Microsoft generates large amounts of revenue from its OS but because of only its sheer volume. There is an insane amount of money they spend to constantly update, protect and maintain there OS because of its vulnerabilities. If it were not the sheer volume the OS would drag the company down. I have known a few people who have worked for MS and the comments are always the same?The OS is a thorn in the companies side. As far as the Server products they are in it self the same operating system as the desktops. Apples desktop and server OS is the same also. (Download Darwin ports and Midnight Commander and run thru both the tiger and tiger server, they identical except for the server apps. Also tiger desktop is unlimited users. Don?t believe me check for yourself.) What separates the desktops from server is what they open and lock down and also what server apps they choose to put on the OS. This again is where the revenue is generated on the server line. Rather than one or two server products they ship an entire line of products to specific needs this is good and bad. Good because you can have dedicated servers for dedicated processes, bad because the cost of doing such can be overwhelming. This is where Apple will continue to gain market share in the enterprise market. Having one or two products that will accomplish the same goals as spending a small fortune on MS server products this is Apples saving grace.
I just want to add that is accounting software, CRM and the like type packages that drive enterprise setups. Not the desktop clients. To that end more and more enterprise software developers are including support for OS X because of the UNIX core. To think that MS will remain dominate is not honest. For example before Eclipse Accounting software was purchased by Intuit the only servers they would load there package on was IBM RISC processor servers. Eclipse accounting package is very widely used still, so are IBM RISC servers. I know of three large accounting packages that are now offering OS X as a supported operating system. As OS X penetrates further and further into the enterprise level so will the desktop it is a natural progression.
At the same time MS is beginning to shoot there self in the foot with there server products. What I mean is incompatibility within there server products and so many different type of products it is getting harder for companies to choose the best option.
I will give an example:
MS Small Business Server 2003 can run as a primary domain controller, and that?s great. But try and set a second server with MS Small Business Server 2003 as a secondary domain controller. Good luck?with in three days of this type of setup the BDC will automatically shut down. And will continue do to the fact MS has now made it impossible for two servers running the same version server OS to be a PDC and BDC. However if you have MS Advanced Server 2003 as the PDC and MS Small Business Server 2003 as the BDC then there will be no problem what so ever. This has happened to me twice and the companies are now exploring OS X as an alternative.
Halfway through the document you get revenue totals.
Client- Windows OS
(Revenue in the millions)
$11,546
Server and Tools - Exchange, CALS etc
$8,483
Information Worker(Office and supporting products)
$10,800.
Thus we see that MS is VERY dependent on their Client and Server tools. Office comprises a vast portion of MS revenue but it wouldn't exist without the OS and Server tools.
Halfway through the document you get revenue totals.
Client- Windows OS
(Revenue in the millions)
$11,546
Server and Tools - Exchange, CALS etc
$8,483
Information Worker(Office and supporting products)
$10,800.
Thus we see that MS is VERY dependent on their Client and Server tools. Office comprises a vast portion of MS revenue but it wouldn't exist without the OS and Server tools.
I completely agree there OS is the most important thing to there viability. But?at some point if MS doesn?t change the flaws in there OS or the restrictions they putting on there server software they will follow the path of SCO, Novell, Sun as far as dominance with there OS. But I do not believe they will ever become irrelevant because of Office. Other products are close like Think Free but still a ways off.
Look at it like this MS is now going to be playing catch up with OS X at least for the next 2-3 years (Unless Gates is following Jobs playbook and has some huge undisclosed surprises for Longhorn). I think we can agree to that. But Office is a crown jewel which no other company can truly touch and they like Apple with OS X only has to watch the innovation from other companies then release a new rev that meets and surpasses the competitors. Look MS will not always remain the king, that?s just how business is. The only company that?s close to giving them a run for there money is Apple.
Comments
Originally posted by MACchine
What IF the Apple campus became a strictly clothing optional campus -- WORK IN THE NUDE !!!
I would apply today.
Originally posted by onlooker
Ok, you want a conspiracy theory. I got the best one. But it's out there. Like years away out there. Apple using intel makes Mac OS Market share grow beyond Apples expectations. Hardware Hax0rz eventually figure out ways of running OS X on any PC box. Mac OS is on 100% of Mac's, and 85 to 95% of PC's, and has become the most popular OS nation wide (probably world wide) Steve Jobs eventually steps down from CEO of Apple computer. Avi Tevanian is appointed CEO of Apple computer. (<- I like that idea) PPC has never looked so good in 2011. IBM realises with Apples new market share they can make what ever processors Apple wants and will be able to meet all demands, and deadlines. Apple CEO Avi Tevanian switches back to PPC at WWDC 2012.
That could happen but since Stevey J. is an alien from the planet Ttransorph so he is a Changeling so is more like to come back as someone that recently died.
You know the back from the dead resurrection thing, I hear it is a very effective way to start social movements on this time plain.
http://www.petitiononline.com/xsi2646/petition.html
There are 1100+ votes so far.
Originally posted by onlooker
Regardless I think you should all sign this petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/xsi2646/petition.html
There are 1100+ votes so far.
Is there anything more pathetic than an online petition?
To that end I see Intel at some point buying AMD. (Here it goes I will get nailed for that statement.) It just makes since IMHO. Compaq bought Digital and put out some of the best servers out there. Then HP bought Compaq and had a real viable thin client. Intel doing a similar move would not be out of the range of possibilities. This would be beneficial for all parties involved business wise including AMD (Huge Payday for AMD). Then you have Intel producing processors for the PC market and IBM producing processors for the gaming console market.
