Though i do not believe it would happen there is no reason they couldn't evolve to do it eventually.
Also, the CPU does not necessarily mean an entire platform shift... In fact, they could simply replace the controller and CPU on the daughter card and be done with it hardware-wise.
Just because it is an x86 cpu does not mean a part-bin PC CPU (Slot A, etc) will work.
I remember booting it on a PC (P120 at the time) right next to a NeXT slab, and thinking "wow, identical!".
I'm sure that Apple keeps the latest Darwin release running on PC hardware, but I highly doubt they'll release OS X86, or whatever you want to call it.
I doubt they want to have to mess with the big huge problem called DRIVERS. With Apple hardware, they have a set, specific group of devices and chipsets to support. Throw in "random PC clone" to this, and it gets much much worse.
In light of recent developments, I'd like to float an idea again.
Suppose Apple released not OS X for x86 machines, but rather Darwin with an environment based on the Cocoa API(GNUStep, Window Maker, etc.).
Let's say it comes with a nice easy installer and user interface, which is possible if one looks at the Lycoris Linux distro and recently a Linux distro that runs entirely off of a CD.
The idea would be to have a "no guarantees" operating system that doesn't reflect poorly on Apple if it's run on a generic box, but gets users interested in Apple, and gets developers hooked on Darin so they can either write Cocoa apps, or drivers that would hopefully be able to be used with PPC Darwin.
<strong>am I the only person here who remembers Rhapsody?
I remember booting it on a PC (P120 at the time) right next to a NeXT slab, and thinking "wow, identical!".
I'm sure that Apple keeps the latest Darwin release running on PC hardware, but I highly doubt they'll release OS X86, or whatever you want to call it.
I doubt they want to have to mess with the big huge problem called DRIVERS. With Apple hardware, they have a set, specific group of devices and chipsets to support. Throw in "random PC clone" to this, and it gets much much worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're kidding right? Unix BSD and Linux has scores of people working their fingers to the bone to wire drivers for just about anything you can connect to a computer and even some things things you can't... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Anyway driver issues ain't a problem with X... Printer problems WERE an issue with 10.1 but with 10.2 (using CUPS) drivers are now available for just about any printer you can name.
<strong>I suspect if Apple did offer both x86 and PowerPC, they would sell many more x86 boxes because they would be faster than the PowerPC boxes and they would be able to run windows. What I think would happen next is that Apple would then stop selling PowerPC boxes due to low sales volume. People who recently bought the PowerPC macs would be up crap's river. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...maybe, but that assumes there isn't some very cool PPC stuff in the works...
At the risk of agitating the more active members of this board (and those that would like to see Apple on x86) I'd like to point out that there are at least three things that an operating system must have for it to be accepted by the market: 1) measurable ease of use over the competitors 2) applications that users want and 3) maintainability.
MacOS X is arguably a more usable operating system, but I doubt it is measurably more usable across a wide spectrum of users for the simple reason that most future (and possibly current) Apple users necessarily must come from a Windows/Linux world. Anyone considering the purchase of a computer has probably been exposed to Windows rather than MacOS. That means that most of these people developed strategies that allow them to work on their machines fairly efficiently and have expectations about how a computer ought to function (how ever wrong that may be). Mac OS X does not bring staggering efficiency improvements to the table. Further more, it is rigid in its implementation and offers little if any accommodation to people coming from other operating systems. My pet feature is window activation via mouse over (no click alas X11) - can't have it.
Second, the number of applications available for OS X are dismal compared to what is available for Windows. There are two ways to get a developer to bring an application to market for an operating system: 1) make it so simple that the return on investment is 10:1 compared to say Windows development, 2) show the developer that there are 100 million potential users waiting for his product.
Apple can only show about 4:1 improvement; OK, I'll be generous and give them 5:1 because of AppleScript. This is not enough to entice a developer that is business minded (wants to make money). The 2.5:97.5 market share ratio would require a 39:1 developer ROI to break even.
Finally, maintainability. I think Apple has it. When I look at Apple products I have pleasant experiences, no troubles. x86 boxes are nothing but trouble.
The ONLY way Apple can garner more developers and more users is to supply an entirely unique and here-to-fore unheard of environment, both user and developer. This is really tough, even SJ would need to put on his thinking cap (and remove his arrogance hat).
