Apple is bound to end up as a software company

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This is just late night speculation!



I have hoped for an x86 Apple CPU soon, but the more I think about it the more unrealistic it seems in the near future.



The G4 is the only thing stopping Apple turning into a software company. The difference between an Apple PC and an x86 PC is the PowerPC and the Mac OS.



Replace the PowerPC with an x86 CPU then we have an x86 running OSX. The only hardware difference between Apple and ex. Dell is the PowerPC CPU both companies use the same hardware apart from the CPU and motherboard.



Even if Apple tries to differentiate their line of Macs from an average x86 PC with a slightly different motherboard these obstacles are bound to be hacked or circumvented in some form or another. If Apple wants a different CPU then it is going to be real expensive, no matter if they are made by Intel or AMD. The problem is just the same as with Motorola, the expense of producing a line of CPUs just for Apple can not justified by Apples small marked share, not even is marked share is doubled or quadrupled.



Therefore no special x86 CPU for Apple and we are stuck with Motorola. This mean that Apple will continue to slip behind in the speed race, Motorola cannot afford to develop faster and faster CPUs just for Apple, the marked share is just too small.



In the end this will force Apple to abandon the hardware business and make an x86 compatible version of OSX. I think this will happen in a few years (3-5 max!)



How long it will take to make Apple ready for the switch from being a hardware company to a software orientated company is anybodies guess. I think Apple already have started by buying software companies and secretly writing drivers for the millions of different types of hardware that?s available for the x86 PCs.



Even the switch ads target MS and aren?t that hardware focused.



This is just late night speculation off course but a likely scenario.

Sorry for the possible poor wording, but I don?t write in English for moths at a time.

[Asbestos suit ON and flame shield HIGH!]

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    zazzaz Posts: 177member
    Alas, what gives Apple the ability to create such wonderful applications is their intimate and unique understanding of the Hardware and OS.



    Outside that realm Apple would quickly become yet another software company.



    The fluidity of their applications is a direct result of hardware control.



    Even with Apples talent the 'just works' credence that their apps are endowed with would simply vanish into the .dll extension and library disaster that is Windows and become as troublesome as the current lackluster offerings.



    And, lastly, this forum would become future non-hardware.



    [ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: zaz ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 11
    27ray27ray Posts: 26member
    kind of like NeXT....



    I think that Steve might have learned from that mistake, unless he wants Billy G to buy out apple and then take control from the inside....



    -ray



    [ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: 27ray ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 11
    rupertrupert Posts: 69member
    But would things like .dll extensions, etc., that make windows so terrible be a problem with a x86 version of OS X?



    Assuming there was a version of OS X for x86 hardware, format the HD, get rid of windows, install OS X, if X has all the drivers you need for your peripherals, there would be no .dll files to deal with.



    If I am wrong, please correct me.



    -'pert
  • Reply 4 of 11
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    they are as software company
  • Reply 5 of 11
    eupfhoriaeupfhoria Posts: 257member
    [quote]Originally posted by zaz:

    <strong>



    And, lastly, this forum would become future non-hardware.



    [ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: zaz ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple will not become a software company. why?

    (posted above).



    Why does this matter?



    because this is the only real thread that people visit at AI, if it became future non-hardware then people would start visiting the software thread, thus causing an imbalance in the reality distortion field (the Force) and cause the world to spontaneously combust.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Rants/debates on this subject belong in General Discussion.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    [quote] I have hoped for an x86 Apple CPU soon, but the more I think about it the more unrealistic it seems in the near future. <hr></blockquote>



    That's what i'm thinking. I personally don't see X86 as a viable option for Apple with it's current position.



    [quote] Even if Apple tries to differentiate their line of Macs from an average x86 PC with a slightly different motherboard these obstacles are bound to be hacked or circumvented in some form or another. If Apple wants a different CPU then it is going to be real expensive, no matter if they are made by Intel or AMD. The problem is just the same as with Motorola, the expense of producing a line of CPUs just for Apple can not justified by Apples small marked share, not even is marked share is doubled or quadrupled.<hr></blockquote>



    This is not necessarily true. Apple was first with support for 802.11b on the motherboard. They have flexibility with their Mobo designs that PC companies don't. Sure PC mobos vary slightly but they all originate from the same chipsets so the differentiating is very small. Apple has been able to add dsp's and various other features that haven't always been adopted on the PC side. As for marketshare...Apple sells more computers than you give them credit for. While they have very small overall computer marketshare I believe recently that Apple was fourth in computer sales for a recent quarter. This shows that while people love to bring up %5 marketshare they fail to realize that Apple ships more computers than MOST individual computer companies. That is nothing to sneeze at and what Motorola won't do can easily be sent to IBM. Everyone wants to make money.



