Steve even admitted "maybe we can increase the market share for Safari' by releasing the windows versions. That's all it is. Steve wants EVERYONE to use Safari like they do with iPods. It's just another hook into pc user base. Get them to use iTunes, an iPod and then surf on Safari. It make Safari more credible with millions of users, web site will now test for Safari compatibility, which in turns makes Apple and OS X look good.
It means Steve wants to expand and with millions of added window users using Apple products seems to make them more credible and a force that needs to be recognized.
I'd like for Apple to just release good versions of their best software for Windows so I can just keep using Windows.
Neither iTunes nor Safari are their best apps. If you want the best apps you still need a Mac. As to why one would use Windows in the first place... well, let's not go there.
I think not. Apple will not license OS X to other PC manufactures, however, I do see Apple in the near future selling OS X to PC users.
It'll never happen. The argument against it is that too many Mac users would buy cheaper Windows PC hardware and run OS X on it. Mac sales would plummet, just as in the days of the clones.
If you can get around that objection, maybe it could happen. Yet, since Steve is the one who killed the clones I doubt anything would change his mind.
It'll never happen. The argument against it is that too many Mac users would buy cheaper Windows PC hardware and run OS X on it. Mac sales would plummet, just as in the days of the clones.
If you can get around that objection, maybe it could happen. Yet, since Steve is the one who killed the clones I doubt anything would change his mind.
It'll never happen. The argument against it is that too many Mac users would buy cheaper Windows PC hardware and run OS X on it. Mac sales would plummet, just as in the days of the clones.
If you can get around that objection, maybe it could happen. Yet, since Steve is the one who killed the clones I doubt anything would change his mind.
Well, if you want to use logic, we can do that:
* A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.
The Apple of today is not the Apple of yesterday. Steve did the right thing by killing the clones. But that was an entirely set of different conditions that do not exist today, therefore the clone argument can be tossed out the window once and for all. Please.
* A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated.
There are 95% of users out there not using OS X. Do you think Apple, selling OS X only with it's hardware, will someday make OS X the standard OS? That IS the game, make no mistake about that.
* The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data.
* The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.
Apple no longer sells just Macs. Remember that. There will soon be a critical point when Apple can afford to leap into that 95% base and come out ahead. This will be done by making OS X available to users running Windows. It's just a matter of time.
iTunes for windows was not meant to be a mp3 player per se but an integration tool for the music store and for the iPods for Win users.
Adding a gereric windows browser is a waste of millions of dollars and work force for Apple.
My guess is that WinSafari is integration tool for iPhone and services associated with that.
Safari may be a tool for an other integration that Apple is working on to be dependent on Explorer or Firefox to work with what ever Apple has up their sleeves is a risk they are willing to pay a lot of money to not take.
iTunes for windows was not meant to be a mp3 player per se but an integration tool for the music store and for the iPods for Win users.
Adding a gereric windows browser is a waste of millions of dollars and work force for Apple.
My guess is that WinSafari is integration tool for iPhone and services associated with that.
Safari may be a tool for an other integration that Apple is working on to be dependent on Explorer or Firefox to work with what ever Apple has up their sleeves is a risk they are willing to pay a lot of money to not take.
Having Safari for windows means website developers will have much more incentive to make sure their websites work with Safari. I've had too many instances where I've had to start up firefox because Safari either couldn't properly display it, it ran very slowly, or just plain crashed the browser.
You know, Dell isn't as bad as some say. It's their customer service that's bad.
One of the schools I worked at had 50 Dells that never had a single hardware problem in 5 years, which is much, much more than the school could say about the two or three Macs they had. The headmaster refuses to buy Macs anymore saying their quality is not up to par for his school. (Of course, this is in Japan, under Apple Japan, which sucks big-time). They never needed Dell's customer service, but it was Apple Japan's customer service that was horrible.
* A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.
The Apple of today is not the Apple of yesterday. Steve did the right thing by killing the clones. But that was an entirely set of different conditions that do not exist today, therefore the clone argument can be tossed out the window once and for all. Please.
No, it can't. While the set of circumstances that made clones a failure for Apple in the 1997 is not identical to that of 2007 several contributing factors for the failure have not changed.
1) Apple still depends on its hardware revenue stream that cannot be offset by increasing sales on a $129 software product that is subsidized by that hardware revenue. Unless you wish to convert Apple into Red Hat (278M in 2006) this would be an amazingly poor strategy for Apple and Apple shareholders.