There were other threads on this board with some great ideas. Personally I like the transparent clustering capability. Never the less, the choice of processor is of marginal importance at best. Moving to x86 even if it is "faster" makes little difference to future Apple customers.
The only way Apple can convince both customers and developers is if the Mac and MacOS X gives both types of users significant capabilities that they can NOT get anywhere else, and I mean nowhere else.
Following the x86 crowd will get Apple trampled. Apple must NOT fight the Microsoft/Intel behemot on its terms. Going x86 is a psychological signal of capitulation; coupled with some of the poster's idea to make it Windows compatible would make Apple look like a complete loser. Today Apple can claim to be "unique"/"Think different", with an x86 box they are complete toast. No one likes a loser.
Just my $2.00 worth of personal opinion. If you guys like it I have more where that came from...
...maybe, but that assumes there isn't some very cool PPC stuff in the works... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I've been assuming for awhile and nothings happened yet. I may hang on till MWSF '03...
On a slightly different subject, do you think Microsoft could or would ever take XP and put it on a Unix foundation? I've been wondering what Microsoft would do if Apple really starts getting serious market share with OS X, thats why I ask.
Sheesh, I only read a quarter of the iCode post before I start to scroll away.
But look, the vast public majority haven't mastered efficiency of Windows like iCode suggests -- they are not computer geeks.
Most people want to easily use their new digital cameras, and email picutres around. They want to email, web surf, and even edit some home christmas videos with their new DV cameras without fighting their computer. They go on a date to a mall, and walk into the apple store to see what's going on.
All Apple has to do is increase marketshare by 5%, and that will be a 100% gain. Not an impossible task.
I have a few issues with your post. Specifically....
[[[Further more, it is rigid in its implementation and offers little if any accommodation to people coming from other operating systems.]]]
You'll have to be a bit more specific here.\t
[[[Second, the number of applications available for OS X are dismal compared to what is available for Windows. ]]]
This is a perception thing... Go to <a href="http://www.hyperjeff.net."; target="_blank">www.hyperjeff.net.</a>
[[[My pet feature is window activation via mouse over (no click alas X11) - can't have it.]]]
huh?
\t
[[[) make it so simple that the return on investment is 10:1 compared to say Windows development]]]
You gotta be joking... You'll have to show me one company that releasees ANY product with 4x return on investment let alone 10x... I'm finding what you are saying to be complete BS. Are you guessing at these number here?
[[[The 2.5:97.5 market share ratio would require a 39:1 developer ROI to break even]]]
See above comment.
Again, you are definitely going to have to provide a good number of sources that show a greater than 4x return on investment. What you are saying doesn't seem to be making ANY sense. However, there are some points that you overlooked. Let's talk UNIX.
If you already have a UNIX based solution (that runs on X, KDE, etc.), then the cost is really to just bundle your software with the plug-ins (solutions) to get an install to work on OS X. That's pretty *cheap* entry... And there are probably 5 times the number of UNIX apps out there as compare to even Windows.
That said, if you want to get a fully OSX version of the App, then you need to do the interface stuff; but you're using the best UNIX UI tools on the planet. So..... you see what I'm getting at.
Now compare that to volume.... Apple is *the* #1 UNIX supplier right now and for the foreseeable future, so having it on UNIX and not on OSX makes very little sense.
We will undoubtedly see more and more UNIX migrate over simply because it makes sense... So, if it's cheaper to make it work on OS X than other UNIXXEN, and the product is vastly more usable on X than on other UNIXEN and it is a larger installed base.... You get the picture. Therefore, the question shouldn't be why, but when.
In short, the problem is the other way... Developers are missing an opportunity and losing potential customers because they can't or won't offer an option. (Or because there are already better options). They are telling their *customers* to demand that they do their jobs (which is *create* software and make it good software)? That makes no sense at all...
Show me the customers that demanded a spreadsheet before Bricklin created Visicalc? Show me the customers that demanded a GUI before Apple delivered the MacOS? Again, the argument of demand you put forth is a fallacy. It doesn't work that way. And if you found both people asking for these solutions in the beginning, it would NEVER justify the expense. However, when someone eventually *offered* the solution(s), you find that there are 1,000 customers that want it, and you just didn't know about it.
