If OSX/x86 was really that expensive, they wouldn't get anything close to 10% of the PC market. If people can buy WinXP for less, how many people are going to want OSX?
Having looked at some somewhat recent Apple filings (1Q 2001) though, their CPU unit sales are 751,000 with a total gross margin of $385 million. That's about $512 per machine.
Note that the gross margin includes everything (hardware, software, etc.), so it's anybody's guess as to how much margin they make per CPU. It could be a little bit lower, or could be drastically lower, perhaps someone has some more information.
It would probably appear very foolish to release OS X for Intel in the short run (and next year Apple would probably have some very angry shareholders) but long term it might be a good bet.
Frankly, I can't imagine anything that would realistically blow anyone away except for the release of OS X for Intel. New machine speedups/speedbumps, digital gadgets, etc. are newsworthy, but not the way they're hyping it up to be.
Having actually looked at the numbers, I'd say releasing OS X for Intel is probably much less likely than I thought it was, but what else could it be (besides something that's massively overhyped).
Maybe we'll see a commercial with "Steven" (Jobs) - "Dude, you're gettin OS X!"
<strong>How much does Apple make on the bulk of its machines? Given that iMacs constitute anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of Apple's annual unit sales, I would fathom around $200-$250, based on my knowledge of the industry.
Now, how much money would Apple make from selling OS X/x86 for $299 a copy?
You have 150 million PCs sold each year, worldwide. You have about 5 million Macs sold each year, worldwide.
If Apple hit a measly 10% saturation point in units sold each year, I fail to see how Apple could or would go out of business.
If Apple hit a 10% saturation point on new PC sales, it would equal Apple's current annual sales from all sources.
Seems like a no brainer to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple doesn't charge $299 for OS X, they charge $129. They won't bump the price by >100%. Remember when people were bitching about the $20 or whatever to get an update mailed to them?
Secondly, it is SO easy to pirate a copy of OS X (not that I have). It's not so easy to pirate a complete Mac including the average 30% margin on each machine.
I'm sure Michael Dell would love to license the Mac OS from Steve. Yeah right! Hmm. ok, Maybe HP or Compaq will license it? As if they don't have enough BS to deal with already. Hmm. Ok, Gateway! They'll buy it. Uh, yeah sure.
So, who's left? Sony. That would be the only REMOTE possibility, only problem is none of the current Mac software is written to work on x86, so Sony would be stuck with a bunch of SMacs with no apps.
The only way OS X would be on intel is if Apple put the crappy Pentium in the box themselves. Thing is, Apple likes making small computers, and Pentiums ain't small. Or cool. And they still wouldn't run any software. It's an endian thing. I'm not a programmer, but the people I've talked to who are say it just doesn't work.
Have you seen the mess that it takes to cool the G4? Puhleeze. Look at some photos of the high end G4 machines. It's a mess.
In fact, even in the slot loading iMacs, the entire middle of the machine is a big heatsink made of aluminum.
I never said Apple would charge $299 for the Mac version of OS X. I said Apple could charge $299 for the x86 version. If people want it, they will pay for it, just like they do for all the millions of retail copies of Windows that fly off the shelf.
And, don't forget, the average is just that. The vast majority of machines sold by Apple earn a small margin. That margin would be made up by lost sales from people buying a PC with OS X for x86 on it.
Trust me, any economic student would tell you to use scale of quantity to make more money. Apple's got a potential market of 150 million machines a year just ripe for the pickings.
Microsoft has done it and done it well. Apple could do it and do it well, if they wanted to.
There is not one damn thing Apple could do more to shake up the industry more than to release OS X for x86. Not even the DOJ could strike the fear of God into the clowns in Redmond like that one move would do. It would be the most brilliant thing ever.
Having looked at some somewhat recent Apple filings (1Q 2001) though, their CPU unit sales are 751,000 with a total gross margin of $385 million. That's about $512 per machine.
Note that the gross margin includes everything (hardware, software, etc.), so it's anybody's guess as to how much margin they make per CPU. It could be a little bit lower, or could be drastically lower, perhaps someone has some more information.
