1. Apple currently puts the burden of perceived risk on the consumer. Currently Apple's Switch campaign only focuses on <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">groupies.</a> Once a drifter is a groupie, it's only a matter of time before they switch.
2. Apple may not have the managerial expertise to implement a migration to x86. Apple's board was recently voted among the worst 8 in America by BusinessWeek. Consider a complementary set of Microsoft's core strategies as outlined in Microsoft Secrets:
Organizing and managing the company: Find smart people who know the technology and the business.
Managing creative people and technical skills: Organize small teams of overlapping functional specialists.
Competing with products and standards: Pioneer and orchestrate evolving mass markets.
Defining products and development processes: Focus creativity by evolving features and "fixing" resources.
Developing and shipping products: Do everything in parallel, with frequent synchronizations.
Building a learning organization: Improve through continuous self-critiquing, feedback, and sharing.
Attack the future!
Is Apple's board prepared to deal with these sort of strategies? Is the management Apple hires prepared to go head to head with this?
3. Apple's current position as a hardware manufacturer saves it from direct analysis with Microsoft. If Apple were truly different and applications from Adobe or Macromedia did not behave the same on both platforms (not to mention that the internet is the internet no matter which machine you browse with), then Apple could market differenciation as a true benefit to users and not just a "lifestyle" choice. Once again, Apple puts the burden of perceived risk on the shoulders of the consumer. Apple's marketing is designed more to remind the LAUB that Apple is a good thing than persuade PC users to switch.
4. x86/Windows has already achieved critical mass. Porting OS X to x86 would remove some of the burden of perceived risk from the consumer's shoulders.
5. Nothing is impossible.
6. Apple currently depends upon the LAUB for survival. It could possibly survive for the rest of time feeding from the LAUB. This implies a revolving door business design where customers fed up with either plaform switch. Marketshare is fixed. This also implies anti-trust between Apple and Microsoft, unless Apple stays a box manufacturer.
It appears that the idea is to target current and future dissatisfied PC users especially. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if you're referring to Marklar being used to target dissatisfied PC users. If so, this would be incorrect. Regardless of Linux, there are basically only two consumer-level operating systems on the market-- Windows and Apple. Windows users unhappy with Windows have basically one choice, same for Apple users fed up with Apple.
Apple's switch campaigns serve two purposes: to remind the LAUB that Apple is where it's at (propaganda), and to ease groupies onto the Mac platform.
There are a number of reasons why Apple would adopt x86 ISA.
1. Moving to insustry standard ISA shrinks the competition gap between hardware, thus reducing the perceived risk burden placed on the consumer. Consumers don't have to struggle with not knowing which technology to choose, as it will all go in the same direction (remember NuBus? Replaced with PCI).
2. Apple decides to adopt any sort of licensing structure.
3. Apple feels gaining marketshare would help any long-term strategies they are developing.
It depends on whom you're targeting, tonton. Pros care about the processor. This is what I'm talking about when I mention "perceived risk". Some people consider Apple to be a risk because everyone is using Windows.
<strong>Actually, MacLuv, all of the pros (publishing and graphic design) I've ever worked with care more about the OS than the processor by a wide margin.
Apple are trying to get people to switch. Pros are already using Macs. It's in Apple's best interest to target the general public, not the pro, unless you're talking about the "pro gamer".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pro's use whatever they need to get the job done or the platform they they need to run the Software they use.... If you have a choice of OS then the decision is usually about money, not always but usually...
current mac hardware is ok for me. Maybe not for someone thinking of switching from windows, but i honestly dont care about the hardware all that much. I have a 3 year old iMac and a 2 year old PC, both are running the newest OS of their respective platforms, and the performance lag on the imac isnt too bad considering its old AND a consumer machine. I'm getting a GHz Ti soon and I'll probably use it as my main machine for 4 years, because thats how long i expect it'll be able to run the newest sofware ok.
I understand that switchers are a different story, but marklar doesnt seem to be the way to go
The real reason most people dont go mac is not because of hardware, but because they think there isnt enough software. We know that for the most part this is folly, but if apple were to transition to x86, all those people who claim mac os doesnt have enough software would definately be right.