    [quote]Therefore no special x86 CPU for Apple and we are stuck with Motorola. This mean that Apple will continue to slip behind in the speed race, Motorola cannot afford to develop faster and faster CPUs just for Apple, the marked share is just too small. <hr></blockquote>



    This is shortsighted. CPU's fundamentally basic processors. The Nintendo Gamecube uses a slightly modified PPC Proc....Cisco Routers use Motorola procs. I've seen older Motorola 68k procs in Devices that cannot be called "computers" in the general sense. I think Chip Manufacturers are always looking into how they can leverage their chips in other markets. That's actually an advantage that PPC has...it's ability to be used in the embedded market a bit easier. This economy of scale helps us all.





    [quote]How long it will take to make Apple ready for the switch from being a hardware company to a software orientated company is anybodies guess. I think Apple already have started by buying software companies and secretly writing drivers for the millions of different types of hardware that?s available for the x86 PCs <hr></blockquote>



    I don't think Apple WANTS to be a software company. Buying companies is a way to ensure that they have good apps in areas they feel are important(ie Digital Video/Audio). They've always done this to spur certain markets. They make the most profit on Hardware and I don't see them giving that golden goose egg up anytime soon. As for PC drivers all they need to do is spur development of Darwin X86 and ensure their driver dev kit is easy as it can be and the drivers might come.



    My thoughts are that Apple would love to have the large pool of X86 suppliers but the move is much harder than most people expect. You either have to buy your chipsets from a 3rd party which means a lack of control or you'd have to design your own putting you right back to square one. Then you'd have to encourage...no beg your developers to tweak their apps yet again. I just don't see Apple moving to X86 without losing lot's of confidence in the Dev Community. They've promised alot and this would be a huge blow. They effort required would be too much to too little gain.
  • Reply 8 of 11
    pesipesi Posts: 424member
    but... apple already IS a software company.



    you don't buy a computer for the hardware. the hardware is useless. you buy the hardware for the ability to run software.



    and what does apple make? the best software. the hardware is just an afterthought, really. it is simply a vehicle for their software.



    what they make is the best hardware for their software to run on.
  • Reply 9 of 11
    arisaris Posts: 65member
    [quote]Originally posted by zaz:

    <strong>Alas, what gives Apple the ability to create such wonderful applications is their intimate and unique understanding of the Hardware and OS.



    Outside that realm Apple would quickly become yet another software company.



    The fluidity of their applications is a direct result of hardware control.



    Even with Apples talent the 'just works' credence that their apps are endowed with would simply vanish into the .dll extension and library disaster that is Windows and become as troublesome as the current lackluster offerings.



    And, lastly, this forum would become future non-hardware.



    [ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: zaz ]</strong><hr></blockquote>





    this is only true for the OS. apps just run on whatever the os is.. they dont use drivers, they only interface with the OS.



    now as far as OSX and hardware that would be tricky.. but i think Apple could do it if they just took like 2 or 3 companies that make each hardware device "EG: cdroms: plextor, sony, pioneer" and just not support any other cdroms. or at the very least have a set of "Official Apple Hardware" list, and you COULD build a system with other hardware but it wouldnt be guarenteed it would work





    i think apple would be GREAT, mabey even bigger than Microsoft if they just did software for the PC industry. they already have a superior OS



    EDIT: OSX is basically just a pretty version of UNIX now. and unix runs fine on PC's



    [ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Aris ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 11
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    To sum up the ramble of the FP for new-comers to this thread, what was said was:



    "Apple, due to Motorola's incompetance, will be either financially or performance wise down the gurgler, forcing them to become software only."



    I'm not even going to bother with this one.



    Barto
  • Reply 11 of 11
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    I wanted to try Darwin on my pc laptop..

    but knew no one who had experiences with it.

    And in hte instruction there was no guarantee or nearly no comment on x86s running Darwin..

    so i ended killing windows and installing redhat.



    Now, is it Windows or the hardware that makes the pcs suck?? Linux seems more stabile on the same hardware but u get no software on it and having 10 000 ddiffrent kernels etc u never get the right serice pack for anything either...



    Ok linux enters nothing here..

    just that even that is more stabile than windowz.



    How about developing a x86 running OS X? So kill the windows and install OS X on the toy..



    Or maybe of Darwin something could be developed x86-friendly??

    That could switch more pcnuts to mac..
Sign In or Register to comment.