Give me a break, if Apple began selling OS X for generic x86 boxes, it would start a WAR between them and Microsoft.
I am sorry but an OS war has been raging for years already and Apple has been on the loosing side of it. Whenever Apple has tried to increase its market share it has always been at the expense of Windows. Releasing OSX for all X86 hardware is simply the nuclear option that can finally blow Windows out of Apple's way. If you got nukes, why not use them?
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
I think that would hurt some, wouldn't it? That's the main reason people buy computers today. To write college papers, to write school reports, to create numerical reports etc., using Office.
It's their bread and butter. They won't let it live in a competitors OS as soon as that competitor gets serious. That's why we don't see an Office for Linux. Because Linux is going toe to toe with Microsoft. And Microsoft is fighting back.
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
I think that would hurt some, wouldn't it? That's the main reason people buy computers today. To write college papers, to write school reports, to create numerical reports etc., using Office.
It's their bread and butter. They won't let it live in a competitors OS as soon as that competitor gets serious. That's why we don't see an Office for Linux. Because Linux is going toe to toe with Microsoft. And Microsoft is fighting back.
I agree entirely. But from an anti-trust defense standpoint, it's easier for Microsoft to justify **not** making Office for Linux, than it would be to justify terminating MacOffice in response to OS competition from Apple.
Open retaliation by Microsoft against Apple for OS competition would really test the government's patience with respect to anti-trust issues -- at least a government that cared about enforcing anti-trust laws.
Open retaliation by Microsoft against Apple for OS competition would really test the government's patience with respect to anti-trust issues -- at least a government that cared about enforcing anti-trust laws.
Hah! like the government's really going to risk screwing over M$ now that they're involved with every level on almost every PC.. not to mention the military contracts outstanding.
Gates also donates more to the republicrats than Jobs does.
I don't think anyone would get on M$' case if they decide to cut Office for mac.
HOWEVER.. I don't think MS would drop OSX Office anyway. MS has been, strangly enough, not focusing so much on its OS as much. They make much more from office and their gaming endeavors than their OS... It's feasible that if longhorn has sub-par sales (like XP did) in 2006, MS could actually retreat from the OS market altogether.
The US has not been particularly successful in protecting the public interest as far as technology and anti-trust is concerned.
Apple has been rolling out "Office" competitors, Keynote, then Pages... Not direct competitors perhaps, but you have to believe that the bones of a far more exhaustive office suite already exist "just in case"
If anything, recent news demonstrates that Apple wisely spends time and resources on contingency...
I would not be surprised to see M$ try and lock down Windows platforms at some point in the future, much like Apple will try to lock down an X86 mac platform. They will use DCMA and DRM as beach-heads and if you thought anti-trust was violated before, it's in real trouble now...
I don't think MS would drop OSX Office anyway. MS has been, strangly enough, not focusing so much on its OS as much. They make much more from office and their gaming endeavors than their OS... It's feasible that if longhorn has sub-par sales (like XP did) in 2006, MS could actually retreat from the OS market altogether.
Microsoft getting out of operating systems? Pretty soon, you'll be telling me IBM will abandon the PC market... oh, wait...
Apple announces a move to Intel that won't start for months, and now people think Apple should just open war on MS with it's 2-3% market share*, and then we start getting suggestions that Microsoft might pull out of the OS business?
Please, pass me the weed. This has to be good stuff.
Apple is in NO position to take on MS. MS makes a killing licensing their OS. That doesn't mean licensing the OS is guaranteed to make Apple a killing. The point at which Apple can't have tight reigns on the hardware, the OS becomes just about as ineffective as XP. To maintain that tight integration, Apple needs to make the hardware, which it just so happens they're also making a lot of money doing.
It isn't until they start getting up near 10% or so, as well as make significant inroads in corporations, that Apple could consider a real OS war. But why would they? If you get to 10% and your foot in the door of corporations making the hardware AND software, why would you cease doing so? Apple makes a lot of money now. Imagine how much they'll make selling 5 times as many Macs.