It boils down to the inescapable fact that it was the software that created opportunities and brought you into new markets, etc NOT costomes ask or demanding it.... But if you never take the risks, then you will never see the rewards.
Another significant point that is often overlooked is the fact that there is in fact a "crossplatform market". For instance, you cold look at it as three (or more) separate markets... The Mac market, the PC market and the crossplatform market (i.e., the Mac+PC market).
That is the Mac+PC markets are markets where organizations use BOTH Mac *and* PC. So, If you support one platform (either one), you are actually missing TWO markets.
1. the other platform
2. the cross platform market.
This indicates that ANY revenue generated from sales of supporting another platform (in this case Mac OS X/Unix) will also draw revenue from the *combined* market as well. How can you not see the potential benefits? There are other cost savings as well...
Historically, it's been *well* documented that it costs developers less to support the Mac than it does the PC. That means for every customer you convert to the Mac version you get a complete upgrade that you might not have sold (or at the very least a "competitive" upgrade, but the additional cost savings associated with supporting the Mac will provide additional revenue in the form of savings. Again, just another way to look at it. Most people and organizations only care to look at it from a single angle (narrow minded and shortsighted).
Oh, and just so you know... Alias|Wavefront grew their Maya market 25% by deciding to support the Macintosh OS X platform. This should open some eyes, no?
<strong>not really an issue -- Apple could easily include something in the hardware that would be required for OS X for x86 to boot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that this would have to be something really fundamental, otherwise some software hack will just cut out whatever requires it. MacOSX is nice and hardware independant by nature, so it would be a bit difficult for Apple to ensure that it is sufficiently hardware dependant to only run on Apple hardware. The recent XBox hacking is a case in point.
The problem is that this would have to be something really fundamental, otherwise some software hack will just cut out whatever requires it. MacOSX is nice and hardware independant by nature, so it would be a bit difficult for Apple to ensure that it is sufficiently hardware dependant to only run on Apple hardware. The recent XBox hacking is a case in point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just like "defeating" software piracy. You don't need to make it impossible, you just need to make it hard enough that the majority of people won't bother. The lack of drivers for the wide range of PC hardware alone would make it rather daunting -- but let's say Dell decides they want to be able to run OS X on their machines.
Without Apple's consent, all they can do is make a clone PC that can run OS X, and then tell people to go out and buy OS X for x86... oops, Apple won't be offering that as a retail package. Hmm... now what?
However, let's say that some PC clones do manage to run OS X somehow... sure would be a nice gradual way for Apple to transition away from making their income mostly from hardware...
This is just like "defeating" software piracy. You don't need to make it impossible, you just need to make it hard enough that the majority of people won't bother. The lack of drivers for the wide range of PC hardware alone would make it rather daunting -- but let's say Dell decides they want to be able to run OS X on their machines.
Without Apple's consent, all they can do is make a clone PC that can run OS X, and then tell people to go out and buy OS X for x86... oops, Apple won't be offering that as a retail package. Hmm... now what?
However, let's say that some PC clones do manage to run OS X somehow... sure would be a nice gradual way for Apple to transition away from making their income mostly from hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I'll give you that one -- they aren't going to lose any significant amount of business due to illicit use of OSX (those people wouldn't have bought a Mac anyhow, and any PC maker can probably be nailed via legal means -- except in a few countries that are lax on copyright law, at least). So seeing x86 Macs is feasible, although I still think it would make a mess of the software market.
Does Apple want to switch away from being a hardware business? I don't think so -- their edge is integration and delivering a whole, stylish package. The x86 is just another option as you and Steve have pointed out. I think Steve wants to make digital hubs and things to plug into the hubs, and then sell you a subscription to the software which makes it all tick seemlessly.
Does Apple want to switch away from being a hardware business? I don't think so -- their edge is integration and delivering a whole, stylish package. The x86 is just another option as you and Steve have pointed out. I think Steve wants to make digital hubs and things to plug into the hubs, and then sell you a subscription to the software which makes it all tick seemlessly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As anyone in the print rag business will tell you, when you want to sell subscriptions, it's all about the number of subscribers you have to sell to...
<strong>This is just like "defeating" software piracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
U-huh. And saying Microsoft is no monopoly.
