I think that Apple, Google, and Sun should merge, or that Apple and Google should merge, and then buy Sun (it's cheap!).
That would be a powerful combination.
Ummm.... a "merger" is, in actuality, an acquisition.
A "merger of equals without paying a premium where I can simply add up the two balance sheets and income statements and pretend that nothing else happened" (which people often implicitly mean) is fiction.
I do agree with the second part of your statement.
Ummm.... a "merger" is, in actuality, an acquisition.
A "merger of equals without paying a premium where I can simply add up the two balance sheets and income statements and pretend that nothing else happened" (which people often implicitly mean) is fiction.
I do agree with the second part of your statement.
the NYTimes has an article today about takeup rates through 2010 for various Windows versions, and others such as Mac OS, and Linux. It's disappointing, to say the least.
I'll give the link, but I'm not sure if it will work if you don't have the free subscription. Let me know.
Yeah that worked. This Gartner firm is full of retards. They have predicted that Mac and Linux will lose market share through 2010. Any owl idiot would be aware that Mac market share will be on the up over the next couple of years. Besides them or no one else even knows what Leopard will even look like. Absolute soupbrains.
I think that Apple, Google, and Sun should merge, or that Apple and Google should merge, and then buy Sun (it's cheap!).
That would be a powerful combination.
Both OS X and Solaris are based on Unix, they could be merged, with the Mac GUI, and Suns' file system. Google would add the online software presence, search, and entry point. The company would then range between fairly inexpensive home machines and the largest business and government servers, all running the same OS, with Suns' enterprise and government sales group selling them into those markets.
There are other synergies between the three that I'm not mentioning, that I'm sure others can come up with.
This would be the only true threat to MS that there can be now. No one else can compete with them anymore on all levels, and markets, as this one would.
I know some will shrink at this idea, but I really think it is a good one.
Wow that would make a lot of sense. Now step your game up and become a high level apple exec and make the suggestion at a conference!
I think that Apple, Google, and Sun should merge, or that Apple and Google should merge, and then buy Sun (it's cheap!).
That would be a powerful combination.
Both OS X and Solaris are based on Unix, they could be merged, with the Mac GUI, and Suns' file system. Google would add the online software presence, search, and entry point. The company would then range between fairly inexpensive home machines and the largest business and government servers, all running the same OS, with Suns' enterprise and government sales group selling them into those markets.
There are other synergies between the three that I'm not mentioning, that I'm sure others can come up with.
This would be the only true threat to MS that there can be now. No one else can compete with them anymore on all levels, and markets, as this one would.
I know some will shrink at this idea, but I really think it is a good one.
I agree, a lot. That idea is too right to ever happen, would love if it did though.
This is not a but, but, what would they be called? Gapplesun? Sgoople?
Or... they'd buy up sun, keep their clout but kill the name. Apple's would be the name on all the hardware. And iLife would expande, and change it's name to the Google suite.
I agree, a lot. That idea is too right to ever happen, would love if it did though.
This is not a but, but, what would they be called? Gapplesun? Sgoople?
Or... they'd buy up sun, keep their clout but kill the name. Apple's would be the name on all the hardware. And iLife would expande, and change it's name to the Google suite.
One problem is that Apple is one company. They are competing against an ecology of PC makers, and MS.
Many companies, and governments, simply won't buy, big time, into Apple, because they are a single source.
I know that he is speaking of the home markets (and possibly schools), but without the business and governmental markets as well, there is only so far that Apple can go.
I really do believe that at some point in time, Apple will again license their OS, but will maintain far greater control over how it is done, perhaps only having one or two companies make machines for it, and only under specified conditions. Restricting machines to catagories that Apple doesn't sell into would be effective now.
This is made possible if Apple continues a successful iPod and software business, and also has a sucessful one in phones, and other areas. This would decrease the cpu portion of the business, even though it would be growing at a good rate. That would allow them to do licensing, and significantly increase the OS and software sales to more than offset the loss of some hardware business.
It's possible that Apple could sell several copies of the OS to those cpu makers for every one loss in sales they have, as well as more of their software. As software has profits up to 80%, this would result in more profit at little loss in total sales. Eventually, it could result in increased sales as well.