It would probably appear very foolish to release OS X for Intel in the short run (and next year Apple would probably have some very angry shareholders) but long term it might be a good bet.
Frankly, I can't imagine anything that would realistically blow anyone away except for the release of OS X for Intel. New machine speedups/speedbumps, digital gadgets, etc. are newsworthy, but not the way they're hyping it up to be.
Having actually looked at the numbers, I'd say releasing OS X for Intel is probably much less likely than I thought it was, but what else could it be (besides something that's massively overhyped).
Maybe we'll see a commercial with "Steven" (Jobs) - "Dude, you're gettin OS X!"<hr></blockquote>
Standard markup in the computer industry is about 25%. The more expensive the machine, the lower the margin. You do the math.
If people are willing to pay $299 for WindowsXP, then, people would be willing to pay $299 for OS x86.
If OSX/x86 was really that expensive, they wouldn't get anything close to 10% of the PC market. If people can buy WinXP for less, how many people are going to want OSX?<hr></blockquote>
If people were rewarded with a richer experience, then, they'd buy it. For only $100 more? Sure they would.
Isn't the whole idea of paying twice as much for the average Mac than the average PC sort of the same thing? After all, nowadays, the difference in decent PC hardware and Mac hardware is negligible.
It would be a whole lot more tempting to spend, say, $100 more, than, say, $500-$1000 more, to get the same experience. I think it would be great for the consumer.
[quote]Standard markup in the computer industry is about 25%. The more expensive the machine, the lower the margin. You do the math.
If people are willing to pay $299 for WindowsXP, then, people would be willing to pay $299 for OS x86.
__________________
-TheRoadWarrior
<hr></blockquote>
Well, the lower the price of the machine, the lower the gross margin ($ wise, not percentage). I'd venture a guess that the percentage margins on Apple's high end machines are probably higher than the iMacs as well.
But you know what would be really mind blowing? If Apple would release machines that would justify the cost of PPC hardware vis a vis x86, especially in regards to OS X. Then Apple would still have enough demand for its hardware (translating to profits), AND they would be able to release OS X for Intel without eating too much into their high margin sales. Heck, they could even still make cool low end machines if the "cool" factor was high enough.
Carbon isn't going anywhere. I seriously doubt we will ever see PhotoShop in Cocoa, and even new apps like Maya are done in carbon. It would be unwise for Apple to drop their C++ toolkit.
And Apple will not try to license its OS again. Not as long as Jobs want to "make the whole widget" and not as long as there are no viable buyers of the OS to bundle with their x86 hardware. Remember that the money for their software development comes from their hardware sales. That's why iTunes is free, no? And so is the OS when you buy a Mac.
Apple might make their own x86 hardware to Run OS X on, but I doubt it because 1. x86 is closer to the end of its life rather than the beginning of it; 2. it would still take a lot of effort to port it and apps fully -- lots of potholes in the road; and 3. look where they are with the refinement of the system that runs on Motorola chips -- why take tackle two branches that need this much refinement at the same time?
We have about 1000 PCs in our company. If Apple came out with OS X for intel, guess how many of the 1000 PCs would run OS X. I'll tell you. None. Because none of their specialized little database apps would work on OS X.
The majority of Windows machines out there are in business. No company is going to go switching all of their desktops to OS X just for, what we consider to be, a richer experience.
I agree it would be good for the consumer. It would be great if a person could go to Compaq's website and have a choice of 4 or 5 OS's each with a somewhat equal marketshare - which would mean a somewhat equal amount of apps. But they can't.
It's too late for Apple to start licensing the Mac OS. It's too bad, but it's true.
Most people with PCs simply don't know enough about them, or the Mac OS, to bother with putting it on. Take a look at Linux. It's got about a 2-3% marketshare. People could put that on. True, Linux isn't as easy to deal with as OS X, but only geeks would bother and I just don't think there are enough geeks out there to justify Apple making X for intel.