<strong>The real reason most people dont go mac is not because of hardware, but because they think there isnt enough software. We know that for the most part this is folly, but if apple were to transition to x86, all those people who claim mac os doesnt have enough software would definately be right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My thought is that Apple could release OS X Server for x86 because they control a much larger portion of the software available for that platform and much of the other stuff is self compiled anyway.
Start converting the IT department and then watch the Macs propagate throughout the rest of the company.
"My thought is that Apple could release OS X Server for x86 because they control a much larger portion of the software available for that platform and much of the other stuff is self compiled anyway.
Start converting the IT department and then watch the Macs propagate throughout the rest of the company."
Right now, Apple sells an OS that runs only on Apple's machines. They happen to have PPC chips in them.
If in the future, Apple sold an OS that runs only on Apple's machines, but those machines happened to have Opteron chips in them... what would the difference be to the average Mac buyer?
The answer is that it would be no difference to the average consumer at all. The burden would be on developers to have an x86 build of the software, but that's not a big issue, given the abstraction that Carbon and Cocoa offer. The main issue for developers would be making sure their network and disk i/o code is endian-safe.
You'd still have the industrial design that Apple is famed for. You'd still have the hardware and OS integration that Apple is famed for. You'd still have a killer operating system in OS X. You'd still have all of your nice "out of the box" iApps to run.
What would Apple gain? They'd be able to sell said boxes to schools and coporations have have strict "x86 only" purchasing mandates (believe it or not, there are many that dictate this). Apple would also gain a processor architecture that is being actively pushed by market forces.
Finally, Apple would be taking the slow, safe route to an OS that runs on x86. Down the road, if their business strategy so dictated it (which I don't expect it will any time soon), they could leverage their work to make OS X function on other company's x86 boxes, and make money selling a boxed version of OS X.
Yes, Virginia, it is possible to make money selling a retail operating system. Linux is free, yet Red Hat is one of the few companies in the Linux world that actually makes money, and they do so by selling a retail Linux package. OS X offers far more out of the box than Linux does, in terms of ease of use and functionality, so the possibility of that working is very real.
It is a dual-pronged strategy -- the PPC has a bright future with the IBM 970, and Apple is also exploring the x86 world as well. Should be a fun ride.
Hmm just checked AMD's market cap and it is half that of Apple...I also heard read that if Microsoft dropped amd support they would be bankrupt by May of 2003 (ofcourse this is not going to happen) My point in mentioning that is that Apple is full of cash (about $12 per share or more of cash) while AMD is betting on the opteron to change its financial scope which I believe it will..
Now Apple buys AMD?
They would then be able to design and manufacture there own chips...and be able to potentially outprice the competition for once....
this is just jibba jabba but interesting none the less..
I personally am itching for Apple to buy/merge with Adobe and Macromedia...
Ah, the prosaic and clincally soothing tones of Moki. Ah. Like Guiness to an Irish mans velment throat box.
It's nice to see somebody who gets it...soaring like an Eagle above the entrenched partisan politics of Mr. Black and White...e'er to roam like dinosaurs before the comet-mecurial jobs gesticulates one of his 'And one more thing...'
<strong>There are lots of ladies (and men) who think like that.
"I need Windows."
It's not the processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with tonton on this. All people know is "I want Windows" - they don't care that they can run other OSs on the hardware (any more than most Mac users care that they can run PPC Linux).
So if people are prepared to switch to Mac, then they will switch to PPCs built by Apple. They care as much about the processor or real hardware as they do about the software running the engine management in their cars - ie they don't.
Yes, Virginia, it is possible to make money selling a retail operating system. Linux is free, yet Red Hat is one of the few companies in the Linux world that actually makes money, and they do so by selling a retail Linux package. OS X offers far more out of the box than Linux does, in terms of ease of use and functionality, so the possibility of that working is very real.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't disagree that it is possible to make money selling (or reselling WRT your point) retail operating systems. but AFAIK, redhat makes minimal revenue from the sale of the OS and makes their living off the support of the OS.
Comments
Some considerations regarding x86 migration:
1. Apple currently puts the burden of perceived risk on the consumer. Currently Apple's Switch campaign only focuses on <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">groupies.</a> Once a drifter is a groupie, it's only a matter of time before they switch.