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>Without Apple's consent, all they can do is make a clone PC that can run OS X, and then tell people to go out and buy OS X for x86... oops, Apple won't be offering that as a retail package. Hmm... now what? </strong><hr></blockquote>
They download it from the net or get a copy on CD from their "friend's friend"? Makes great business sense for Apple, indeed.
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>However, let's say that some PC clones do manage to run OS X somehow... sure would be a nice gradual way for Apple to transition away from making their income mostly from hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And then what? Make it from software only? Competing with Microsoft, Adobe and the kind? That's like saying Ford should give away cars for free to live off selling spare parts. You see, if Apple becomes a x86 software vendor they would enter a _very_ competitive market. Now with their own hardware they can afford to sell software, since there is virtually no (good) alternative to an OS/OS goodies for a Mac system. They can afford to stiffle competition by simply copying products and "bundling" them. But when going x86, they face Microsoft who has enough power to copy Apple and then you have Apple offering OSX and iTunes and Microsoft offering WinXP, iTunesCopy and compatibility with shitloads of other software most companies on x86 already have (licensed).
Now Apple only needs to convience all developers to port their Win x86 software to OSX x86. Just to see if someone actually will buy it.
But wait, most customers run non-Apple/OSX x86 systems. So why port for OSX x86? Would OSX bring a 20% performance improvement? I doubt it. Would they be able to port it in less than two weeks? I doubt that either. Would they sell even 10 % of what they sell on Windows versions? Unlikely.
Now Apple is sitting in Cupertino, with no special hardware to show (believe me, if they made a uber-great x86 machine someone would copy it in less than 3 months and offer it cheaper). No special software offerings and with OSX going the way of the dodo. Er, scrap that, the way of OS/2 (in case anyone wanted to argue that OSX would sell because it's superior).
Uuuunless, of course, they have the same startling success that SGI was having with their x86 workstations.
As anyone in the print rag business will tell you, when you want to sell subscriptions, it's all about the number of subscribers you have to sell to...
huh? ii don't get it.
ps no mroe moki i can't tell what is sarcasm and what's not any more <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>As anyone in the print rag business will tell you, when you want to sell subscriptions, it's all about the number of subscribers you have to sell to...
huh? ii don't get it.
ps no mroe moki i can't tell what is sarcasm and what's not any more </strong><hr></blockquote>
To me that means Apple would need to position itself to advertise to the largest group of computers users..which is X86
There are many who oppose a hypothetical Apple transition to x86 - and for many good reasons.
But the inescapable fact, is that by sticking with Motorola, Apple will be going nowhere. Motorola will continue to fall further behind, they have shown absolutely no interest in the desktop market. At least for a while, we were half the clock speed of x86, but weren't *significantly* slower. Now x86 is almost triple the clock speed of PowerPC, and the advantages that the Mac has in terms of speed are vanishing. Mainly limited to AltiVec in some cases now.
A switch to x86 at least gives Apple a chance. Yes, they might fail miserably, the switch being their ultimate downfall. But it may also be a revival, where the Mac can at least be competitive with the PC world in terms of speed; and offer the other traditional advantages.
Offering an alternative processor (the PPC) is *not* an advantage in itself, if it is hindering the performance of the machine.
I would prefer it if someone other than Motorola were to fabricate a competitive PowerPC CPU that maintained binary compatibility. But my pessimistic side doesn't foresee that happening.
Do you have any reasons for stating this? why would it be such a bad idea? Do people really care what processor drives their machine, as long as it is fast?</strong><hr></blockquote>
People don't really care but it isn't quite that simple a matter. Inevitably one line would dominate or you would weaken both lines to the point of simply marginalising the platform even more.
Diversified marketing like that only sends up operating costs and Apple's shares would take a big hit if they tried to run the company like that simply due to the immense risk involved, low chance for positive returns and higher running costs. None of which is really what you aim for when you maintain a precarious position like Apple does.
This doesn't even factor in the question of developers. I could very quickly see it becoming a case of them stopping development for one platform or have it start to lag regardless of the ease of portability designed in.
Then of course you'd have the consumer nightmare that ensued as a result.
This sort of diversification of products really doesn't serve Apple or any company for that matter. There are far more appealing options I could see Apple taking before they went down this route.