Jobs and Co. have repeatedly stated how they can do the things they do because they build the OS and the hardware. It is highly unlikely that Apple would give a person running a dell the ability to use iMovie, iTunes, iTools etc. How many people would really spend $299 for OS X? On top of that, how much of there stuff would work with it? What about all of those little internet cams that won't work, or the incompatible microscopes, or steering wheel things, or the all in one scanner/fax/copier, or the multitude of other devices that wouldn't work. A person would spend $299 on OS X only to find out they couldn't use half their stuff. Next thing you know they're saying "Apple sucks, Mac sucks blah blah blah".
Don't forget, Apple would also have to support all of these people with their strange boxen. Imagine a person with a gateway calling Apple:
customer: "yeah I just put on OS X and I can't get iMovie to work with my camera."
support: "Which kind of computer do you have"
customer: "A gateway".
support: "Which Gateway?"
customer: "Oh, it's from March".
support: "do you have a model number?"
customer: "I think it's #754783GL"
support: "(flipping through an encylopedia of pages)oh, um sir, I think that machine doesn't have firewire".
customer: "what's firewire?"
support: "it's a high speed connector that let's you hook up cameras etc."
customer: "But it says on the OS X box that I can make movies with this OS."
support: "that's true, but you need the right connector".
customer: "I just spent $299! I could've got dazzle for $299 if I would've know I needed the connector".
support: "I'm sorry know one told you".
customer: "well, here's another problem, none of my games work anymore either."
support, "that's because they're for Windows, you'll have to buy them over again if they exist for Mac."
customer: "Mac sucks *click*".
I just can't think of any compelling reason why my girlfriend's mom would go buy OS X for her PC for $299. She's still using Win98 for crying out loud, as are a lot of people, including my GF's three brothers, and her sister... They'll upgrade when they buy a machine, not with a CD.
Only, if Apple made an Intel PC themselves, with a special ROM would they make OS X for intel. And I just don't see the point of that. For a little speed? Lose all of your carbon apps for a little speed? nah. Sorry.
The ONLY reason you have Windows on those 1000 machines is because you have NO choice. Linux is too splintered to be any threat.
But, OS X for x86 would be a threat. Pushed by a company that takes in $5 billion a year.
And, it would seem to me that porting applications which are already x86 native wouldn't be much trouble if they are already ported to another platform as they are now.
<strong>The ONLY reason you have Windows on those 1000 machines is because you have NO choice. Linux is too splintered to be any threat.
But, OS X for x86 would be a threat. Pushed by a company that takes in $5 billion a year.
And, it would seem to me that porting applications which are already x86 native wouldn't be much trouble if they are already ported to another platform as they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While it's true that the MS side of the IT dept. really doesn't really have a viable alternative on the 1000 PCs (Linux wouldn't really do the trick - exchange servers, access etc.) they wouldn't put OS X on if they could.
Here's the cold, hard, political truth. With 3 IT managers, and 16 support techs who only know MS, who are constantly worrying about keeping up on training, they wouldn't kill off their own jobs by abandoning their own technology. My company doesn't even hire its own tech support people. There are three managers for the PC side and one for the Mac side (one of the PC managers is the ''overall" CIO). They have a contract through Siemens which takes care of all of the tech support people including training, repairs etc. The management simply doesn't want the responsibility of hiring and training the people. It's not just the company I work for either. Siemens is a client of many,many large corporations including, but not limited to, Bear Sterns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and even Microsoft. Siemens makes a big deal out of how many MCSE certified techs they have. I'm a Mac guy, working as a "consultant" on the Mac side and they even offer me MCSE, A+ and all of that other training. I'll probably take them up on it (I guess, since its free), even though I make a healthy chunk more salary than the dime a dozen PC techs, but that's another issue.
On top of that, we've got a Windows 2000 rollout scheduled for later this year (big companies don't usually upgrade too fast - see the OpenLicense 6.0 debate).
Bottom line is people's jobs rely on PCs running Windows. You may find a relatively small percentage of consumers who would like to run OS X on their x86 box, but I really don't think it would justify the expense or risk for Apple.