<i>Many companies, and governments, simply won't buy, big time, into Apple, because they are a single source.</i>
Fortunately the single-source concern isn't true of any US companies I've ever heard of, nor the US government. Thus, it's pretty irrelevant for Apple's primary markets.
<i>Many companies, and governments, simply won't buy, big time, into Apple, because they are a single source.</i>
I know, I've said that for a long time now.
But they don't seem to have a problem with Sun, even though most of the major second sourced server companies have stopped competing.
And by making the OS compatible, that ends that problem, as all Sun compatible machines are now other sources.
Quote:
Fortunately the single-source concern isn't true of any US companies I've ever heard of, nor the US government. Thus, it's pretty irrelevant for Apple's primary markets.
It's pretty true of big business and government here.
But they don't seem to have a problem with Sun, even though most of the major second sourced server companies have stopped competing.
Fujitsu is still in the game and expected to come out with dual-core Sparcs next year and quad cores in 2008. Themis still creates sparc based machines. So there is still a second source for Sparc based computers. As far as the OS...well its opensource now. Its as "viable" for the government as Linux and Sun isn't going away tomorrow anyway.
Yeah that worked. This Gartner firm is full of retards. They have predicted that Mac and Linux will lose market share through 2010. Any owl idiot would be aware that Mac market share will be on the up over the next couple of years. Besides them or no one else even knows what Leopard will even look like. Absolute soupbrains.
Yeah but the growth could be entirely 3rd-world, in which case, it would include large percentages of pirated software or that version that is aimed at "emerging markets" and is crippled like Tiny Tim. And this report shows nothing about either of those, so how the hell can we trust their research.
On the other hand, why is the Linux share going down - I see Linux getting picked up by governments and organizations everywhere. When there are user-friendly distributions developing rapidly, I think that people will start to catch on an think about diversifying the computer world.
Fujitsu is still in the game and expected to come out with dual-core Sparcs next year and quad cores in 2008. Themis still creates sparc based machines. So there is still a second source for Sparc based computers. As far as the OS...well its opensource now. Its as "viable" for the government as Linux and Sun isn't going away tomorrow anyway.
Vinea
Fujitsu is the last independent manufacturer of Sparcs, if I remember correctly. There are still a few makers of Sun compatibles.
Sun just had a comeback year. Good for them. That's one reason why I think it would be a good deal.
Yeah but the growth could be entirely 3rd-world, in which case, it would include large percentages of pirated software or that version that is aimed at "emerging markets" and is crippled like Tiny Tim. And this report shows nothing about either of those, so how the hell can we trust their research.
On the other hand, why is the Linux share going down - I see Linux getting picked up by governments and organizations everywhere. When there are user-friendly distributions developing rapidly, I think that people will start to catch on an think about diversifying the computer world.
Microsoft has had to come up with "emerging markets" versions because they know nobody in that part of the world can afford to buy a name brand computer or the software to go on it. As computer ownership spreads through the 70% of the world's population living between Afghanistan and Japan, Apple is going to be left behind because their international prices are completely out of reach for virtually everyone.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Apple knows better than most companies how to thrive as a niche player.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is going to have to provide software to the developing world for next to nothing and subsidize internet access for billions of people or they'll be relegated to niche player too, a role they can't even imagine.
Microsoft has had to come up with "emerging markets" versions because they know nobody in that part of the world can afford to buy a name brand computer or the software to go on it. As computer ownership spreads through the 70% of the world's population living between Afghanistan and Japan, Apple is going to be left behind because their international prices are completely out of reach for virtually everyone.....
Yes, this is the main challenge for Apple in developing countries. Dell, HP, Acer are owning the markets and OEM Windows makes the whole shebang affordable (but troublesome as per using Windows in general, crashing, cheapo hardware, etc.....).........
I'm hoping that things are changing. But, I have some bad experiences here in the NYC school system, and I'm sure the same problem exists elsewhere.
I'm a volunteer consultant to the school system. I sit on several committees regarding technology and computers. I also do that in the schools my daughter has gone to.
What I've found over the years is that many parents are almost violent about having PC's in schools. They simply do not want to see Macs there. I've had several people, mostly fathers, actually get red in the face with anger over the issue.
The same differences are in the city school committees.
The problem is that they don't want computers in the schools that are not used in business. Used in the business that they are in.
