1.) Apple is a hardware company so it wouldn't make sense for them to release their operating system for another company.
2.) The person thought Safari was "an analogue" for future OS X to be available for PCs, when in reality it is just another taste-test for PC users so they get a grasp of how great Mac programs are, making them want to switch.
3.) "OSX Leapard came out two days ago. This is the first release of OSX designed specifically to run on Intel processors." That doesn't even make sense, "specifically?!" It runs on PPCs as well. Also, this person doesn't even know how to spell "Leopard."
4.) This whole article is illogical and stupid.
Flame deleted - JL
It's not that I'm offended by the thought of it, it's that I'm offended that anyone could be so blatantly stupid to write/(deleted) this.
1) Apple is not a hardware company. Apple, like many others, is a lifestyle company. What they sell is an experience. That experience may come in the form of hardware, it may come in the form of software, it may come in the form of design, or it may come in a combination of all of those things, among others.
2) Offering Safari on Windows isn't about a "taste-test." It's about market share. They want to capture more market share with their browser, and the best way to do that is by offering it on the Windows platform. It's the same thing they did with iTunes. They wanted market penetration so they can offer hardware that uses that particular software. In this case they choose to release Safari on Windows for iPhone integration, rather than just make it compatible with IE. A good choice too, since rendering on the two platform is different and would create inconsistencies for the user.
3) Actually, he's right—sort of. All new development is done for Intel first, then recompiled for PPC. This is the first release version of OS X done in this fashion. Previously (since about 2000), OS X had been recompiled for Intel for internal uses only. I forget what the name of the project was. I think it started with an R.
We may see the day when OS X is release for generic X86 hardware. That day is not right around the corner. A year or two from now things might be different. At some point Apple will reach a limit on their growth. I have a feeling they could go a long way. We'd have to see adoption at around 20% before I'd even speculate that we might see OS X for generic X86.
You can *say* that Apple sells an 'experience' but that's just marketing speak. What Apple sells is hardware with some very nice software to go with it. But they're getting money from their hardware sales and little from software.
Apple doesn't care a whole lot if someone pirates its software because it knows that it will be run on their hardware (not entirely true but mostly true if you ignore the hackers that shoehorn Mac OS X into their PCs). If Mac OS X were available to a generic PC, the 'experience' would be lost and the revenue on selling hardware would be lost.
Really, magicianboy, Apple would not be able to make almost a billion dollars in profit *just* selling software.
I checked Apple's product line in its online Apple Store. I didn't see lifestyle or experience anywhere in its inventory.
Then you may want to actually use your brain. Every commercial, ever ad is trying to sell you on an experience. BMW, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Apple are the big three that stick out in my mind, but most companies today realize that it's much easier to sell experiences than simple products.
Sure, you can call Apple a "hardware" company if you want...but that's only half the story. It's not superior hardware that put their stock from $4 to $180+, because at the end of the day their hardware (especially the Mac in the post-Intel era) is nothing unique.
alright, this is getting quite ridiculous. let's run down this list, shall we?
1. Steve Jobs said uses this philosophy (he said this at some keynote): "To make great software you need to make great hardware." Therefore, Apple, a software company, gets the best out of their software by developing hardware to simplify things and create a better experience.
2. Apple releases software on Windows (iTunes, QuickTime, Safari, etc) is because of (1) antitrust against Microsoft, (2) to attract more users, and (3) to use the devices they release. iPods and iPhones need a digital media manager to transfer files from a computer to the device. Guess what that is? iTunes. The iPhone also needs a program to make their web apps in. That would be Safari. As for QT, I have no idea. I think it's garbage software, but whatever.
3. Mac OS will probably never be released to general hardware. It just won't happen in the forseeable future, at least not in my opinion.
4. I find it funny that everyone is arguing about this. It's a friggin' company people, dear god.
1.)......................2.) The person thought Safari was "an analogue" for future OS X to be available for PCs, when in reality it is just another taste-test for PC users so they get a grasp of how great Mac programs are, making them want to switch...........................
I think the release was a trial for PC users to see what they would have in store using the iPhone. Suddenly Apple gives them Safari, and then an iPhone with safari. Better to give it to them than have some idiot try and extract it out of an iPhone and make it look like shitty software. Because it's alrerady been proven these iPhone hackers are total idiots. They bricked the iPhone, and didn't even realize it and tried to blame Apple.
Someone bricked a lot of iPhones out there, and the blame has fallen on Apple. Now a second set of iPhone hackers, and off shoot of the iPhone Dev Team has discovered that it was indeed bad code in the unlock, and not Apple, that rendered thousands of iPhones useless. But don't expect the Dev Team to say sorry to Apple for a bad accusation.
What would happen? Advancement would slow to a crawl as Apple dumped every last resource into trying to make their OS stable on all hardware.
Apple would, essentially, become a mini Microsoft.
...at least that's my theory.
Of course, they could also continue to fine-tune it for Apple hardware and sell it for "beige" box PCs with a "Your Mileage May Vary" disclaimer... which might do Apple good. Might. But I don't blame them for not wanting to take that risk.
Stick with what works. We've got an awesome platform right here, no reason to change it. Mac OS + Apple Hardware is what makes a Mac what it is.
Comments
2.) The person thought Safari was "an analogue" for future OS X to be available for PCs, when in reality it is just another taste-test for PC users so they get a grasp of how great Mac programs are, making them want to switch.
3.) "OSX Leapard came out two days ago. This is the first release of OSX designed specifically to run on Intel processors." That doesn't even make sense, "specifically?!" It runs on PPCs as well. Also, this person doesn't even know how to spell "Leopard."
