Well I've officially killed myself. From now on I am a ghost in hell. Algol is the demon star after all. This all seems silly to me but perhaps Apple can pull it off... or perhaps steve has killed himself also--as well as AAPL. This is either the stupidest or smartest thing Apple has ever done. Time will tell. Who's willing to take the odds? Not me.
I think it's the smartest thing they have done. It seems to me that they have been careful not to go toe to toe with Microsoft, otherwise their representative wouldn't be there today announcing their support for the transition.
A 1.67 Ghz G4 is not suitable for a Professional Notebook costing as much as $2,500.
Notebooks are the way of the future. Intel is the unchallenged King there right now, and it's a smart move for Apple to align with the King for the first time, rather than with the Underdog (AMD) who seems to be doing better, but has no good notebook chips and doesn't have the giant fabs Intel has.
If OSX is not going to be able to work on Generic PCs, than Apple is once again mising the chance to become Top Dog. Why wouldn't they go toe to toe with Microsoft? If OSX can work on Intel Chips than Apple should go all out to win the OS war.
PC manufacturers have been after Apple to make OSX available to them.
Because Microsoft can crush them. All those tales about iWork being worked on as a replacement for Office are sweet and all, but Microsoft Office is simply irreplacable on the Mac. We don't even have a native version of OpenOffice.org, let alone something better than Microsoft Office.
If you go toe to toe with Microsoft, expect Microsoft to go toe to toe with you. And we all know how Microsoft's competitors ended up being.
Linux is an exception to this. Not because it's better (which it is), but because it's not a company, but a movement of people that want to run it and use it. They can't be crushed because they don't have a centralized company that produces Linux and protects its products. And they have the backing of some of the biggest companies in the world (IBM, HP, Intel, etc) - which means that Microsoft can't just kill it because there are other, bigger players in that field.
But Apple is not a big player, or at least, not as big as IBM or HP. It can't, and it won't, go toe to toe with Microsoft.
Because computer hardware is still an important part of Apple's income. If they forfeit hardware sales just to get the OS out there, they would be bleeding money. It's not about guts. Business decisions aren't made emotionally to prove wang size. It's about business sense. It's not the time to do that yet.
Even the rate of piracy is larger than Apple's 2-3% marketshare. Who's to say how many illegal copies of OSX would circulate, and hurt their profits even more if they did what you asked?
If OSX is not going to be able to work on Generic PCs, than Apple is once again mising the chance to become Top Dog.
That does concern me a little. I was thinking the same thing, but like someone pointed out, if they were to allow OS X to run on any PC based hardware, then Apple's hardware business is pretty much dead.
I mentioned in another thread that I would be happy to pay a little extra money on an Apple system due to the beauty of the design, but I am also not stupid either. I was referring to something less than $500.
If I got the same experience from a machine that cost me $800 compared to a $3000 Mac, then guess what I am going to do.
We will have to wait and see how Apple plays this out to see how it affects market share and their stock price.
Seems to me that Microsoft makes quite a bit of money without the hardware sales.
Sometimes a company has to take risks to grow, did Microsoft get to where they are by playing possum and not wanting to upset someone?
If Apple isn't going to allow clones then this whole move is a waste of time and money, IMHO.
And how, exactly, is Apple going to prevent OSX for Intel from working on another box?
And I really do believe that Apple fans will continue to buy Macs even though there are other choices because Apple designs PCs better than anyone else, and the price should come down quite a bit with more hardware components available to them.
If OSX is not going to be able to work on Generic PCs, than Apple is once again mising the chance to become Top Dog. Why wouldn't they go toe to toe with Microsoft? If OSX can work on Intel Chips than Apple should go all out to win the OS war.
PC manufacturers have been after Apple to make OSX available to them.
Now is the chance to take over the market.
If Apple doesn't do this, then Jobs has no guts.
What would stop Micro$soft just buying up apple and shutting them down?
What would stop Micro$soft just buying up apple and shutting them down?
The Department of Justice, for one. MS was already found to have a monopoly in the X86-based market, and they maintained it illegally. A buyout would never fly.
What would stop Micro$soft just buying up apple and shutting them down?
Umm something called "anti-competitive behavior"? I realise m$ seems to have the US govt. under its thumb, but I doubt M$soft would be allowed to buy a competitor and just shut them down. The other thing is, how would they buy Apple? there are a lot of shares out there in private hands, MS would have to convince a lot of their own stockholders it was a good idea...