2. Apple may not have the managerial expertise to implement a migration to x86. Apple's board was recently voted among the worst 8 in America by BusinessWeek. Consider a complementary set of Microsoft's core strategies as outlined in Microsoft Secrets:
- Organizing and managing the company: Find smart people who know the technology and the business.
- Managing creative people and technical skills: Organize small teams of overlapping functional specialists.
- Competing with products and standards: Pioneer and orchestrate evolving mass markets.
- Defining products and development processes: Focus creativity by evolving features and "fixing" resources.
- Developing and shipping products: Do everything in parallel, with frequent synchronizations.
- Building a learning organization: Improve through continuous self-critiquing, feedback, and sharing.
- Attack the future!
Is Apple's board prepared to deal with these sort of strategies? Is the management Apple hires prepared to go head to head with this?3. Apple's current position as a hardware manufacturer saves it from direct analysis with Microsoft. If Apple were truly different and applications from Adobe or Macromedia did not behave the same on both platforms (not to mention that the internet is the internet no matter which machine you browse with), then Apple could market differenciation as a true benefit to users and not just a "lifestyle" choice. Once again, Apple puts the burden of perceived risk on the shoulders of the consumer. Apple's marketing is designed more to remind the LAUB that Apple is a good thing than persuade PC users to switch.
4. x86/Windows has already achieved critical mass. Porting OS X to x86 would remove some of the burden of perceived risk from the consumer's shoulders.
5. Nothing is impossible.
6. Apple currently depends upon the LAUB for survival. It could possibly survive for the rest of time feeding from the LAUB. This implies a revolving door business design where customers fed up with either plaform switch. Marketshare is fixed. This also implies anti-trust between Apple and Microsoft, unless Apple stays a box manufacturer.
[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
It appears that the idea is to target current and future dissatisfied PC users especially. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure if you're referring to Marklar being used to target dissatisfied PC users. If so, this would be incorrect. Regardless of Linux, there are basically only two consumer-level operating systems on the market-- Windows and Apple. Windows users unhappy with Windows have basically one choice, same for Apple users fed up with Apple.
Apple's switch campaigns serve two purposes: to remind the LAUB that Apple is where it's at (propaganda), and to ease groupies onto the Mac platform.
There are a number of reasons why Apple would adopt x86 ISA.
1. Moving to insustry standard ISA shrinks the competition gap between hardware, thus reducing the perceived risk burden placed on the consumer. Consumers don't have to struggle with not knowing which technology to choose, as it will all go in the same direction (remember NuBus? Replaced with PCI).
2. Apple decides to adopt any sort of licensing structure.
3. Apple feels gaining marketshare would help any long-term strategies they are developing.
[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
It's not the processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends on whom you're targeting, tonton. Pros care about the processor. This is what I'm talking about when I mention "perceived risk". Some people consider Apple to be a risk because everyone is using Windows.
[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>Actually, MacLuv, all of the pros (publishing and graphic design) I've ever worked with care more about the OS than the processor by a wide margin.
Apple are trying to get people to switch. Pros are already using Macs. It's in Apple's best interest to target the general public, not the pro, unless you're talking about the "pro gamer".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read my <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">Next Generation Apple User Profiles</a> and you'll see who I'm referring to.
If people need speed, they need speed.
you're a freak.
you need to get out of the house.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Go somewhere useful (like australia)
Pro's use whatever they need to get the job done or the platform they they need to run the Software they use.... If you have a choice of OS then the decision is usually about money, not always but usually...
oh and you need to get out more....
I'm from New York City, I'm just married to a kiwi.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Read my <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">Next Generation Apple User Profiles</a> and you'll see who I'm referring to.
If people need speed, they need speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Delusionals build castles in the air. Psychotics live in them. You need a change of address.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
"People with Personal Disorders talk about 'Castles in the Air'; Neurotics build castles in the air;
and Psychotics live in them. Whatever the case, Psychiatrists collect the ground rent."
How original...
[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
current mac hardware is ok for me. Maybe not for someone thinking of switching from windows, but i honestly dont care about the hardware all that much. I have a 3 year old iMac and a 2 year old PC, both are running the newest OS of their respective platforms, and the performance lag on the imac isnt too bad considering its old AND a consumer machine. I'm getting a GHz Ti soon and I'll probably use it as my main machine for 4 years, because thats how long i expect it'll be able to run the newest sofware ok.