The licensing model works for MS quite well, and it's unlikely that's a game MS is going to get beaten at anytime soon. But if you approach them at an angle, via equal hardware PLUS superior software, you might change the dynamics of the fight enough to give yourself a chance.
Ask yourself this: Why is it that MS has been trying so hard to get tighter integration with the hardware offerings of PC makers? Why does MS feel it's so important to develop the OS with the hardware in the future like Apple does in the present?
You'll see MS buy a computer manufacturer and build their own boxes before you see them exit the OS realm.
* you can save that installed base mumbo jumbo since we're talking about future sales
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
....
I believe that an arithmetic lesson is in order. Go to your nearest software retailer. Find the price of Microsoft Windows. Now find the price of Microsoft Office. Which is greater? It's Office, isn't it? The price of Office is greater than Windows, but you can be assured that the development costs are substantially less. Do you know what that means? It means much greater profits for Office, that's what it means. Do we agree that Microsoft is in business to make money? Isn't it like really important to Microsoft? Hasn't it been Bill Gates's greatest obscession since 1975? Doesn't virtually every business Mac buyer also buy Microsoft Office? Why then, in God's name, would Microsoft sacrifice highly profitable Microsoft Office sales in a futile effort to prevent the loss of Microsoft Windows sales?
I think M$ is spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to lock down the HW side and still keep the benefits of their current OS model, not easy...
Apple will try to lock down their HW platform, but interested 3rd parties can and will defeat any proprietary system.
Again, it may be as simple as an emulation layer (for OSX) under linux or some such, but with little to no architectural differences, you won't get the speed hit of a VPC on PPC, for example a future "Virtual OSX" on X86 linux could potentially be very fast.
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
I'm doing that right this instance. And have been for 2 years. Although I must admit the experience has been much better in the last 5 months.
If MS truly opens up the Office formats by going XML...then why need Office at all?
Pages, Keynote, OmniGraffle are all better than Office at some things, worse than Office at others, and they all do what I normally need on a daily basis extremely well. The XML Office format will just ensure perfect compatibility instead of the hackery that is involved at the moment and the only thing left that's needed is an Excel equivalent from Apple.
Apple is in NO position to take on MS. MS makes a killing licensing their OS. That doesn't mean licensing the OS is guaranteed to make Apple a killing. The point at which Apple can't have tight reigns on the hardware, the OS becomes just about as ineffective as XP. To maintain that tight integration, Apple needs to make the hardware, which it just so happens they're also making a lot of money doing.
You're relying on myths such as limited hardware being necessary for a quality OS.
Other 3rd party OSs run just fine with all sorts of crazy hardware.
Moreover, Windows XP and 2000 have been pretty damn stable for me on my home-built machine. Anti-mac zealots have been pointing to proprietary hardware as the reason for OS X's stability for years, but it's simply not true. Linux has disproven it, and to a large extent, windows XP and 2k have too.
Also, I pointed out the precise reasons why M$ would get out of the OS market, which you promptly ignored. The fact is: they're NOT making a killing. The development costs on windows are absolutely staggering, partially due to the programmer turnover and totally insane code under the hood.
Longhorn may make windows development easier, but it wont matter if longhorn doesn't sell, which it might not. XP STILL hasn't reached its 2nd year adoption estimates. People just aren't upgrading. What does longhorn offer that 2000 doesn't?
They don't make much money per license either. All those PC manufacturers like dell, gateway, and compaq pay literally a couple bucks for each license they package with their systems.
If you actually go and look at the profit breakdown at microsoft, you'll notice that only a small faction of its REVENUE come from sales of windows, whereas a much larger fraction of its EXPENSES come from windows development. They have more profitable ventures that they're already involved with. M$ is a company, not a power-hungry fool; it will do whatever it sees fit to make the most money possible. After longhorn's release, maybe they wont see a future for them in the OS market.
True. But Mac OS X/x86 really calls the question of whether Apple's unique hardware space can be defended, through technical means, legal means, or a combination of the two.
