Moving into the Wintel World
A few assumptions:
1) Apple is diversifying its income base: iPods (multiple platform support), Software (Keynote, AppleWorks, iLife, FCP, DVDSP, Emagic, more); Enterprise services (WebObjects, Apple Professional Services).
2) As revenues for Mac hardware become somewhat less of the income Pie, Apple becomes less of a prisoner to hardware sales for survival.
3) Many of the Windows APIs have been translated into linux/Unix frameworks and run on top of X86 unixen.
4) Apple took KHTML Open Source code, optimized much of it, added to it, improved it, set a thoroughly Mac OS X Application on top of it, then returned the Open Source portions to the OS community for everyone's benefit.
5) We know Red Box existed (Windows emulation on PPC in Rhapsody/alpha versions of the orignal OS X).
6) We know that Apple is maintaining X86/Hammer/Intel-compatible builds of OS X for some purpose. That purpose may be only as a fall back position in the case of PPC collapse, or may be as bold as a direct challenge to MS in the event of public outcry regarding future Windows' anti-piracy software/pricey upgrades/Pentium Collapse.
7) Virtual PC has NO low-level hooks into Mac OS X. Apple has provided some support to Connectix but not access to proprietary APIs that might (MIGHT) improve VPC performance drastically.
8) Though Jobs is not the best tactical thinker, he is a very good strategist. His vision of the longer-term market is better than MS's, even if his short-term vision has to be tweaked by customer outrage (iLife pricing, for instance).
9) Before returning to Apple in 1997, Jobs was quoted as saying, if he were in charge of Apple, he'd ride the Macintosh hard, using it to move to the "next big thing."
10) Even with increased spending in businesses, many IT departments are being cut back because they cannot deliver on their promises (see thread on failed revolution). IT departments no longer just get to spend and spend. There will be fewer risky IT purchases from now on.
11) The Mac is a risky IT purchase.
12) Wintel-compatible is NOT as risky an IT purchase.
OK, now to some conclusions drawn from these assumptions....
a) To move into new markets, Apple will have to strongly sell their products. They will have to push the advantages of owning Macs very hard and be willing to back up those claims with cash if they prove untrue.
b) It would be possible for Apple to sell an OS which runs Windows apps that is NOT OS X, but is based on the same Darwin kernel, with a RED BOX layer added. Apple could market their strong "ease-of-use" brand on a single kind of Motherboard/bus config (high-performance, of course) and use MS's own anti-piracy/upgrade policies against them.
c) MS would immediately cease development and sale of Office v. X. Apple and various states would sue and probably gain an injuction against the cessation of Office production - further development of Office would cease even if it were ordered to not stop - MS could fool a court that far.
d) Office suites such as OpenOffice, GoBe and others which offer absolutely seamless use of unmodified Office file types could be branded and included with OS X on Mac and OS Y on X86/Hammer, effectively reducing the damage done by the cessation of Office v. X production.
e) MS would quickly change their upgrade policies to be more friendly in order to crush new competition. Further court action would begin. Apple could begin marketing OS Y versions of certain Mac-only Apps to offset the necessity of virtually giving away the OS to compete.
f) PPC Mac sales would continue much as they are because the Current OS X apps would not run on OS Y. Developers would continue to develop Windows and Mac apps, perhaps applying pressure on Apple to standardize on the Windows-compatible APIs for all platforms. For a few years, Apple would resist, carefully measuring how sales are going in the OS X and OS Y worlds, hedging their bets.
g) the determining factor in which platform Apple chose would be hardware sales - NOT the developers. Developers make software for the demanded platforms. If OS X users did not leave PPC hardware, Adobe would continue to develop OS X apps. If users moved to OS Y hardware, Apple is still the beneficiary since they sell the hardware. Even if the OS Y apps are Windows-APIs compatible, Apple might still end up with 5-10% of the PC Market - their stated goal.
h) Could MS then drive an Intel/AMD-Based Apple out of business? Think about it.