I understand that switchers are a different story, but marklar doesnt seem to be the way to go
The real reason most people dont go mac is not because of hardware, but because they think there isnt enough software. We know that for the most part this is folly, but if apple were to transition to x86, all those people who claim mac os doesnt have enough software would definately be right.
<strong>The real reason most people dont go mac is not because of hardware, but because they think there isnt enough software. We know that for the most part this is folly, but if apple were to transition to x86, all those people who claim mac os doesnt have enough software would definately be right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
100% on the money.
Start converting the IT department and then watch the Macs propagate throughout the rest of the company.
Start converting the IT department and then watch the Macs propagate throughout the rest of the company."
Reading my mind, Bunge.
Lemon Bon Bon
How did the 'IBM' get to be so prevalent again?
From Business to Home...Der-duh-da-duh...
[ 12-13-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 12-13-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
If in the future, Apple sold an OS that runs only on Apple's machines, but those machines happened to have Opteron chips in them... what would the difference be to the average Mac buyer?
The answer is that it would be no difference to the average consumer at all. The burden would be on developers to have an x86 build of the software, but that's not a big issue, given the abstraction that Carbon and Cocoa offer. The main issue for developers would be making sure their network and disk i/o code is endian-safe.
You'd still have the industrial design that Apple is famed for. You'd still have the hardware and OS integration that Apple is famed for. You'd still have a killer operating system in OS X. You'd still have all of your nice "out of the box" iApps to run.
What would Apple gain? They'd be able to sell said boxes to schools and coporations have have strict "x86 only" purchasing mandates (believe it or not, there are many that dictate this). Apple would also gain a processor architecture that is being actively pushed by market forces.
Finally, Apple would be taking the slow, safe route to an OS that runs on x86. Down the road, if their business strategy so dictated it (which I don't expect it will any time soon), they could leverage their work to make OS X function on other company's x86 boxes, and make money selling a boxed version of OS X.
Yes, Virginia, it is possible to make money selling a retail operating system. Linux is free, yet Red Hat is one of the few companies in the Linux world that actually makes money, and they do so by selling a retail Linux package. OS X offers far more out of the box than Linux does, in terms of ease of use and functionality, so the possibility of that working is very real.
It is a dual-pronged strategy -- the PPC has a bright future with the IBM 970, and Apple is also exploring the x86 world as well. Should be a fun ride.
Now Apple buys AMD?
They would then be able to design and manufacture there own chips...and be able to potentially outprice the competition for once....
this is just jibba jabba but interesting none the less..
I personally am itching for Apple to buy/merge with Adobe and Macromedia...
<strong>
Read my <a href="http://www.pezagency.com/apple/profiles.html"; target="_blank">Next Generation Apple User Profiles</a> and you'll see who I'm referring to.
If people need speed, they need speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what are you MacLuv? i'm just an iBud
It's nice to see somebody who gets it...soaring like an Eagle above the entrenched partisan politics of Mr. Black and White...e'er to roam like dinosaurs before the comet-mecurial jobs gesticulates one of his 'And one more thing...'
And I can't wait for THAT '...one more thing...'
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 12-13-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 12-13-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>There are lots of ladies (and men) who think like that.
"I need Windows."
It's not the processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with tonton on this. All people know is "I want Windows" - they don't care that they can run other OSs on the hardware (any more than most Mac users care that they can run PPC Linux).
So if people are prepared to switch to Mac, then they will switch to PPCs built by Apple. They care as much about the processor or real hardware as they do about the software running the engine management in their cars - ie they don't.
<strong>
Yes, Virginia, it is possible to make money selling a retail operating system. Linux is free, yet Red Hat is one of the few companies in the Linux world that actually makes money, and they do so by selling a retail Linux package. OS X offers far more out of the box than Linux does, in terms of ease of use and functionality, so the possibility of that working is very real.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't disagree that it is possible to make money selling (or reselling WRT your point) retail operating systems. but AFAIK, redhat makes minimal revenue from the sale of the OS and makes their living off the support of the OS.
ps: i like your idea Producer of the buy out.