In the end one thing is relatively certain, Apple isn't changing its mode of operations for a while yet. Certainly not until the US economy finishes bottoming out.
Edit: What is it with the word isn't and me today? I've forgotten to write it about half a dozen times now today <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Comments
Also, the CPU does not necessarily mean an entire platform shift... In fact, they could simply replace the controller and CPU on the daughter card and be done with it hardware-wise.
Just because it is an x86 cpu does not mean a part-bin PC CPU (Slot A, etc) will work.
I remember booting it on a PC (P120 at the time) right next to a NeXT slab, and thinking "wow, identical!".
I'm sure that Apple keeps the latest Darwin release running on PC hardware, but I highly doubt they'll release OS X86, or whatever you want to call it.
I doubt they want to have to mess with the big huge problem called DRIVERS. With Apple hardware, they have a set, specific group of devices and chipsets to support. Throw in "random PC clone" to this, and it gets much much worse.
Suppose Apple released not OS X for x86 machines, but rather Darwin with an environment based on the Cocoa API(GNUStep, Window Maker, etc.).
Let's say it comes with a nice easy installer and user interface, which is possible if one looks at the Lycoris Linux distro and recently a Linux distro that runs entirely off of a CD.
The idea would be to have a "no guarantees" operating system that doesn't reflect poorly on Apple if it's run on a generic box, but gets users interested in Apple, and gets developers hooked on Darin so they can either write Cocoa apps, or drivers that would hopefully be able to be used with PPC Darwin.
Just my $0.02.
<strong>am I the only person here who remembers Rhapsody?
I remember booting it on a PC (P120 at the time) right next to a NeXT slab, and thinking "wow, identical!".
I'm sure that Apple keeps the latest Darwin release running on PC hardware, but I highly doubt they'll release OS X86, or whatever you want to call it.
I doubt they want to have to mess with the big huge problem called DRIVERS. With Apple hardware, they have a set, specific group of devices and chipsets to support. Throw in "random PC clone" to this, and it gets much much worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're kidding right? Unix BSD and Linux has scores of people working their fingers to the bone to wire drivers for just about anything you can connect to a computer and even some things things you can't... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Anyway driver issues ain't a problem with X... Printer problems WERE an issue with 10.1 but with 10.2 (using CUPS) drivers are now available for just about any printer you can name.
Dave
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>I suspect if Apple did offer both x86 and PowerPC, they would sell many more x86 boxes because they would be faster than the PowerPC boxes and they would be able to run windows. What I think would happen next is that Apple would then stop selling PowerPC boxes due to low sales volume. People who recently bought the PowerPC macs would be up crap's river. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...maybe, but that assumes there isn't some very cool PPC stuff in the works...
MacOS X is arguably a more usable operating system, but I doubt it is measurably more usable across a wide spectrum of users for the simple reason that most future (and possibly current) Apple users necessarily must come from a Windows/Linux world. Anyone considering the purchase of a computer has probably been exposed to Windows rather than MacOS. That means that most of these people developed strategies that allow them to work on their machines fairly efficiently and have expectations about how a computer ought to function (how ever wrong that may be). Mac OS X does not bring staggering efficiency improvements to the table. Further more, it is rigid in its implementation and offers little if any accommodation to people coming from other operating systems. My pet feature is window activation via mouse over (no click alas X11) - can't have it.
Second, the number of applications available for OS X are dismal compared to what is available for Windows. There are two ways to get a developer to bring an application to market for an operating system: 1) make it so simple that the return on investment is 10:1 compared to say Windows development, 2) show the developer that there are 100 million potential users waiting for his product.
Apple can only show about 4:1 improvement; OK, I'll be generous and give them 5:1 because of AppleScript. This is not enough to entice a developer that is business minded (wants to make money). The 2.5:97.5 market share ratio would require a 39:1 developer ROI to break even.
Finally, maintainability. I think Apple has it. When I look at Apple products I have pleasant experiences, no troubles. x86 boxes are nothing but trouble.
The ONLY way Apple can garner more developers and more users is to supply an entirely unique and here-to-fore unheard of environment, both user and developer. This is really tough, even SJ would need to put on his thinking cap (and remove his arrogance hat).