While Apple can ensure that OS X on third-party PC's are illegal and not supported (thus preventing large scale enterprise adoption), if as a technical matter it's too easy the pressure on Apple to release it legally for third-party boxes will be intense.
And I suspect that Apple's sales include a lot of small-office, home-office types that could be productive with OS X on their generic PC's without worrying too much about the details of the EULA. Even a small group of productive "hackers" will create political pressure on Apple to let the genie out of the bottle.
In the end, I don't think Apple will do what the music industry is doing and DMCA their own customers to protect a business model which is no longer technologically feasible.
So Apple may be forced into OS competition with Microsoft whether it wants to or not.
Which logically leads to all sorts of previously illogical possibilities. Hence, "thinking the unthinkable" and the wild contents of this thread.
If MS truly opens up the Office formats by going XML...then why need Office at all?
...
That's a very big if. From everything that I know about Microsoft's XML-based formats, they are really hybrid formats comprised of XML and binary. As such, they are just as proprietary as ever. You can save Microsoft documents as XML, but you lose a substantial fraction of your formatting.
If you actually go and look at the profit breakdown at microsoft, you'll notice that only a small faction of its REVENUE come from sales of windows, whereas a much larger fraction of its EXPENSES come from windows development. They have more profitable ventures that they're already involved with. M$ is a company, not a power-hungry fool; it will do whatever it sees fit to make the most money possible. After longhorn's release, maybe they wont see a future for them in the OS market.
Actually, no, you are wrong. Read Microsoft's 2004 10-K. They have 7 business sectors: Client; Server and Tools; Information Worker; Microsoft Business Solutions; MSN; Mobile and Embedded Devices; and Home and Entertainment.
Here are the operating incomes (loss) in millions for each:
Client is the Windows OS (client version) : $8,015
Server & Tools are the Enterprise: $96
Information Worker is Office: $7,151
Microsoft Business Solutions are end-to-end business products: $(255)
MSN: $121
Mobile & Embedded is WinCE, etc.: $(224)
Home & Entertainment is Xbox (and ironically, the MacBU): $(1,215)
So, they made almost $1B more profit in Windows sales than Office. Office and Windows are their only cash cows. The rest are "bets" the company is hedging on.
They are NOT giving up Windows any time in the foreseeable future.
X86 Macs give Apple the potential to take on M$ directly. That doesn't mean it will happen for many years, if ever, but it is an option now. Apple definitely wouldn't do it unless they believed they could survive a one on one OS + other apps war.
IF it were ever to happen, Apple would probably start to do what they are doing with the iPod. Co-brand for a few years until the profits for the hardware aren't worth it. It's not unreasonable to expect them to live just off of the iTMS infrastructure someday.
Or they could take their first baby step by offering an open OSX for Intel PCs with limited configurations of video cards, processors, motherboards, accessories, etc. This would be building your own Mac but in an uglier, bigger box. They would require OS registration to hardware ala M$ (to limit piracy) and charge $300 for it.
You then get money you never expected from hardware you didn't build. If all goes well, drop the price and take on M$.
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
As others have already said, MSFT isn't likely to drop Office for OSX during nuclear war. I would go as far as saying that the more successful OSX for X86 gets the less likely MSFT is to drop Office for OSX. Why? Because Office is the only way MSFT has to collect cash from OSX users. The development work for OSX Office is already done, so why in the world would they want to stop the cash flow from it now? Think about this scenario. A PC user has been using Windows for years, bought Office long time ago. She switches to OSX for X86 and the first thing she wants to do is buy Office for OSX. So each switch from Windows to OSX is very likely to generate more Office revenue for MSFT.
LINUX is a very different situation. When a Windows user switches to LINUX the cash flow to MSFT ends completely. It is a total loss. If MSFT kills OSX Office then each switch from Windows to OSX would be a total loss too.
I also have to say that I have never owned a copy of Office for OSX and have done fine without it, although I acknowledge that Office is important for a lot of other Mac users.