There is a tremendous lack of understanding about this matter. They think that if their kid uses a Mac, that will ruin it for them in college, and later at work. They don't realize that it take but a short time to learn Windows after coming from a Mac
It seems as though unless people see a machine on the desk of a secretary, it isn't a serious machine.
And they call us Zealots! Don't they realize that a student who's been using Tiger will be in a better position to use the major new features of Vista than an XP user? (because MS just emulate Apple and the time lag of a few years is about the same as a colleague course/degree)
I understand Macs have been doing well in the UK but the decision making is less parental. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you.
No, he wasn't. Pixar was a very small company for years. It was only about the time that NEXT was bought by Amelio, that Pixar began to do well with Toy Story.
Yes, he was. The Pixar IPO took place November 29, 1995, pretty much in line with the release of Toy Story. The IPO opened at 22 and hit 50 before the end of the day. Jobs owned over 60% of Pixar at the time. Apple purchased Next on December 20th, 1996. A full year later.
I would argue that Steve saw for instance how his decisions in the past were bad for Next such as losing the deal to license NextStep to IBM because he was difficult. I might also argue that he sold it because he wanted to get more leverage over Apple as he had called Apple board members telling them to consider him for the CEO job even before Amelio took over, But at the time of the sale of Next to Apple, Steve had plenty of money to do whatever he wanted including continuing to keep Next alive on his own dime as he had for years.
And they call us Zealots! Don't they realize that a student who's been using Tiger will be in a better position to use the major new features of Vista than an XP user? (because MS just emulate Apple and the time lag of a few years is about the same as a colleague course/degree)
I understand Macs have been doing well in the UK but the decision making is less parental. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you.
McD
Totally excellent point. Not only do students learn about using an operating system, they also *learn* *what* an operating system does.
Comments
I think that Apple, Google, and Sun should merge, or that Apple and Google should merge, and then buy Sun (it's cheap!).
That would be a powerful combination.
Ummm.... a "merger" is, in actuality, an acquisition.
A "merger of equals without paying a premium where I can simply add up the two balance sheets and income statements and pretend that nothing else happened" (which people often implicitly mean) is fiction.
I do agree with the second part of your statement.
Ummm.... a "merger" is, in actuality, an acquisition.
A "merger of equals without paying a premium where I can simply add up the two balance sheets and income statements and pretend that nothing else happened" (which people often implicitly mean) is fiction.
I do agree with the second part of your statement.
I think you know what I meant.
the NYTimes has an article today about takeup rates through 2010 for various Windows versions, and others such as Mac OS, and Linux. It's disappointing, to say the least.
I'll give the link, but I'm not sure if it will work if you don't have the free subscription. Let me know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/te...ss&oref=slogin
Yeah that worked. This Gartner firm is full of retards. They have predicted that Mac and Linux will lose market share through 2010. Any owl idiot would be aware that Mac market share will be on the up over the next couple of years. Besides them or no one else even knows what Leopard will even look like. Absolute soupbrains.
Jobs would have been out of a, er, job.
I think that Apple, Google, and Sun should merge, or that Apple and Google should merge, and then buy Sun (it's cheap!).
That would be a powerful combination.
Both OS X and Solaris are based on Unix, they could be merged, with the Mac GUI, and Suns' file system. Google would add the online software presence, search, and entry point. The company would then range between fairly inexpensive home machines and the largest business and government servers, all running the same OS, with Suns' enterprise and government sales group selling them into those markets.
There are other synergies between the three that I'm not mentioning, that I'm sure others can come up with.
This would be the only true threat to MS that there can be now. No one else can compete with them anymore on all levels, and markets, as this one would.
I know some will shrink at this idea, but I really think it is a good one.
Wow that would make a lot of sense. Now step your game up and become a high level apple exec and make the suggestion at a conference!
I think that Apple, Google, and Sun should merge, or that Apple and Google should merge, and then buy Sun (it's cheap!).
That would be a powerful combination.
Both OS X and Solaris are based on Unix, they could be merged, with the Mac GUI, and Suns' file system. Google would add the online software presence, search, and entry point. The company would then range between fairly inexpensive home machines and the largest business and government servers, all running the same OS, with Suns' enterprise and government sales group selling them into those markets.