There were other threads on this board with some great ideas. Personally I like the transparent clustering capability. Never the less, the choice of processor is of marginal importance at best. Moving to x86 even if it is "faster" makes little difference to future Apple customers.
The only way Apple can convince both customers and developers is if the Mac and MacOS X gives both types of users significant capabilities that they can NOT get anywhere else, and I mean nowhere else.
Following the x86 crowd will get Apple trampled. Apple must NOT fight the Microsoft/Intel behemot on its terms. Going x86 is a psychological signal of capitulation; coupled with some of the poster's idea to make it Windows compatible would make Apple look like a complete loser. Today Apple can claim to be "unique"/"Think different", with an x86 box they are complete toast. No one likes a loser.
Just my $2.00 worth of personal opinion. If you guys like it I have more where that came from...
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</p>
<strong>
...maybe, but that assumes there isn't some very cool PPC stuff in the works...
Well, I've been assuming for awhile and nothings happened yet. I may hang on till MWSF '03...
On a slightly different subject, do you think Microsoft could or would ever take XP and put it on a Unix foundation? I've been wondering what Microsoft would do if Apple really starts getting serious market share with OS X, thats why I ask.
But look, the vast public majority haven't mastered efficiency of Windows like iCode suggests -- they are not computer geeks.
Most people want to easily use their new digital cameras, and email picutres around. They want to email, web surf, and even edit some home christmas videos with their new DV cameras without fighting their computer. They go on a date to a mall, and walk into the apple store to see what's going on.
All Apple has to do is increase marketshare by 5%, and that will be a 100% gain. Not an impossible task.
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: mugwump ]</p>
I have a few issues with your post. Specifically....
[[[Further more, it is rigid in its implementation and offers little if any accommodation to people coming from other operating systems.]]]
You'll have to be a bit more specific here.\t
[[[Second, the number of applications available for OS X are dismal compared to what is available for Windows. ]]]
This is a perception thing... Go to <a href="http://www.hyperjeff.net."; target="_blank">www.hyperjeff.net.</a>
[[[My pet feature is window activation via mouse over (no click alas X11) - can't have it.]]]
huh?
\t
[[[) make it so simple that the return on investment is 10:1 compared to say Windows development]]]
You gotta be joking... You'll have to show me one company that releasees ANY product with 4x return on investment let alone 10x... I'm finding what you are saying to be complete BS. Are you guessing at these number here?
[[[The 2.5:97.5 market share ratio would require a 39:1 developer ROI to break even]]]
See above comment.
Again, you are definitely going to have to provide a good number of sources that show a greater than 4x return on investment. What you are saying doesn't seem to be making ANY sense. However, there are some points that you overlooked. Let's talk UNIX.
If you already have a UNIX based solution (that runs on X, KDE, etc.), then the cost is really to just bundle your software with the plug-ins (solutions) to get an install to work on OS X. That's pretty *cheap* entry... And there are probably 5 times the number of UNIX apps out there as compare to even Windows.
That said, if you want to get a fully OSX version of the App, then you need to do the interface stuff; but you're using the best UNIX UI tools on the planet. So..... you see what I'm getting at.
Now compare that to volume.... Apple is *the* #1 UNIX supplier right now and for the foreseeable future, so having it on UNIX and not on OSX makes very little sense.
We will undoubtedly see more and more UNIX migrate over simply because it makes sense... So, if it's cheaper to make it work on OS X than other UNIXXEN, and the product is vastly more usable on X than on other UNIXEN and it is a larger installed base.... You get the picture. Therefore, the question shouldn't be why, but when.
In short, the problem is the other way... Developers are missing an opportunity and losing potential customers because they can't or won't offer an option. (Or because there are already better options). They are telling their *customers* to demand that they do their jobs (which is *create* software and make it good software)? That makes no sense at all...
Show me the customers that demanded a spreadsheet before Bricklin created Visicalc? Show me the customers that demanded a GUI before Apple delivered the MacOS? Again, the argument of demand you put forth is a fallacy. It doesn't work that way. And if you found both people asking for these solutions in the beginning, it would NEVER justify the expense. However, when someone eventually *offered* the solution(s), you find that there are 1,000 customers that want it, and you just didn't know about it.