1. Apple's greatest strength is customer loyalty
2. Apple's next greatest strength is innovation
3. Apple's next greatest strength is ease-of-use.
Even in an all X86/Nextgen/AMD/Intel world, Apple would still have total control over the hardware and integration therein. Sure, some solder-nut would find it easier to roll his own Mac, but that number of systems would be only in the hundreds, likely.
i) This is not what IS going to happen. It is just a possible hedge for Apple to use to survive and grow.
j) There is still the "next Big Thing," to come.......
just my incoherent two cents
edit: seemless becomes "seamless"
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: jccbin ]</p>
1) Apple is diversifying its income base: iPods (multiple platform support), Software (Keynote, AppleWorks, iLife, FCP, DVDSP, Emagic, more); Enterprise services (WebObjects, Apple Professional Services).
2) As revenues for Mac hardware become somewhat less of the income Pie, Apple becomes less of a prisoner to hardware sales for survival.
3) Many of the Windows APIs have been translated into linux/Unix frameworks and run on top of X86 unixen.
4) Apple took KHTML Open Source code, optimized much of it, added to it, improved it, set a thoroughly Mac OS X Application on top of it, then returned the Open Source portions to the OS community for everyone's benefit.
5) We know Red Box existed (Windows emulation on PPC in Rhapsody/alpha versions of the orignal OS X).
6) We know that Apple is maintaining X86/Hammer/Intel-compatible builds of OS X for some purpose. That purpose may be only as a fall back position in the case of PPC collapse, or may be as bold as a direct challenge to MS in the event of public outcry regarding future Windows' anti-piracy software/pricey upgrades/Pentium Collapse.
7) Virtual PC has NO low-level hooks into Mac OS X. Apple has provided some support to Connectix but not access to proprietary APIs that might (MIGHT) improve VPC performance drastically.
8) Though Jobs is not the best tactical thinker, he is a very good strategist. His vision of the longer-term market is better than MS's, even if his short-term vision has to be tweaked by customer outrage (iLife pricing, for instance).
9) Before returning to Apple in 1997, Jobs was quoted as saying, if he were in charge of Apple, he'd ride the Macintosh hard, using it to move to the "next big thing."
10) Even with increased spending in businesses, many IT departments are being cut back because they cannot deliver on their promises (see thread on failed revolution). IT departments no longer just get to spend and spend. There will be fewer risky IT purchases from now on.
11) The Mac is a risky IT purchase.
12) Wintel-compatible is NOT as risky an IT purchase.
OK, now to some conclusions drawn from these assumptions....
a) To move into new markets, Apple will have to strongly sell their products. They will have to push the advantages of owning Macs very hard and be willing to back up those claims with cash if they prove untrue.
b) It would be possible for Apple to sell an OS which runs Windows apps that is NOT OS X, but is based on the same Darwin kernel, with a RED BOX layer added. Apple could market their strong "ease-of-use" brand on a single kind of Motherboard/bus config (high-performance, of course) and use MS's own anti-piracy/upgrade policies against them.
c) MS would immediately cease development and sale of Office v. X. Apple and various states would sue and probably gain an injuction against the cessation of Office production - further development of Office would cease even if it were ordered to not stop - MS could fool a court that far.
d) Office suites such as OpenOffice, GoBe and others which offer absolutely seamless use of unmodified Office file types could be branded and included with OS X on Mac and OS Y on X86/Hammer, effectively reducing the damage done by the cessation of Office v. X production.
e) MS would quickly change their upgrade policies to be more friendly in order to crush new competition. Further court action would begin. Apple could begin marketing OS Y versions of certain Mac-only Apps to offset the necessity of virtually giving away the OS to compete.
f) PPC Mac sales would continue much as they are because the Current OS X apps would not run on OS Y. Developers would continue to develop Windows and Mac apps, perhaps applying pressure on Apple to standardize on the Windows-compatible APIs for all platforms. For a few years, Apple would resist, carefully measuring how sales are going in the OS X and OS Y worlds, hedging their bets.
g) the determining factor in which platform Apple chose would be hardware sales - NOT the developers. Developers make software for the demanded platforms. If OS X users did not leave PPC hardware, Adobe would continue to develop OS X apps. If users moved to OS Y hardware, Apple is still the beneficiary since they sell the hardware. Even if the OS Y apps are Windows-APIs compatible, Apple might still end up with 5-10% of the PC Market - their stated goal.
h) Could MS then drive an Intel/AMD-Based Apple out of business? Think about it.