I'm doing that right this instance. And have been for 2 years. Although I must admit the experience has been much better in the last 5 months.
If MS truly opens up the Office formats by going XML...then why need Office at all?
Sure, YOU don't need Office, but you are obviously a bright guy who understands computers. Pretend you're one of the average Americans who doesn't understand computers but gets by with memorizing a few applications and learning how to poke around in the file system GUI. These people hate learning and desire to use computers only to get their work done and read some chain emails, after which they sprawl out on the couch to soak in the TeeVee with a load of soda and junk food. They buy a computer for home use that's as close as possible to the one they use at work - so they don't have to learn anything new. They take their computer into Best Buy once or twice a year to have it wiped of viruses and malware and maybe get a clean install of Windows so it works again. They think Macs are for graphic artists and homosexuals, "fags" as they would say.
When dealing with such a consumer base, you must be able to see why having Office for Mac is important. It's already a momentous leap for the rubes to learn a whole new operating system, along with a new email application and other helper apps like Preview, iTunes, and Safari. If they can't point and click to open their work Office documents at home, they are going to be angry and confused. They will not buy a Mac, or if they get suckered in to trying one, they'll never buy one again. "Think Different!" These people don't want to think different - they don't even want to think at all!
Computers aren't much different from politics: fear sells, and it is what motivates most buyer's decisions. Fear of the new, of the different, and of learning. Fear of not being one of the crowd at work. Fear of getting a document from work or from a friend, and not knowing how to open it.
I see this all the time, and part time as an IT help dude. When many people encounter the least bit of resistance at a computer, their first reaction is to throw up their hands and cry out for help. No problem solving is attempted at all, their response is just a primal helplessness, pathetically showcasing the worst attributes of humanity; ignorance and fear mixed with a disdain for learning.
I would go as far as saying that the more successful OSX for X86 gets the less likely MSFT is to drop Office for OSX. Why? Because Office is the only way MSFT has to collect cash from OSX users.
Actually I had forgoten that MSFT has another way to collect cash from OSX users, and that is VirtualPC. So, perhaps MSFT would want to drop OSX Office and require Mac people to use Windows Office through VirtualPC. That should generate a lot more revenue than OSX Office because you would be paying for a copy of VirtualPC + a copy of Windows to run under VirtualPC + a copy of Windows Office. In any case, Office would remain avaliable to OSX users, so it wouldn't be the end of the world.
]As others have already said, MSFT isn't likely to drop Office for OSX during nuclear war. I would go as far as saying that the more successful OSX for X86 gets the less likely MSFT is to drop Office for OSX. Why? Because Office is the only way MSFT has to collect cash from OSX users. The development work for OSX Office is already done, so why in the world would they want to stop the cash flow from it now? Think about this scenario. A PC user has been using Windows for years, bought Office long time ago. She switches to OSX for X86 and the first thing she wants to do is buy Office for OSX. So each switch from Windows to OSX is very likely to generate more Office revenue for MSFT.
Yes, Office costs money to buy for a Macintosh, which means revenue for Microsoft, but Microsoft will support Office for Macs only to a certain extent.
Are you telling me that Microsoft will support Office:Mac if Mac OS X becomes a heavy-weight OS with a 30% market share?
NEVER.
Trust me, a lot of Linux guys would buy Office if it were available for Linux. I would, and I run Linux more than OS X or XP (which I sendomly run). A lot of people in the Linux world buy (or otherwise use) applications whose sole reason of existence is to run MS apps. Crossover Office for example. Granted, a lot of Linux users wouldn't use MS apps because they don't like MS, but not all Linux users use Linux because they dislike MS. I use it because I find it very stable, very versatile and highly configurable.
Quote:
LINUX is a very different situation. When a Windows user switches to LINUX the cash flow to MSFT ends completely. It is a total loss. If MSFT kills OSX Office then each switch from Windows to OSX would be a total loss too.