It's too bad because, as you say, it would be good for the consumer. But it's just too late. It would be a support nightmare.
If Apple wants to break into the enterprise market they're going to have to figure out another way. And if they make X for x86, it'll be on their own hardware with specialized ROMs. Or a special deal with Sony or someone. But not an off the shelf CD. Unless they really have some crazy great plans and enormous balls.
Cocoa apps would, I'm not sure about Carbon though.
I think Apple is touting Cocoa as the future of development for the platform, and Carbon is more a of transition for apps from OS 9 to X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cocoa apps would NOT run without AT LEAST a recompile. After all, it's still PPC machine code, Cocoa or not.
If people were rewarded with a richer experience, then, they'd buy it. For only $100 more? Sure they would.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask your PC using friends whether they'd pay $299 to upgrade their PC to run OSX. Remember, most people don't pay $199 for WinXP, they buy a computer with XP pre-installed.
I think you'll hear as many variations on "yeah, right!" as you have friends.
It's true that if 150 million PCs are sold per year, and Apple could sell a $299 app to 10% of people who buy PCs, they could earn more profit than by doing what they're doing now. But does anybody really believe Apple can sell a $299 version of OSX for x86 to 10% of the people who buy a PC?
Remember that Microsoft will NEVER allow Dell, Gateway, and the rest to offer OSX86 pre-installed on those machines, at least not as long as those companies wish to sell some flavor of Windows on their other machines.
So consumers will be faced with WinXP pre-installed no matter what, and an optional $299 add-on to get OSX86. In this scenario, I think Apple would be lucky to get 1% of customers interested, let alone 10%.
I think the only real option is a version of OS X Server. There are probably a lot of IT staff interested in OS X, but unwilling to buy an expensive Apple server to test it out. If they could install it on an old machine and give it a trial run, it would lead to further Apple hardware sales. Once it gets into the IT shop, even on one machine, it would spread to the desktop, and then from an employee's desktop to their home.
I could see Apple's marketshare going from 5% to 10% like this.
While it's true that the MS side of the IT dept. really doesn't really have a viable alternative on the 1000 PCs (Linux wouldn't really do the trick - exchange servers, access etc.) they wouldn't put OS X on if they could.
Here's the cold, hard, political truth. With 3 IT managers, and 16 support techs who only know MS, who are constantly worrying about keeping up on training, they wouldn't kill off their own jobs by abandoning their own technology. My company doesn't even hire its own tech support people. There are three managers for the PC side and one for the Mac side (one of the PC managers is the ''overall" CIO). They have a contract through Siemens which takes care of all of the tech support people including training, repairs etc. The management simply doesn't want the responsibility of hiring and training the people. It's not just the company I work for either. Siemens is a client of many,many large corporations including, but not limited to, Bear Sterns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and even Microsoft. Siemens makes a big deal out of how many MCSE certified techs they have. I'm a Mac guy, working as a "consultant" on the Mac side and they even offer me MCSE, A+ and all of that other training. I'll probably take them up on it (I guess, since its free), even though I make a healthy chunk more salary than the dime a dozen PC techs, but that's another issue.
On top of that, we've got a Windows 2000 rollout scheduled for later this year (big companies don't usually upgrade too fast - see the OpenLicense 6.0 debate).
Bottom line is people's jobs rely on PCs running Windows. You may find a relatively small percentage of consumers who would like to run OS X on their x86 box, but I really don't think it would justify the expense or risk for Apple.
It's too bad because, as you say, it would be good for the consumer. But it's just too late. It would be a support nightmare.