4.) This whole article is illogical and stupid.
Flame deleted - JL
It's not that I'm offended by the thought of it, it's that I'm offended that anyone could be so blatantly stupid to write/(deleted) this.
easy there, its just a hypothetical...
It would be a better hypothetical if it was backed up rationally and made at least a little sense.
It would be a better hypothetical if it was backed up rationally and made at least a little sense.
you're right. who would write a blog post based on opinion? what an idiot...
The article writer would be better served getting the records of market share, by segment, first before writing his theory.
Sure I'd take 15% of all web sites running Safari 3 and for that matter WebKit/KHTML/KJS-- it would make it easier to develop against.
1) Apple is not a hardware company. Apple, like many others, is a lifestyle company. What they sell is an experience. That experience may come in the form of hardware, it may come in the form of software, it may come in the form of design, or it may come in a combination of all of those things, among others.
2) Offering Safari on Windows isn't about a "taste-test." It's about market share. They want to capture more market share with their browser, and the best way to do that is by offering it on the Windows platform. It's the same thing they did with iTunes. They wanted market penetration so they can offer hardware that uses that particular software. In this case they choose to release Safari on Windows for iPhone integration, rather than just make it compatible with IE. A good choice too, since rendering on the two platform is different and would create inconsistencies for the user.
3) Actually, he's right—sort of. All new development is done for Intel first, then recompiled for PPC. This is the first release version of OS X done in this fashion. Previously (since about 2000), OS X had been recompiled for Intel for internal uses only. I forget what the name of the project was. I think it started with an R.
We may see the day when OS X is release for generic X86 hardware. That day is not right around the corner. A year or two from now things might be different. At some point Apple will reach a limit on their growth. I have a feeling they could go a long way. We'd have to see adoption at around 20% before I'd even speculate that we might see OS X for generic X86.
Jobs said at All Things Digital that he "considers Apple a software company."
Jobs also said we'd be getting a 3GHz G5 and Star Wars style holographic effects in iChat. Smarten up.
1) Apple is not a hardware company.
Their revenue would prove otherwise.
You can *say* that Apple sells an 'experience' but that's just marketing speak. What Apple sells is hardware with some very nice software to go with it. But they're getting money from their hardware sales and little from software.
Apple doesn't care a whole lot if someone pirates its software because it knows that it will be run on their hardware (not entirely true but mostly true if you ignore the hackers that shoehorn Mac OS X into their PCs). If Mac OS X were available to a generic PC, the 'experience' would be lost and the revenue on selling hardware would be lost.
Really, magicianboy, Apple would not be able to make almost a billion dollars in profit *just* selling software.
1) Apple is not a hardware company. Apple, like many others, is a lifestyle company. What they sell is an experience. ...
I checked Apple's product line in its online Apple Store. I didn't see lifestyle or experience anywhere in its inventory.
I checked Apple's product line in its online Apple Store. I didn't see lifestyle or experience anywhere in its inventory.
Then you may want to actually use your brain. Every commercial, ever ad is trying to sell you on an experience. BMW, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Apple are the big three that stick out in my mind, but most companies today realize that it's much easier to sell experiences than simple products.
Sure, you can call Apple a "hardware" company if you want...but that's only half the story. It's not superior hardware that put their stock from $4 to $180+, because at the end of the day their hardware (especially the Mac in the post-Intel era) is nothing unique.
1. Steve Jobs said uses this philosophy (he said this at some keynote): "To make great software you need to make great hardware." Therefore, Apple, a software company, gets the best out of their software by developing hardware to simplify things and create a better experience.
2. Apple releases software on Windows (iTunes, QuickTime, Safari, etc) is because of (1) antitrust against Microsoft, (2) to attract more users, and (3) to use the devices they release. iPods and iPhones need a digital media manager to transfer files from a computer to the device. Guess what that is? iTunes. The iPhone also needs a program to make their web apps in. That would be Safari. As for QT, I have no idea. I think it's garbage software, but whatever.
3. Mac OS will probably never be released to general hardware. It just won't happen in the forseeable future, at least not in my opinion.
4. I find it funny that everyone is arguing about this. It's a friggin' company people, dear god.
1.)......................2.) The person thought Safari was "an analogue" for future OS X to be available for PCs, when in reality it is just another taste-test for PC users so they get a grasp of how great Mac programs are, making them want to switch...........................
I think the release was a trial for PC users to see what they would have in store using the iPhone. Suddenly Apple gives them Safari, and then an iPhone with safari. Better to give it to them than have some idiot try and extract it out of an iPhone and make it look like shitty software. Because it's alrerady been proven these iPhone hackers are total idiots. They bricked the iPhone, and didn't even realize it and tried to blame Apple.
http://digg.com/apple/iPhone_Hacker_...le_and_Apology
iPhone Hacker Community Owes Apple and Apology
Someone bricked a lot of iPhones out there, and the blame has fallen on Apple. Now a second set of iPhone hackers, and off shoot of the iPhone Dev Team has discovered that it was indeed bad code in the unlock, and not Apple, that rendered thousands of iPhones useless. But don't expect the Dev Team to say sorry to Apple for a bad accusation.
http://tuiw.wordpress.com/2007/10/09...e-and-apology/
Apple would, essentially, become a mini Microsoft.
...at least that's my theory.
Of course, they could also continue to fine-tune it for Apple hardware and sell it for "beige" box PCs with a "Your Mileage May Vary" disclaimer... which might do Apple good. Might. But I don't blame them for not wanting to take that risk.
Stick with what works. We've got an awesome platform right here, no reason to change it. Mac OS + Apple Hardware is what makes a Mac what it is.