It boils down to the inescapable fact that it was the software that created opportunities and brought you into new markets, etc NOT costomes ask or demanding it.... But if you never take the risks, then you will never see the rewards.
Another significant point that is often overlooked is the fact that there is in fact a "crossplatform market". For instance, you cold look at it as three (or more) separate markets... The Mac market, the PC market and the crossplatform market (i.e., the Mac+PC market).
That is the Mac+PC markets are markets where organizations use BOTH Mac *and* PC. So, If you support one platform (either one), you are actually missing TWO markets.
1. the other platform
2. the cross platform market.
This indicates that ANY revenue generated from sales of supporting another platform (in this case Mac OS X/Unix) will also draw revenue from the *combined* market as well. How can you not see the potential benefits? There are other cost savings as well...
Historically, it's been *well* documented that it costs developers less to support the Mac than it does the PC. That means for every customer you convert to the Mac version you get a complete upgrade that you might not have sold (or at the very least a "competitive" upgrade, but the additional cost savings associated with supporting the Mac will provide additional revenue in the form of savings. Again, just another way to look at it. Most people and organizations only care to look at it from a single angle (narrow minded and shortsighted).
Oh, and just so you know... Alias|Wavefront grew their Maya market 25% by deciding to support the Macintosh OS X platform. This should open some eyes, no?
--
Ed M.
<strong>not really an issue -- Apple could easily include something in the hardware that would be required for OS X for x86 to boot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that this would have to be something really fundamental, otherwise some software hack will just cut out whatever requires it. MacOSX is nice and hardware independant by nature, so it would be a bit difficult for Apple to ensure that it is sufficiently hardware dependant to only run on Apple hardware. The recent XBox hacking is a case in point.
<strong>
The problem is that this would have to be something really fundamental, otherwise some software hack will just cut out whatever requires it. MacOSX is nice and hardware independant by nature, so it would be a bit difficult for Apple to ensure that it is sufficiently hardware dependant to only run on Apple hardware. The recent XBox hacking is a case in point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just like "defeating" software piracy. You don't need to make it impossible, you just need to make it hard enough that the majority of people won't bother. The lack of drivers for the wide range of PC hardware alone would make it rather daunting -- but let's say Dell decides they want to be able to run OS X on their machines.
Without Apple's consent, all they can do is make a clone PC that can run OS X, and then tell people to go out and buy OS X for x86... oops, Apple won't be offering that as a retail package. Hmm... now what?
However, let's say that some PC clones do manage to run OS X somehow... sure would be a nice gradual way for Apple to transition away from making their income mostly from hardware...
<strong>
This is just like "defeating" software piracy. You don't need to make it impossible, you just need to make it hard enough that the majority of people won't bother. The lack of drivers for the wide range of PC hardware alone would make it rather daunting -- but let's say Dell decides they want to be able to run OS X on their machines.
Without Apple's consent, all they can do is make a clone PC that can run OS X, and then tell people to go out and buy OS X for x86... oops, Apple won't be offering that as a retail package. Hmm... now what?
However, let's say that some PC clones do manage to run OS X somehow... sure would be a nice gradual way for Apple to transition away from making their income mostly from hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I'll give you that one -- they aren't going to lose any significant amount of business due to illicit use of OSX (those people wouldn't have bought a Mac anyhow, and any PC maker can probably be nailed via legal means -- except in a few countries that are lax on copyright law, at least). So seeing x86 Macs is feasible, although I still think it would make a mess of the software market.
Does Apple want to switch away from being a hardware business? I don't think so -- their edge is integration and delivering a whole, stylish package. The x86 is just another option as you and Steve have pointed out. I think Steve wants to make digital hubs and things to plug into the hubs, and then sell you a subscription to the software which makes it all tick seemlessly.
<strong>
Does Apple want to switch away from being a hardware business? I don't think so -- their edge is integration and delivering a whole, stylish package. The x86 is just another option as you and Steve have pointed out. I think Steve wants to make digital hubs and things to plug into the hubs, and then sell you a subscription to the software which makes it all tick seemlessly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As anyone in the print rag business will tell you, when you want to sell subscriptions, it's all about the number of subscribers you have to sell to...
<strong>This is just like "defeating" software piracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
U-huh. And saying Microsoft is no monopoly.