If Apple wants to break into the enterprise market they're going to have to figure out another way. And if they make X for x86, it'll be on their own hardware with specialized ROMs. Or a special deal with Sony or someone. But not an off the shelf CD. Unless they really have some crazy great plans and enormous balls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple supports an additional hardware platform and wants to get into the enterprise, its not the PC but perhaps working with Sun just like NeXT did with Sun in '95. Many financial, intelligence and scientific apps were written in NeXTSTEP developer tools, now Cocoa, becuase of the tremendous OO advantages and speed of app development. Sun controls a lot of servers in the enterprise but there desktops are another matter. OSX runs on Sun/SPARC and Sun/x86. I was at Sun and the PM for NEXTSTEP. The main reason it died was that we introduced Java and it took off whereas OpenStep faded away. But today, that is a different story. We'll see.
Comments
the alpha of it looks like XP they might have to change the name.
also apple is thinking of posablt stoping orking on GT for windows and have QT for mac and linux only.
Any way a PC would run OSX way to slow
Having looked at some somewhat recent Apple filings (1Q 2001) though, their CPU unit sales are 751,000 with a total gross margin of $385 million. That's about $512 per machine.
Note that the gross margin includes everything (hardware, software, etc.), so it's anybody's guess as to how much margin they make per CPU. It could be a little bit lower, or could be drastically lower, perhaps someone has some more information.
It would probably appear very foolish to release OS X for Intel in the short run (and next year Apple would probably have some very angry shareholders) but long term it might be a good bet.
Frankly, I can't imagine anything that would realistically blow anyone away except for the release of OS X for Intel. New machine speedups/speedbumps, digital gadgets, etc. are newsworthy, but not the way they're hyping it up to be.
Having actually looked at the numbers, I'd say releasing OS X for Intel is probably much less likely than I thought it was, but what else could it be (besides something that's massively overhyped).
Maybe we'll see a commercial with "Steven" (Jobs) - "Dude, you're gettin OS X!"
<strong>How much does Apple make on the bulk of its machines? Given that iMacs constitute anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of Apple's annual unit sales, I would fathom around $200-$250, based on my knowledge of the industry.
Now, how much money would Apple make from selling OS X/x86 for $299 a copy?
You have 150 million PCs sold each year, worldwide. You have about 5 million Macs sold each year, worldwide.
If Apple hit a measly 10% saturation point in units sold each year, I fail to see how Apple could or would go out of business.
If Apple hit a 10% saturation point on new PC sales, it would equal Apple's current annual sales from all sources.
Seems like a no brainer to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Apple doesn't charge $299 for OS X, they charge $129. They won't bump the price by >100%. Remember when people were bitching about the $20 or whatever to get an update mailed to them?
Secondly, it is SO easy to pirate a copy of OS X (not that I have). It's not so easy to pirate a complete Mac including the average 30% margin on each machine.
I'm sure Michael Dell would love to license the Mac OS from Steve. Yeah right! Hmm. ok, Maybe HP or Compaq will license it? As if they don't have enough BS to deal with already. Hmm. Ok, Gateway! They'll buy it. Uh, yeah sure.
So, who's left? Sony. That would be the only REMOTE possibility, only problem is none of the current Mac software is written to work on x86, so Sony would be stuck with a bunch of SMacs with no apps.
The only way OS X would be on intel is if Apple put the crappy Pentium in the box themselves. Thing is, Apple likes making small computers, and Pentiums ain't small. Or cool. And they still wouldn't run any software. It's an endian thing. I'm not a programmer, but the people I've talked to who are say it just doesn't work.
In fact, even in the slot loading iMacs, the entire middle of the machine is a big heatsink made of aluminum.
I never said Apple would charge $299 for the Mac version of OS X. I said Apple could charge $299 for the x86 version. If people want it, they will pay for it, just like they do for all the millions of retail copies of Windows that fly off the shelf.
And, don't forget, the average is just that. The vast majority of machines sold by Apple earn a small margin. That margin would be made up by lost sales from people buying a PC with OS X for x86 on it.
Trust me, any economic student would tell you to use scale of quantity to make more money. Apple's got a potential market of 150 million machines a year just ripe for the pickings.
Microsoft has done it and done it well. Apple could do it and do it well, if they wanted to.
There is not one damn thing Apple could do more to shake up the industry more than to release OS X for x86. Not even the DOJ could strike the fear of God into the clowns in Redmond like that one move would do. It would be the most brilliant thing ever.