My comment was sort of a sly remark intended to make fun of Microsoft. However, I don't have much faith in the justice department as it seems as if Microsoft and the corporations own the american government. And gosh with Bush in office can anyone really expect any justice in anything?
Seems to me that Microsoft makes quite a bit of money without the hardware sales.
Sometimes a company has to take risks to grow, did Microsoft get to where they are by playing possum and not wanting to upset someone?
If Apple isn't going to allow clones then this whole move is a waste of time and money, IMHO.
And how, exactly, is Apple going to prevent OSX for Intel from working on another box?
And I really do believe that Apple fans will continue to buy Macs even though there are other choices because Apple designs PCs better than anyone else, and the price should come down quite a bit with more hardware components available to them.
Microsoft makes it's money from volume licensing to OEMs and corporates, very little of their Windows income is from boxed copies sold in stores. Apple can't do this because those same OEMs aren't allowed to preload other OSs.
Apple needs hardware to sell OS X. Also controlling the hardware means you can ensure the OS runs well too. Much of Windows instability trouble is due to an infinite combination of parts.
Clones will kill Apple dead. They won't be able to guarentee stability or sell enough licenses to survive.
Microsoft makes it's money from volume licensing to OEMs and corporates, very little of their Windows income is from boxed copies sold in stores. Apple can't do this because those same OEMs aren't allowed to preload other OSs.
Apple needs hardware to sell OS X. Also controlling the hardware means you can ensure the OS runs well too. Much of Windows instability trouble is due to an infinite combination of parts.
Clones will kill Apple dead. They won't be able to guarentee stability or sell enough licenses to survive.
Apple is just changing CPU, not becoming Dell.
Actually, they can and do put others OS's on their machines-Linux for example. Some companies actually approached Apple about using their OS.
If OSX were available to other vendors market share would increase.
I hear what you're saying about stability, however. Apple would have to narrow down the components available to PC makers to make sure there are no problems.
All in all, with no cloning coming from this decision than this looks to be a bad move. Did we really care that the Ghz was lower than PCs? I didn't. Heck, I'm using a G3 400mhz iMac running Panther and it works fine. Can anyone trying to use a 400mhz PC running XP say the same thing?
Yeah, big companies (including HP, IBM) sell Linux on their computers. Dell doesn't, but Dell is a MS fanboy, so no surprise here. But they do sell Linux servers.
Yeah, big companies (including HP, IBM) sell Linux on their computers. Dell doesn't, but Dell is a MS fanboy, so no surprise here. But they do sell Linux servers.
Dell sells Linux preloaded on some of their business machines, like the Dell n Series Linux Workstations.
Comments
A 1.67 Ghz G4 is not suitable for a Professional Notebook costing as much as $2,500.
Notebooks are the way of the future. Intel is the unchallenged King there right now, and it's a smart move for Apple to align with the King for the first time, rather than with the Underdog (AMD) who seems to be doing better, but has no good notebook chips and doesn't have the giant fabs Intel has.
PC manufacturers have been after Apple to make OSX available to them.
Now is the chance to take over the market.
If Apple doesn't do this, then Jobs has no guts.
If you go toe to toe with Microsoft, expect Microsoft to go toe to toe with you. And we all know how Microsoft's competitors ended up being.
Linux is an exception to this. Not because it's better (which it is), but because it's not a company, but a movement of people that want to run it and use it. They can't be crushed because they don't have a centralized company that produces Linux and protects its products. And they have the backing of some of the biggest companies in the world (IBM, HP, Intel, etc) - which means that Microsoft can't just kill it because there are other, bigger players in that field.
But Apple is not a big player, or at least, not as big as IBM or HP. It can't, and it won't, go toe to toe with Microsoft.
Even the rate of piracy is larger than Apple's 2-3% marketshare. Who's to say how many illegal copies of OSX would circulate, and hurt their profits even more if they did what you asked?
Originally posted by steve666
If OSX is not going to be able to work on Generic PCs, than Apple is once again mising the chance to become Top Dog.
That does concern me a little. I was thinking the same thing, but like someone pointed out, if they were to allow OS X to run on any PC based hardware, then Apple's hardware business is pretty much dead.