You cannot expect market share to increase to levels where Apple can maintain revenues and profits instantly. You CAN expect Apple hardware sales to decline based on the 1990 clone market experience.
2) Increasing OSX market share through general sales on the pc platform massively increases cost to Apple due to increased support and development costs. Sun Solaris has a fairly limited driver set and therefore fairly limited adoption rates in comparison to Linux and BSD. In order for Apple to take significant share it must spend the money that Sun has not been willing to do so to write all the drivers and do all the testing for wider adoption.
This cost would not be supported through the now devastated hardware revenue stream.
3) An assertion using brainy sounding words like "datum" is no more logically supported than using regular words. Your assertion that you can only compare information if there is corresponding information of equal weight is both unsupported by any logic or common sense.
Quote:
* A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated.
There are 95% of users out there not using OS X. Do you think Apple, selling OS X only with it's hardware, will someday make OS X the standard OS? That IS the game, make no mistake about that.
No, that is not THE game and not an overly important one to Apple. When repeatedly asked if they were willing to drop margins to increase share Apple has said No. Therefore Apple (and many shareholders) believe the game is profitability, healthy revenue stream and other markets.
You also provide no evidence that Apple would massively increase share to the point where it could replace hardware revenue losses by taking share away from Windows. There are several competitive advantages to Windows that argues against this.
Therefore your evaluation of this "datum" is flawed and just another completely unsupported assertion.
By the way...if you wish to define OS dominance as the game, realize the that game was lost in the 80s and 90s. Big time. There has not been an instance where a dominant incumbent computer company was unseated in its own domain.
Mainframes - IBM. Not dethroned but replaced by smaller new technologies: Minicomputer
Minicomputer - DEC. Not dethroned but replaced by smaller new technologies: Workstations
Workstations - Sun. Possibly dethroned by IBM and HP but very debatable. Arguably IBM and HP has abandoned their own workstation class offerings (PPC+AIX and PARISC+HPUX) in favor of PC+Linux. Made far less relevant by smaller new technologies: Personal Computer
Personal Computer - Wintel. What is more likely going to make Microsoft Windows and the PC form factor less relevant and replace them as the dominant computing platform? Mac OSX or Google/Ajax? Mac OSX or iPhone?
Trend says Google or iPhone.
Quote:
* The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data.
* The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.
Apple no longer sells just Macs. Remember that. There will soon be a critical point when Apple can afford to leap into that 95% base and come out ahead. This will be done by making OS X available to users running Windows. It's just a matter of time.
That critical point is not today and may never be. Especially given that Apple is a very successful and profitable company while pursuing its hardware centric business model. Therefore the assertion that releasing OSX into the wild is simply a matter of time is again unsupported and a naked assertion with almost no merit.
There's no compelling reason to release OSX to the general PC platform given the increased support costs if a) you make more money by NOT doing so and b) you can release enough infrastructure code to the dominant but soon to be replaced computing platform to support your new computing platform (e.g. releasing Safari and iTunes onto windows) that you hope to overtake the preceeding one.
Apple MIGHT choose to do so but there are certainly counter arguments why it might not.
I feel sort of a little remorseful over Safari coming to Windows. I was an early switcher and I haven't looked back since. I kinda felt priveleged and special to be using OS X. Now that all the good apps are going to Windows it's like there are fewer and fewer reasons to be proud of what you love. There's no question this is a good thing for the industry in bringing the camps closer together or even combining them. But I think a little bit of exclusivity is a good thing and allows for diversity between the available choices. Look at how PS3 is loosing a lot of exclusives to X-Box 360 and such. In the console market, it's all about the games not the hardware. If you paid $600 for a PS3 and your friend paid, I dunno...what's X-Box like $250? and you're both playing the same game, what's the point?
All Safari on Windows is a way for Apple to once again lure Windows customers over to Mac hardware by way of displaying how awesome and wonderful Apple software is and can be--just like iTunes did for the iPod.
Very smart in my opinion. They're simply aiming to beat Microsoft at their own game--software creation--albeit with wonderful GUIs, great ease of use, and stability. The trick is not to put too much over to the Windows side to just let the Windows users feel content.
A very insignificant marketshare and pretty much only among the iBooks. We need drasticly more than that.
Then they better start making Macs that people actually want to buy. The whole converting the masses idea hasn't worked for the last 25 and it will never work. That's why Apple is still sitting at 5% desipite having an operating system that is light year ahead, they don't ever learn. Windows became the dominant player not because anything they release anything that is that good, but because they are business savvy enough to go to the people and let them decide what computer they want instead of treating them like children and making all the decisions for them like Apple does.