Windows XP home edition is $200.
Having looked at some somewhat recent Apple filings (1Q 2001) though, their CPU unit sales are 751,000 with a total gross margin of $385 million. That's about $512 per machine.
Note that the gross margin includes everything (hardware, software, etc.), so it's anybody's guess as to how much margin they make per CPU. It could be a little bit lower, or could be drastically lower, perhaps someone has some more information.
It would probably appear very foolish to release OS X for Intel in the short run (and next year Apple would probably have some very angry shareholders) but long term it might be a good bet.
Frankly, I can't imagine anything that would realistically blow anyone away except for the release of OS X for Intel. New machine speedups/speedbumps, digital gadgets, etc. are newsworthy, but not the way they're hyping it up to be.
Having actually looked at the numbers, I'd say releasing OS X for Intel is probably much less likely than I thought it was, but what else could it be (besides something that's massively overhyped).
Maybe we'll see a commercial with "Steven" (Jobs) - "Dude, you're gettin OS X!"<hr></blockquote>
Standard markup in the computer industry is about 25%. The more expensive the machine, the lower the margin. You do the math.
If people are willing to pay $299 for WindowsXP, then, people would be willing to pay $299 for OS x86.
If OSX/x86 was really that expensive, they wouldn't get anything close to 10% of the PC market. If people can buy WinXP for less, how many people are going to want OSX?<hr></blockquote>
If people were rewarded with a richer experience, then, they'd buy it. For only $100 more? Sure they would.
Isn't the whole idea of paying twice as much for the average Mac than the average PC sort of the same thing? After all, nowadays, the difference in decent PC hardware and Mac hardware is negligible.
It would be a whole lot more tempting to spend, say, $100 more, than, say, $500-$1000 more, to get the same experience. I think it would be great for the consumer.
If people are willing to pay $299 for WindowsXP, then, people would be willing to pay $299 for OS x86.
__________________
-TheRoadWarrior
<hr></blockquote>
Well, the lower the price of the machine, the lower the gross margin ($ wise, not percentage). I'd venture a guess that the percentage margins on Apple's high end machines are probably higher than the iMacs as well.
But you know what would be really mind blowing? If Apple would release machines that would justify the cost of PPC hardware vis a vis x86, especially in regards to OS X. Then Apple would still have enough demand for its hardware (translating to profits), AND they would be able to release OS X for Intel without eating too much into their high margin sales. Heck, they could even still make cool low end machines if the "cool" factor was high enough.
Hmmm....
Either come back with x86 Mac clones, or, sell and license OS X for Intel.
There's too much pie out there not to take a slice.
Cocoa apps would, I'm not sure about Carbon though.
I think Apple is touting Cocoa as the future of development for the platform, and Carbon is more a of transition for apps from OS 9 to X.
And Apple will not try to license its OS again. Not as long as Jobs want to "make the whole widget" and not as long as there are no viable buyers of the OS to bundle with their x86 hardware. Remember that the money for their software development comes from their hardware sales. That's why iTunes is free, no? And so is the OS when you buy a Mac.
Apple might make their own x86 hardware to Run OS X on, but I doubt it because 1. x86 is closer to the end of its life rather than the beginning of it; 2. it would still take a lot of effort to port it and apps fully -- lots of potholes in the road; and 3. look where they are with the refinement of the system that runs on Motorola chips -- why take tackle two branches that need this much refinement at the same time?
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
The majority of Windows machines out there are in business. No company is going to go switching all of their desktops to OS X just for, what we consider to be, a richer experience.
I agree it would be good for the consumer. It would be great if a person could go to Compaq's website and have a choice of 4 or 5 OS's each with a somewhat equal marketshare - which would mean a somewhat equal amount of apps. But they can't.
It's too late for Apple to start licensing the Mac OS. It's too bad, but it's true.