Yes, but it makes (made) sense for MS to keep Office:Mac as long as OS X was running on a completely different platform with no real opportunity of de-throning MS, or even making a dent on its market share. Now that it runs on the same platform, or if it ran on any hardware out there, making it completely equal to Windows in terms of platforms, do you really think MS would support it? I highly doubt it. One could argue that they support Apple because they don't want to have trouble with the Justice Dep. because of anti-trust laws, but they could very well port Office to OS/2 or some other niche OS and just divert the problems.
Quote:
I also have to say that I have never owned a copy of Office for OSX and have done fine without it, although I acknowledge that Office is important for a lot of other Mac users.
Yes it is, and Apple knows it is. That's why it has agreements with MS to keep making it. Linux has OpenOffice and/or StarOffice, Koffice and a bunch of other suites that work fine, but Apple is not in that position. Apple is a company. They have a lot to lose if their customers complain that Office is not available and they can't watch that .wmv movie.
Linux does fine without that, because one chooses Linux while realising that there is no Office for it. But not OS X. You expect to be able to purchase Office, if you so wish, and you just don't want to lose that compatibility with others (I would argue that you don't, that AbiWord or even NeoOffice work just fine, but that's another issue).
All in all, I think that Apple is in no position as of right now to have that great OS war with Microsoft. It may very well be so in a couple of years if it's smart and builds a nice, clean, Aqua-ish Office clone. And if Intel is willing to help Apple in their quest (which I think is one of the reasons for the switch).
Actually I had forgoten that MSFT has another way to collect cash from OSX users, and that is VirtualPC. So, perhaps MSFT would want to drop OSX Office and require Mac people to use Windows Office through VirtualPC. That should generate a lot more revenue than OSX Office because you would be paying for a copy of VirtualPC + a copy of Windows to run under VirtualPC + a copy of Windows Office. In any case, Office would remain avaliable to OSX users, so it wouldn't be the end of the world.
If you had read the articles in the news on AppleInsider you would have noticed that the new Mac/s will be Windops compatible.
Therefore you will be able to run all the Windops software you want natively on Intel.
VPC is for Xbox NOT Mac users, so MS can only make money on Mac users with it desktop apps. But if they stop selling Mac version then they can also make money off of their OS but my bet is most of those on Macs would be boot legged or used from an old burnt out PC, even for business use.
Comments
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Give me a break, if Apple began selling OS X for generic x86 boxes, it would start a WAR between them and Microsoft.
I am sorry but an OS war has been raging for years already and Apple has been on the loosing side of it. Whenever Apple has tried to increase its market share it has always been at the expense of Windows. Releasing OSX for all X86 hardware is simply the nuclear option that can finally blow Windows out of Apple's way. If you got nukes, why not use them?
I think that would hurt some, wouldn't it? That's the main reason people buy computers today. To write college papers, to write school reports, to create numerical reports etc., using Office.
It's their bread and butter. They won't let it live in a competitors OS as soon as that competitor gets serious. That's why we don't see an Office for Linux. Because Linux is going toe to toe with Microsoft. And Microsoft is fighting back.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
I think that would hurt some, wouldn't it? That's the main reason people buy computers today. To write college papers, to write school reports, to create numerical reports etc., using Office.
It's their bread and butter. They won't let it live in a competitors OS as soon as that competitor gets serious. That's why we don't see an Office for Linux. Because Linux is going toe to toe with Microsoft. And Microsoft is fighting back.
I agree entirely. But from an anti-trust defense standpoint, it's easier for Microsoft to justify **not** making Office for Linux, than it would be to justify terminating MacOffice in response to OS competition from Apple.
Open retaliation by Microsoft against Apple for OS competition would really test the government's patience with respect to anti-trust issues -- at least a government that cared about enforcing anti-trust laws.
Originally posted by mpls244
Open retaliation by Microsoft against Apple for OS competition would really test the government's patience with respect to anti-trust issues -- at least a government that cared about enforcing anti-trust laws.
Hah! like the government's really going to risk screwing over M$ now that they're involved with every level on almost every PC.. not to mention the military contracts outstanding.