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>Without Apple's consent, all they can do is make a clone PC that can run OS X, and then tell people to go out and buy OS X for x86... oops, Apple won't be offering that as a retail package. Hmm... now what?
They download it from the net or get a copy on CD from their "friend's friend"? Makes great business sense for Apple, indeed.
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>However, let's say that some PC clones do manage to run OS X somehow... sure would be a nice gradual way for Apple to transition away from making their income mostly from hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>
And then what? Make it from software only? Competing with Microsoft, Adobe and the kind? That's like saying Ford should give away cars for free to live off selling spare parts. You see, if Apple becomes a x86 software vendor they would enter a _very_ competitive market. Now with their own hardware they can afford to sell software, since there is virtually no (good) alternative to an OS/OS goodies for a Mac system. They can afford to stiffle competition by simply copying products and "bundling" them. But when going x86, they face Microsoft who has enough power to copy Apple and then you have Apple offering OSX and iTunes and Microsoft offering WinXP, iTunesCopy and compatibility with shitloads of other software most companies on x86 already have (licensed).
Now Apple only needs to convience all developers to port their Win x86 software to OSX x86. Just to see if someone actually will buy it.
But wait, most customers run non-Apple/OSX x86 systems. So why port for OSX x86? Would OSX bring a 20% performance improvement? I doubt it. Would they be able to port it in less than two weeks? I doubt that either. Would they sell even 10 % of what they sell on Windows versions? Unlikely.
Now Apple is sitting in Cupertino, with no special hardware to show (believe me, if they made a uber-great x86 machine someone would copy it in less than 3 months and offer it cheaper). No special software offerings and with OSX going the way of the dodo. Er, scrap that, the way of OS/2 (in case anyone wanted to argue that OSX would sell because it's superior).
Uuuunless, of course, they have the same startling success that SGI was having with their x86 workstations.
huh? ii don't get it.
ps no mroe
<strong>As anyone in the print rag business will tell you, when you want to sell subscriptions, it's all about the number of subscribers you have to sell to...
huh? ii don't get it.
ps no mroe
To me that means Apple would need to position itself to advertise to the largest group of computers users..which is X86
But the inescapable fact, is that by sticking with Motorola, Apple will be going nowhere. Motorola will continue to fall further behind, they have shown absolutely no interest in the desktop market. At least for a while, we were half the clock speed of x86, but weren't *significantly* slower. Now x86 is almost triple the clock speed of PowerPC, and the advantages that the Mac has in terms of speed are vanishing. Mainly limited to AltiVec in some cases now.
A switch to x86 at least gives Apple a chance. Yes, they might fail miserably, the switch being their ultimate downfall. But it may also be a revival, where the Mac can at least be competitive with the PC world in terms of speed; and offer the other traditional advantages.
Offering an alternative processor (the PPC) is *not* an advantage in itself, if it is hindering the performance of the machine.
I would prefer it if someone other than Motorola were to fabricate a competitive PowerPC CPU that maintained binary compatibility. But my pessimistic side doesn't foresee that happening.
<strong>i can't tell what is sarcasm and what's not any more</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same here.
Barto
<strong>
Do you have any reasons for stating this? why would it be such a bad idea? Do people really care what processor drives their machine, as long as it is fast?</strong><hr></blockquote>
People don't really care but it isn't quite that simple a matter. Inevitably one line would dominate or you would weaken both lines to the point of simply marginalising the platform even more.
Diversified marketing like that only sends up operating costs and Apple's shares would take a big hit if they tried to run the company like that simply due to the immense risk involved, low chance for positive returns and higher running costs. None of which is really what you aim for when you maintain a precarious position like Apple does.
This doesn't even factor in the question of developers. I could very quickly see it becoming a case of them stopping development for one platform or have it start to lag regardless of the ease of portability designed in.
Then of course you'd have the consumer nightmare that ensued as a result.
This sort of diversification of products really doesn't serve Apple or any company for that matter. There are far more appealing options I could see Apple taking before they went down this route.
In the end one thing is relatively certain, Apple isn't changing its mode of operations for a while yet. Certainly not until the US economy finishes bottoming out.
Edit: What is it with the word isn't and me today? I've forgotten to write it about half a dozen times now today <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>