Most people with PCs simply don't know enough about them, or the Mac OS, to bother with putting it on. Take a look at Linux. It's got about a 2-3% marketshare. People could put that on. True, Linux isn't as easy to deal with as OS X, but only geeks would bother and I just don't think there are enough geeks out there to justify Apple making X for intel.
Jobs and Co. have repeatedly stated how they can do the things they do because they build the OS and the hardware. It is highly unlikely that Apple would give a person running a dell the ability to use iMovie, iTunes, iTools etc. How many people would really spend $299 for OS X? On top of that, how much of there stuff would work with it? What about all of those little internet cams that won't work, or the incompatible microscopes, or steering wheel things, or the all in one scanner/fax/copier, or the multitude of other devices that wouldn't work. A person would spend $299 on OS X only to find out they couldn't use half their stuff. Next thing you know they're saying "Apple sucks, Mac sucks blah blah blah".
Don't forget, Apple would also have to support all of these people with their strange boxen. Imagine a person with a gateway calling Apple:
customer: "yeah I just put on OS X and I can't get iMovie to work with my camera."
support: "Which kind of computer do you have"
customer: "A gateway".
support: "Which Gateway?"
customer: "Oh, it's from March".
support: "do you have a model number?"
customer: "I think it's #754783GL"
support: "(flipping through an encylopedia of pages)oh, um sir, I think that machine doesn't have firewire".
customer: "what's firewire?"
support: "it's a high speed connector that let's you hook up cameras etc."
customer: "But it says on the OS X box that I can make movies with this OS."
support: "that's true, but you need the right connector".
customer: "I just spent $299! I could've got dazzle for $299 if I would've know I needed the connector".
support: "I'm sorry know one told you".
customer: "well, here's another problem, none of my games work anymore either."
support, "that's because they're for Windows, you'll have to buy them over again if they exist for Mac."
customer: "Mac sucks *click*".
I just can't think of any compelling reason why my girlfriend's mom would go buy OS X for her PC for $299. She's still using Win98 for crying out loud, as are a lot of people, including my GF's three brothers, and her sister... They'll upgrade when they buy a machine, not with a CD.
Only, if Apple made an Intel PC themselves, with a special ROM would they make OS X for intel. And I just don't see the point of that. For a little speed? Lose all of your carbon apps for a little speed? nah. Sorry.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
But, OS X for x86 would be a threat. Pushed by a company that takes in $5 billion a year.
And, it would seem to me that porting applications which are already x86 native wouldn't be much trouble if they are already ported to another platform as they are now.
<strong>The ONLY reason you have Windows on those 1000 machines is because you have NO choice. Linux is too splintered to be any threat.
But, OS X for x86 would be a threat. Pushed by a company that takes in $5 billion a year.
And, it would seem to me that porting applications which are already x86 native wouldn't be much trouble if they are already ported to another platform as they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While it's true that the MS side of the IT dept. really doesn't really have a viable alternative on the 1000 PCs (Linux wouldn't really do the trick - exchange servers, access etc.) they wouldn't put OS X on if they could.
Here's the cold, hard, political truth. With 3 IT managers, and 16 support techs who only know MS, who are constantly worrying about keeping up on training, they wouldn't kill off their own jobs by abandoning their own technology. My company doesn't even hire its own tech support people. There are three managers for the PC side and one for the Mac side (one of the PC managers is the ''overall" CIO). They have a contract through Siemens which takes care of all of the tech support people including training, repairs etc. The management simply doesn't want the responsibility of hiring and training the people. It's not just the company I work for either. Siemens is a client of many,many large corporations including, but not limited to, Bear Sterns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and even Microsoft. Siemens makes a big deal out of how many MCSE certified techs they have. I'm a Mac guy, working as a "consultant" on the Mac side and they even offer me MCSE, A+ and all of that other training. I'll probably take them up on it (I guess, since its free), even though I make a healthy chunk more salary than the dime a dozen PC techs, but that's another issue.
On top of that, we've got a Windows 2000 rollout scheduled for later this year (big companies don't usually upgrade too fast - see the OpenLicense 6.0 debate).