Well they sell millions of them and their market-share grows quarterly. I don't see them doing anything other than gaining users in droves. They are now making their first move towards gamers. Another huge segment. The amount of snobs that can't find a Mac they want because they need something no manufacturer provides is insignificant compared to the millions that do.
Comments
It means Steve wants to expand and with millions of added window users using Apple products seems to make them more credible and a force that needs to be recognized.
Safari Windows gives Apple a lot more influence for Web technologies.
I'd like for Apple to just release good versions of their best software for Windows so I can just keep using Windows.
Neither iTunes nor Safari are their best apps.
Apple will first offer OS X on Sony hardware...
I think not. Apple will not license OS X to other PC manufactures, however, I do see Apple in the near future selling OS X to PC users.
My ideal future is a dell free one.
You know, Dell isn't as bad as some say. It's their customer service that's bad.
Dell isn't the only option either.
Dell isn't the only option either.
Exactly.
I think not. Apple will not license OS X to other PC manufactures, however, I do see Apple in the near future selling OS X to PC users.
It'll never happen. The argument against it is that too many Mac users would buy cheaper Windows PC hardware and run OS X on it. Mac sales would plummet, just as in the days of the clones.
If you can get around that objection, maybe it could happen. Yet, since Steve is the one who killed the clones I doubt anything would change his mind.
It'll never happen. The argument against it is that too many Mac users would buy cheaper Windows PC hardware and run OS X on it. Mac sales would plummet, just as in the days of the clones.
If you can get around that objection, maybe it could happen. Yet, since Steve is the one who killed the clones I doubt anything would change his mind.
Correctamundo!
It'll never happen. The argument against it is that too many Mac users would buy cheaper Windows PC hardware and run OS X on it. Mac sales would plummet, just as in the days of the clones.
If you can get around that objection, maybe it could happen. Yet, since Steve is the one who killed the clones I doubt anything would change his mind.
Well, if you want to use logic, we can do that:
* A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.
The Apple of today is not the Apple of yesterday. Steve did the right thing by killing the clones. But that was an entirely set of different conditions that do not exist today, therefore the clone argument can be tossed out the window once and for all. Please.
* A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated.
There are 95% of users out there not using OS X. Do you think Apple, selling OS X only with it's hardware, will someday make OS X the standard OS? That IS the game, make no mistake about that.
* The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data.
* The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.
Apple no longer sells just Macs. Remember that. There will soon be a critical point when Apple can afford to leap into that 95% base and come out ahead. This will be done by making OS X available to users running Windows. It's just a matter of time.
Adding a gereric windows browser is a waste of millions of dollars and work force for Apple.
My guess is that WinSafari is integration tool for iPhone and services associated with that.
Safari may be a tool for an other integration that Apple is working on to be dependent on Explorer or Firefox to work with what ever Apple has up their sleeves is a risk they are willing to pay a lot of money to not take.
iTunes for windows was not meant to be a mp3 player per se but an integration tool for the music store and for the iPods for Win users.
Adding a gereric windows browser is a waste of millions of dollars and work force for Apple.
My guess is that WinSafari is integration tool for iPhone and services associated with that.
Safari may be a tool for an other integration that Apple is working on to be dependent on Explorer or Firefox to work with what ever Apple has up their sleeves is a risk they are willing to pay a lot of money to not take.
Having Safari for windows means website developers will have much more incentive to make sure their websites work with Safari. I've had too many instances where I've had to start up firefox because Safari either couldn't properly display it, it ran very slowly, or just plain crashed the browser.
You know, Dell isn't as bad as some say. It's their customer service that's bad.
One of the schools I worked at had 50 Dells that never had a single hardware problem in 5 years, which is much, much more than the school could say about the two or three Macs they had. The headmaster refuses to buy Macs anymore saying their quality is not up to par for his school. (Of course, this is in Japan, under Apple Japan, which sucks big-time). They never needed Dell's customer service, but it was Apple Japan's customer service that was horrible.
Well, if you want to use logic, we can do that:
* A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.
The Apple of today is not the Apple of yesterday. Steve did the right thing by killing the clones. But that was an entirely set of different conditions that do not exist today, therefore the clone argument can be tossed out the window once and for all. Please.
No, it can't. While the set of circumstances that made clones a failure for Apple in the 1997 is not identical to that of 2007 several contributing factors for the failure have not changed.