Think about this over the last five or so years with all the hundreds of MFG?s out there look who is really left standing:
Dell and HP
Maxtor, Seagate and WD
NVIDIA and ATI
Intel and AMD
There are niche companies like Apple with dedicated customer base. But what is really driving Apple lately is OSX, iPods, App software and iTunes.
With all things being equal (And Apple?s switch to Intel it closes the gap in a huge fashion) it would be more cost effective for Apple to focus on MS Windows than Dell or HP. With a superior product like OSX and the problems plaguing Longhorn this could actually happen. Let?s face it; MS true flagship is not Windows but rather Office. People could live without Windows but Office; I think that would be highly questionable.
This is simple speculation and only my opinion. There is no need for people to get nasty.
edit...
Is it not funny how UNIX was the first and decades later is still the best. Steve Jobs saw this year's ago and that is why OSX is gaining so much popularity due to its stability. Bill Gates on the other hand could in effect kill Windows as the dominate desktop and server OS because of his inability to see the true root of the problem with his OS.
Let?s face it; MS true flagship is not Windows but rather Office. People could live without Windows but Office; I think that would be highly questionable.
This is incorrect. Microsoft generatates a majority of its income from Windows OS and Server products. Office is an important chunk but the engine that drives Microsft is owning the desktop.
Apple has no chance at penetrating the Enterprise and gaining significant marketshare. It's not their core competency nor focus. They will be content to own a few niche markets and market Macintosh.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple has no chance at penetrating the Enterprise and gaining significant marketshare. It's not their core competency nor focus. They will be content to own a few niche markets and market Macintosh.
Besides, Apple doesn't need Enterprise style backwards compatibility to start bogging them down. Fuck 'em.
Originally posted by hmurchison
This is incorrect. Microsoft generatates a majority of its income from Windows OS and Server products. Office is an important chunk but the engine that drives Microsft is owning the desktop.
Apple has no chance at penetrating the Enterprise and gaining significant marketshare. It's not their core competency nor focus. They will be content to own a few niche markets and market Macintosh.
Actually that is not true. Microsoft generates large amounts of revenue from its OS but because of only its sheer volume. There is an insane amount of money they spend to constantly update, protect and maintain there OS because of its vulnerabilities. If it were not the sheer volume the OS would drag the company down. I have known a few people who have worked for MS and the comments are always the same?The OS is a thorn in the companies side. As far as the Server products they are in it self the same operating system as the desktops. Apples desktop and server OS is the same also. (Download Darwin ports and Midnight Commander and run thru both the tiger and tiger server, they identical except for the server apps. Also tiger desktop is unlimited users. Don?t believe me check for yourself.) What separates the desktops from server is what they open and lock down and also what server apps they choose to put on the OS. This again is where the revenue is generated on the server line. Rather than one or two server products they ship an entire line of products to specific needs this is good and bad. Good because you can have dedicated servers for dedicated processes, bad because the cost of doing such can be overwhelming. This is where Apple will continue to gain market share in the enterprise market. Having one or two products that will accomplish the same goals as spending a small fortune on MS server products this is Apples saving grace.
At the same time MS is beginning to shoot there self in the foot with there server products. What I mean is incompatibility within there server products and so many different type of products it is getting harder for companies to choose the best option.
I will give an example:
MS Small Business Server 2003 can run as a primary domain controller, and that?s great. But try and set a second server with MS Small Business Server 2003 as a secondary domain controller. Good luck?with in three days of this type of setup the BDC will automatically shut down. And will continue do to the fact MS has now made it impossible for two servers running the same version server OS to be a PDC and BDC. However if you have MS Advanced Server 2003 as the PDC and MS Small Business Server 2003 as the BDC then there will be no problem what so ever. This has happened to me twice and the companies are now exploring OS X as an alternative.
For instance.
2004 Microsoft 10k
Halfway through the document you get revenue totals.
Client- Windows OS
(Revenue in the millions)
$11,546
Server and Tools - Exchange, CALS etc
$8,483
Information Worker(Office and supporting products)
$10,800.
Thus we see that MS is VERY dependent on their Client and Server tools. Office comprises a vast portion of MS revenue but it wouldn't exist without the OS and Server tools.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Oh I don't dispute the fact that MS spends a lot of money to maintain the OS but that is the heartbeat of Microsoft.
For instance.
2004 Microsoft 10k
Halfway through the document you get revenue totals.
Client- Windows OS
(Revenue in the millions)
$11,546
Server and Tools - Exchange, CALS etc
$8,483
Information Worker(Office and supporting products)
$10,800.
Thus we see that MS is VERY dependent on their Client and Server tools. Office comprises a vast portion of MS revenue but it wouldn't exist without the OS and Server tools.
I completely agree there OS is the most important thing to there viability. But?at some point if MS doesn?t change the flaws in there OS or the restrictions they putting on there server software they will follow the path of SCO, Novell, Sun as far as dominance with there OS. But I do not believe they will ever become irrelevant because of Office. Other products are close like Think Free but still a ways off.
Look at it like this MS is now going to be playing catch up with OS X at least for the next 2-3 years (Unless Gates is following Jobs playbook and has some huge undisclosed surprises for Longhorn). I think we can agree to that. But Office is a crown jewel which no other company can truly touch and they like Apple with OS X only has to watch the innovation from other companies then release a new rev that meets and surpasses the competitors. Look MS will not always remain the king, that?s just how business is. The only company that?s close to giving them a run for there money is Apple.