There are other synergies between the three that I'm not mentioning, that I'm sure others can come up with.
This would be the only true threat to MS that there can be now. No one else can compete with them anymore on all levels, and markets, as this one would.
I know some will shrink at this idea, but I really think it is a good one.
I agree, a lot. That idea is too right to ever happen, would love if it did though.
This is not a but, but, what would they be called? Gapplesun? Sgoople?
Or... they'd buy up sun, keep their clout but kill the name. Apple's would be the name on all the hardware. And iLife would expande, and change it's name to the Google suite.
1. ZFS.. hmmm.
2. iMaps hmmm.
3. AMail hmmm.
4. Man oh man, wow.
They can barely keep up with demand now. Apple can't ramp-up production that quickly.
They can on the underachieving desktop end.
By 2017, 78% of flying cars will be running Mac OS XI.
Excellent... ROFLMAO
I agree, a lot. That idea is too right to ever happen, would love if it did though.
This is not a but, but, what would they be called? Gapplesun? Sgoople?
Or... they'd buy up sun, keep their clout but kill the name. Apple's would be the name on all the hardware. And iLife would expande, and change it's name to the Google suite.
1. ZFS.. hmmm.
2. iMaps hmmm.
3. AMail hmmm.
4. Man oh man, wow.
Yeah, the name would be a problem, wouldn't it?
I wouldn't even begin to know where to start.
Some people here do. It's totally unrealistic.
One problem is that Apple is one company. They are competing against an ecology of PC makers, and MS.
Many companies, and governments, simply won't buy, big time, into Apple, because they are a single source.
I know that he is speaking of the home markets (and possibly schools), but without the business and governmental markets as well, there is only so far that Apple can go.
I really do believe that at some point in time, Apple will again license their OS, but will maintain far greater control over how it is done, perhaps only having one or two companies make machines for it, and only under specified conditions. Restricting machines to catagories that Apple doesn't sell into would be effective now.
This is made possible if Apple continues a successful iPod and software business, and also has a sucessful one in phones, and other areas. This would decrease the cpu portion of the business, even though it would be growing at a good rate. That would allow them to do licensing, and significantly increase the OS and software sales to more than offset the loss of some hardware business.
It's possible that Apple could sell several copies of the OS to those cpu makers for every one loss in sales they have, as well as more of their software. As software has profits up to 80%, this would result in more profit at little loss in total sales. Eventually, it could result in increased sales as well.
<i>Many companies, and governments, simply won't buy, big time, into Apple, because they are a single source.</i>
Fortunately the single-source concern isn't true of any US companies I've ever heard of, nor the US government. Thus, it's pretty irrelevant for Apple's primary markets.
<i>Many companies, and governments, simply won't buy, big time, into Apple, because they are a single source.</i>
I know, I've said that for a long time now.
But they don't seem to have a problem with Sun, even though most of the major second sourced server companies have stopped competing.
And by making the OS compatible, that ends that problem, as all Sun compatible machines are now other sources.
Fortunately the single-source concern isn't true of any US companies I've ever heard of, nor the US government. Thus, it's pretty irrelevant for Apple's primary markets.
It's pretty true of big business and government here.
But they don't seem to have a problem with Sun, even though most of the major second sourced server companies have stopped competing.
Fujitsu is still in the game and expected to come out with dual-core Sparcs next year and quad cores in 2008. Themis still creates sparc based machines. So there is still a second source for Sparc based computers. As far as the OS...well its opensource now. Its as "viable" for the government as Linux and Sun isn't going away tomorrow anyway.
Vinea
Yeah that worked. This Gartner firm is full of retards. They have predicted that Mac and Linux will lose market share through 2010. Any owl idiot would be aware that Mac market share will be on the up over the next couple of years. Besides them or no one else even knows what Leopard will even look like. Absolute soupbrains.
Yeah but the growth could be entirely 3rd-world, in which case, it would include large percentages of pirated software or that version that is aimed at "emerging markets" and is crippled like Tiny Tim. And this report shows nothing about either of those, so how the hell can we trust their research.
On the other hand, why is the Linux share going down - I see Linux getting picked up by governments and organizations everywhere. When there are user-friendly distributions developing rapidly, I think that people will start to catch on an think about diversifying the computer world.