1) Apple still depends on its hardware revenue stream that cannot be offset by increasing sales on a $129 software product that is subsidized by that hardware revenue. Unless you wish to convert Apple into Red Hat (278M in 2006) this would be an amazingly poor strategy for Apple and Apple shareholders.
You cannot expect market share to increase to levels where Apple can maintain revenues and profits instantly. You CAN expect Apple hardware sales to decline based on the 1990 clone market experience.
2) Increasing OSX market share through general sales on the pc platform massively increases cost to Apple due to increased support and development costs. Sun Solaris has a fairly limited driver set and therefore fairly limited adoption rates in comparison to Linux and BSD. In order for Apple to take significant share it must spend the money that Sun has not been willing to do so to write all the drivers and do all the testing for wider adoption.
This cost would not be supported through the now devastated hardware revenue stream.
3) An assertion using brainy sounding words like "datum" is no more logically supported than using regular words. Your assertion that you can only compare information if there is corresponding information of equal weight is both unsupported by any logic or common sense.
* A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated.
There are 95% of users out there not using OS X. Do you think Apple, selling OS X only with it's hardware, will someday make OS X the standard OS? That IS the game, make no mistake about that.
No, that is not THE game and not an overly important one to Apple. When repeatedly asked if they were willing to drop margins to increase share Apple has said No. Therefore Apple (and many shareholders) believe the game is profitability, healthy revenue stream and other markets.
You also provide no evidence that Apple would massively increase share to the point where it could replace hardware revenue losses by taking share away from Windows. There are several competitive advantages to Windows that argues against this.
Therefore your evaluation of this "datum" is flawed and just another completely unsupported assertion.
By the way...if you wish to define OS dominance as the game, realize the that game was lost in the 80s and 90s. Big time. There has not been an instance where a dominant incumbent computer company was unseated in its own domain.
Mainframes - IBM. Not dethroned but replaced by smaller new technologies: Minicomputer
Minicomputer - DEC. Not dethroned but replaced by smaller new technologies: Workstations
Workstations - Sun. Possibly dethroned by IBM and HP but very debatable. Arguably IBM and HP has abandoned their own workstation class offerings (PPC+AIX and PARISC+HPUX) in favor of PC+Linux. Made far less relevant by smaller new technologies: Personal Computer
Personal Computer - Wintel. What is more likely going to make Microsoft Windows and the PC form factor less relevant and replace them as the dominant computing platform? Mac OSX or Google/Ajax? Mac OSX or iPhone?
Trend says Google or iPhone.
* The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data.
* The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.
Apple no longer sells just Macs. Remember that. There will soon be a critical point when Apple can afford to leap into that 95% base and come out ahead. This will be done by making OS X available to users running Windows. It's just a matter of time.
That critical point is not today and may never be. Especially given that Apple is a very successful and profitable company while pursuing its hardware centric business model. Therefore the assertion that releasing OSX into the wild is simply a matter of time is again unsupported and a naked assertion with almost no merit.
There's no compelling reason to release OSX to the general PC platform given the increased support costs if a) you make more money by NOT doing so and b) you can release enough infrastructure code to the dominant but soon to be replaced computing platform to support your new computing platform (e.g. releasing Safari and iTunes onto windows) that you hope to overtake the preceeding one.
Apple MIGHT choose to do so but there are certainly counter arguments why it might not.
Vinea
Remember IE for mac has been discontinued.
It's all a plus for the iphone platform.
Very smart in my opinion. They're simply aiming to beat Microsoft at their own game--software creation--albeit with wonderful GUIs, great ease of use, and stability. The trick is not to put too much over to the Windows side to just let the Windows users feel content.
I'd like for Apple to just release good versions of their best software for Windows so I can just keep using Windows.
I wish MS would release good versions of their best software for Macs. cough* OUTLOOK*cough.
A very insignificant marketshare and pretty much only among the iBooks. We need drasticly more than that.
Then they better start making Macs that people actually want to buy. The whole converting the masses idea hasn't worked for the last 25 and it will never work. That's why Apple is still sitting at 5% desipite having an operating system that is light year ahead, they don't ever learn. Windows became the dominant player not because anything they release anything that is that good, but because they are business savvy enough to go to the people and let them decide what computer they want instead of treating them like children and making all the decisions for them like Apple does.
Well they sell millions of them and their market-share grows quarterly. I don't see them doing anything other than gaining users in droves. They are now making their first move towards gamers. Another huge segment. The amount of snobs that can't find a Mac they want because they need something no manufacturer provides is insignificant compared to the millions that do.