I mentioned in another thread that I would be happy to pay a little extra money on an Apple system due to the beauty of the design, but I am also not stupid either. I was referring to something less than $500.
If I got the same experience from a machine that cost me $800 compared to a $3000 Mac, then guess what I am going to do.
We will have to wait and see how Apple plays this out to see how it affects market share and their stock price.
Sometimes a company has to take risks to grow, did Microsoft get to where they are by playing possum and not wanting to upset someone?
If Apple isn't going to allow clones then this whole move is a waste of time and money, IMHO.
And how, exactly, is Apple going to prevent OSX for Intel from working on another box?
And I really do believe that Apple fans will continue to buy Macs even though there are other choices because Apple designs PCs better than anyone else, and the price should come down quite a bit with more hardware components available to them.
Originally posted by steve666
If OSX is not going to be able to work on Generic PCs, than Apple is once again mising the chance to become Top Dog. Why wouldn't they go toe to toe with Microsoft? If OSX can work on Intel Chips than Apple should go all out to win the OS war.
PC manufacturers have been after Apple to make OSX available to them.
Now is the chance to take over the market.
If Apple doesn't do this, then Jobs has no guts.
What would stop Micro$soft just buying up apple and shutting them down?
Originally posted by Algol
What would stop Micro$soft just buying up apple and shutting them down?
The Department of Justice, for one. MS was already found to have a monopoly in the X86-based market, and they maintained it illegally. A buyout would never fly.
Originally posted by Algol
What would stop Micro$soft just buying up apple and shutting them down?
Umm something called "anti-competitive behavior"? I realise m$ seems to have the US govt. under its thumb, but I doubt M$soft would be allowed to buy a competitor and just shut them down. The other thing is, how would they buy Apple? there are a lot of shares out there in private hands, MS would have to convince a lot of their own stockholders it was a good idea...
Originally posted by steve666
Seems to me that Microsoft makes quite a bit of money without the hardware sales.
Sometimes a company has to take risks to grow, did Microsoft get to where they are by playing possum and not wanting to upset someone?
If Apple isn't going to allow clones then this whole move is a waste of time and money, IMHO.
And how, exactly, is Apple going to prevent OSX for Intel from working on another box?
And I really do believe that Apple fans will continue to buy Macs even though there are other choices because Apple designs PCs better than anyone else, and the price should come down quite a bit with more hardware components available to them.
Microsoft makes it's money from volume licensing to OEMs and corporates, very little of their Windows income is from boxed copies sold in stores. Apple can't do this because those same OEMs aren't allowed to preload other OSs.
Apple needs hardware to sell OS X. Also controlling the hardware means you can ensure the OS runs well too. Much of Windows instability trouble is due to an infinite combination of parts.
Clones will kill Apple dead. They won't be able to guarentee stability or sell enough licenses to survive.
Apple is just changing CPU, not becoming Dell.
Apple can't do this because those same OEMs aren't allowed to preload other OSs.
I'm pretty sure that this is no longer the case - as the government forced Microsoft to stop this practice.
Originally posted by Blackcat
Microsoft makes it's money from volume licensing to OEMs and corporates, very little of their Windows income is from boxed copies sold in stores. Apple can't do this because those same OEMs aren't allowed to preload other OSs.
Apple needs hardware to sell OS X. Also controlling the hardware means you can ensure the OS runs well too. Much of Windows instability trouble is due to an infinite combination of parts.
Clones will kill Apple dead. They won't be able to guarentee stability or sell enough licenses to survive.
Apple is just changing CPU, not becoming Dell.
Actually, they can and do put others OS's on their machines-Linux for example. Some companies actually approached Apple about using their OS.
If OSX were available to other vendors market share would increase.
I hear what you're saying about stability, however. Apple would have to narrow down the components available to PC makers to make sure there are no problems.
All in all, with no cloning coming from this decision than this looks to be a bad move. Did we really care that the Ghz was lower than PCs? I didn't. Heck, I'm using a G3 400mhz iMac running Panther and it works fine. Can anyone trying to use a 400mhz PC running XP say the same thing?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, big companies (including HP, IBM) sell Linux on their computers. Dell doesn't, but Dell is a MS fanboy, so no surprise here. But they do sell Linux servers.
Dell sells Linux preloaded on some of their business machines, like the Dell n Series Linux Workstations.