1. Apple's greatest strength is customer loyalty
2. Apple's next greatest strength is innovation
3. Apple's next greatest strength is ease-of-use.
Even in an all X86/Nextgen/AMD/Intel world, Apple would still have total control over the hardware and integration therein. Sure, some solder-nut would find it easier to roll his own Mac, but that number of systems would be only in the hundreds, likely.
i) This is not what IS going to happen. It is just a possible hedge for Apple to use to survive and grow.
j) There is still the "next Big Thing," to come.......
just my incoherent two cents
edit: seemless becomes "seamless"
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: jccbin ]</p>
Comments
unix programmes are quickly and easily ported and more and more people, home,work,education and goverments are moving to it. the advantage apple has is that it uses unix with its own elements of software coupled together with the ppc which not only is faster but as in the case of a G4 is classed as a supercomputer. You can buy third party ppc boards with a g3 or g4 chip, not a lot of people know about this. MS has gotten so big it cant get any bigger and is loosing its big buyers.
their will always be apple because their will always be choice.
<strong>the problem with the idea of x on x86 is its way too easy for people to clone. any one and his brother can make an wintel clone. if apple was gonna run an OS on a x86 or similar proc, hpaq, gateway, dell, etc. (or whichever one(s) are left at that point) could esaily make hdwr that could run the apple OS; it wouldn't be comps in the hundreds, it would be the millions (billions) already sold to windoze users, plus new shit from the cloners. that hdwr would be at significantly lower prices (due to the lacking apple tax), and apples main revenue source is gone. why buy apple hdwr when u can run their beautiful OS on a cheap machine? apple then becomes very hurt in lacking pmac sales, and some evil company buys them out and destroys the OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i never understood ur argument...and i've read dozens like it. i dont get how people can just take OS X86 and put it on any machine they want. If apple specifies deep down in parts of the system that people can't access that it has to have this harddrive model, this monitor model, this mouse, this motherboard, how are people going to use it on a different computer? even if they do somehow manage to get it running on another computer, do you REALLY think it will be stable?
the idea of porting is making the software work on that architechture, Linux is a good example. if you just did a straight re-compile of the source from OSX then it aint going to work but the developers (apple) though it would take some time could re-develope the source to make it work. the only problem this would have is getting peoples hard-ware by thrid parties to function properly, this has taken linux developers over 10 years to accomplish on the linux platform and still not everthing works.
It can be done given time the question is should it be done?
40%. That's huge.
Most of what Apple has to do to appeal to this crowd is what they do best: Make stuff that just works. I think they're close to an unprecedented move into enterprise - driven by enterprise word-of-mouth, not (entirely) by Apple. MS will fight it tooth and nail, but they've already blown a lot of their credibility. We recently (with Windows 2000, which was supposed to be soooo much better than NT) began trusting Windows servers to relatively light tasks (FTP, file serving, RAS). We didn't skimp on hardware. They've been temperamental and unpredictable, and of course there are the weaknesses intrinsic to the platform: A virus got through and forced us to shut down everything (except for the big VMS box, which just works, always) and painstakingly wipe all the servers and rebuild our SAN. Yay.
My boss has spent years grumbling at MS, but now he's actively angry at them, and actively looking for other solutions. His anger has nothing to do with their licensing, or their monopoly or anything else. It has to do with the fact that their costly platform doesn't work.
I used MS through dos on 386's to xp and linux, on all of these i've had no end of trouble, linux works better than MS but requires X amount of dif libaries to get software to work and then put up with hardware not being supported.So i moved to mac over a month ago and havent had one problem, other than font smoothing which is awfull on fonts under 12 points. All in all me mac, like you say works and stays working, if this was me pc i'd be on a format by now and put up with single tasking aswell as saving up for the next version of windows in hope it doesnt die.
Itanium is the the likely future of the Windows world, but I don' think that Intel will market it as a "change." To the average consumer, it's just the next chip, same as the old chip - but better. Intel will be happiest if users don't see it as a departure from the X86 architecture - as that is one of their greatest holds on them.
I'm not sure Apple should to these things, but that it is possible they could.
As for the hardware - cloning will be difficult - it only takes one "key" chip somewhere on the mobo to prevent cloning. Apple doesn't need to make cloning impossible - just difficult and costly. The number of people who will roll their own will be tiny.
Thanks for the great responses.