Bottom line is people's jobs rely on PCs running Windows. You may find a relatively small percentage of consumers who would like to run OS X on their x86 box, but I really don't think it would justify the expense or risk for Apple.
It's too bad because, as you say, it would be good for the consumer. But it's just too late. It would be a support nightmare.
If Apple wants to break into the enterprise market they're going to have to figure out another way. And if they make X for x86, it'll be on their own hardware with specialized ROMs. Or a special deal with Sony or someone. But not an off the shelf CD. Unless they really have some crazy great plans and enormous balls.
<strong>
Cocoa apps would, I'm not sure about Carbon though.
I think Apple is touting Cocoa as the future of development for the platform, and Carbon is more a of transition for apps from OS 9 to X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cocoa apps would NOT run without AT LEAST a recompile. After all, it's still PPC machine code, Cocoa or not.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
If people were rewarded with a richer experience, then, they'd buy it. For only $100 more? Sure they would.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask your PC using friends whether they'd pay $299 to upgrade their PC to run OSX. Remember, most people don't pay $199 for WinXP, they buy a computer with XP pre-installed.
I think you'll hear as many variations on "yeah, right!" as you have friends.
Remember that Microsoft will NEVER allow Dell, Gateway, and the rest to offer OSX86 pre-installed on those machines, at least not as long as those companies wish to sell some flavor of Windows on their other machines.
So consumers will be faced with WinXP pre-installed no matter what, and an optional $299 add-on to get OSX86. In this scenario, I think Apple would be lucky to get 1% of customers interested, let alone 10%.
I could see Apple's marketshare going from 5% to 10% like this.
<strong>
While it's true that the MS side of the IT dept. really doesn't really have a viable alternative on the 1000 PCs (Linux wouldn't really do the trick - exchange servers, access etc.) they wouldn't put OS X on if they could.
Here's the cold, hard, political truth. With 3 IT managers, and 16 support techs who only know MS, who are constantly worrying about keeping up on training, they wouldn't kill off their own jobs by abandoning their own technology. My company doesn't even hire its own tech support people. There are three managers for the PC side and one for the Mac side (one of the PC managers is the ''overall" CIO). They have a contract through Siemens which takes care of all of the tech support people including training, repairs etc. The management simply doesn't want the responsibility of hiring and training the people. It's not just the company I work for either. Siemens is a client of many,many large corporations including, but not limited to, Bear Sterns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and even Microsoft. Siemens makes a big deal out of how many MCSE certified techs they have. I'm a Mac guy, working as a "consultant" on the Mac side and they even offer me MCSE, A+ and all of that other training. I'll probably take them up on it (I guess, since its free), even though I make a healthy chunk more salary than the dime a dozen PC techs, but that's another issue.
On top of that, we've got a Windows 2000 rollout scheduled for later this year (big companies don't usually upgrade too fast - see the OpenLicense 6.0 debate).
Bottom line is people's jobs rely on PCs running Windows. You may find a relatively small percentage of consumers who would like to run OS X on their x86 box, but I really don't think it would justify the expense or risk for Apple.
It's too bad because, as you say, it would be good for the consumer. But it's just too late. It would be a support nightmare.
If Apple wants to break into the enterprise market they're going to have to figure out another way. And if they make X for x86, it'll be on their own hardware with specialized ROMs. Or a special deal with Sony or someone. But not an off the shelf CD. Unless they really have some crazy great plans and enormous balls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple supports an additional hardware platform and wants to get into the enterprise, its not the PC but perhaps working with Sun just like NeXT did with Sun in '95. Many financial, intelligence and scientific apps were written in NeXTSTEP developer tools, now Cocoa, becuase of the tremendous OO advantages and speed of app development. Sun controls a lot of servers in the enterprise but there desktops are another matter. OSX runs on Sun/SPARC and Sun/x86. I was at Sun and the PM for NEXTSTEP. The main reason it died was that we introduced Java and it took off whereas OpenStep faded away. But today, that is a different story. We'll see.