Fujitsu is still in the game and expected to come out with dual-core Sparcs next year and quad cores in 2008. Themis still creates sparc based machines. So there is still a second source for Sparc based computers. As far as the OS...well its opensource now. Its as "viable" for the government as Linux and Sun isn't going away tomorrow anyway.
Vinea
Fujitsu is the last independent manufacturer of Sparcs, if I remember correctly. There are still a few makers of Sun compatibles.
Sun just had a comeback year. Good for them. That's one reason why I think it would be a good deal.
Yeah but the growth could be entirely 3rd-world, in which case, it would include large percentages of pirated software or that version that is aimed at "emerging markets" and is crippled like Tiny Tim. And this report shows nothing about either of those, so how the hell can we trust their research.
On the other hand, why is the Linux share going down - I see Linux getting picked up by governments and organizations everywhere. When there are user-friendly distributions developing rapidly, I think that people will start to catch on an think about diversifying the computer world.
Microsoft has had to come up with "emerging markets" versions because they know nobody in that part of the world can afford to buy a name brand computer or the software to go on it. As computer ownership spreads through the 70% of the world's population living between Afghanistan and Japan, Apple is going to be left behind because their international prices are completely out of reach for virtually everyone.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Apple knows better than most companies how to thrive as a niche player.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is going to have to provide software to the developing world for next to nothing and subsidize internet access for billions of people or they'll be relegated to niche player too, a role they can't even imagine.
Microsoft has had to come up with "emerging markets" versions because they know nobody in that part of the world can afford to buy a name brand computer or the software to go on it. As computer ownership spreads through the 70% of the world's population living between Afghanistan and Japan, Apple is going to be left behind because their international prices are completely out of reach for virtually everyone.....
Yes, this is the main challenge for Apple in developing countries. Dell, HP, Acer are owning the markets and OEM Windows makes the whole shebang affordable (but troublesome as per using Windows in general, crashing, cheapo hardware, etc.....).........
It's a difficult problem to understand.
I'm hoping that things are changing. But, I have some bad experiences here in the NYC school system, and I'm sure the same problem exists elsewhere.
I'm a volunteer consultant to the school system. I sit on several committees regarding technology and computers. I also do that in the schools my daughter has gone to.
What I've found over the years is that many parents are almost violent about having PC's in schools. They simply do not want to see Macs there. I've had several people, mostly fathers, actually get red in the face with anger over the issue.
The same differences are in the city school committees.
The problem is that they don't want computers in the schools that are not used in business. Used in the business that they are in.
There is a tremendous lack of understanding about this matter. They think that if their kid uses a Mac, that will ruin it for them in college, and later at work. They don't realize that it take but a short time to learn Windows after coming from a Mac
It seems as though unless people see a machine on the desk of a secretary, it isn't a serious machine.
And they call us Zealots! Don't they realize that a student who's been using Tiger will be in a better position to use the major new features of Vista than an XP user? (because MS just emulate Apple and the time lag of a few years is about the same as a colleague course/degree)
I understand Macs have been doing well in the UK but the decision making is less parental. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you.
McD
No, he wasn't. Pixar was a very small company for years. It was only about the time that NEXT was bought by Amelio, that Pixar began to do well with Toy Story.
Yes, he was. The Pixar IPO took place November 29, 1995, pretty much in line with the release of Toy Story. The IPO opened at 22 and hit 50 before the end of the day. Jobs owned over 60% of Pixar at the time. Apple purchased Next on December 20th, 1996. A full year later.
I would argue that Steve saw for instance how his decisions in the past were bad for Next such as losing the deal to license NextStep to IBM because he was difficult. I might also argue that he sold it because he wanted to get more leverage over Apple as he had called Apple board members telling them to consider him for the CEO job even before Amelio took over, But at the time of the sale of Next to Apple, Steve had plenty of money to do whatever he wanted including continuing to keep Next alive on his own dime as he had for years.
And they call us Zealots! Don't they realize that a student who's been using Tiger will be in a better position to use the major new features of Vista than an XP user? (because MS just emulate Apple and the time lag of a few years is about the same as a colleague course/degree)
I understand Macs have been doing well in the UK but the decision making is less parental. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you.
McD
Totally excellent point. Not only do students learn about using an operating system, they also *learn* *what* an operating system does.