Gates also donates more to the republicrats than Jobs does.
I don't think anyone would get on M$' case if they decide to cut Office for mac.
HOWEVER.. I don't think MS would drop OSX Office anyway. MS has been, strangly enough, not focusing so much on its OS as much. They make much more from office and their gaming endeavors than their OS... It's feasible that if longhorn has sub-par sales (like XP did) in 2006, MS could actually retreat from the OS market altogether.
Apple has been rolling out "Office" competitors, Keynote, then Pages... Not direct competitors perhaps, but you have to believe that the bones of a far more exhaustive office suite already exist "just in case"
If anything, recent news demonstrates that Apple wisely spends time and resources on contingency...
I would not be surprised to see M$ try and lock down Windows platforms at some point in the future, much like Apple will try to lock down an X86 mac platform. They will use DCMA and DRM as beach-heads and if you thought anti-trust was violated before, it's in real trouble now...
Originally posted by slughead
I don't think MS would drop OSX Office anyway. MS has been, strangly enough, not focusing so much on its OS as much. They make much more from office and their gaming endeavors than their OS... It's feasible that if longhorn has sub-par sales (like XP did) in 2006, MS could actually retreat from the OS market altogether.
Microsoft getting out of operating systems? Pretty soon, you'll be telling me IBM will abandon the PC market... oh, wait...
This thread is priceless.
Apple announces a move to Intel that won't start for months, and now people think Apple should just open war on MS with it's 2-3% market share*, and then we start getting suggestions that Microsoft might pull out of the OS business?
Please, pass me the weed. This has to be good stuff.
Apple is in NO position to take on MS. MS makes a killing licensing their OS. That doesn't mean licensing the OS is guaranteed to make Apple a killing. The point at which Apple can't have tight reigns on the hardware, the OS becomes just about as ineffective as XP. To maintain that tight integration, Apple needs to make the hardware, which it just so happens they're also making a lot of money doing.
It isn't until they start getting up near 10% or so, as well as make significant inroads in corporations, that Apple could consider a real OS war. But why would they? If you get to 10% and your foot in the door of corporations making the hardware AND software, why would you cease doing so? Apple makes a lot of money now. Imagine how much they'll make selling 5 times as many Macs.
The licensing model works for MS quite well, and it's unlikely that's a game MS is going to get beaten at anytime soon. But if you approach them at an angle, via equal hardware PLUS superior software, you might change the dynamics of the fight enough to give yourself a chance.
Ask yourself this: Why is it that MS has been trying so hard to get tighter integration with the hardware offerings of PC makers? Why does MS feel it's so important to develop the OS with the hardware in the future like Apple does in the present?
You'll see MS buy a computer manufacturer and build their own boxes before you see them exit the OS realm.
* you can save that installed base mumbo jumbo since we're talking about future sales
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
....
I believe that an arithmetic lesson is in order. Go to your nearest software retailer. Find the price of Microsoft Windows. Now find the price of Microsoft Office. Which is greater? It's Office, isn't it? The price of Office is greater than Windows, but you can be assured that the development costs are substantially less. Do you know what that means? It means much greater profits for Office, that's what it means. Do we agree that Microsoft is in business to make money? Isn't it like really important to Microsoft? Hasn't it been Bill Gates's greatest obscession since 1975? Doesn't virtually every business Mac buyer also buy Microsoft Office? Why then, in God's name, would Microsoft sacrifice highly profitable Microsoft Office sales in a futile effort to prevent the loss of Microsoft Windows sales?
Apple will try to lock down their HW platform, but interested 3rd parties can and will defeat any proprietary system.
Again, it may be as simple as an emulation layer (for OSX) under linux or some such, but with little to no architectural differences, you won't get the speed hit of a VPC on PPC, for example a future "Virtual OSX" on X86 linux could potentially be very fast.
Then the lawsuits will begin...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
I'm doing that right this instance. And have been for 2 years. Although I must admit the experience has been much better in the last 5 months.
If MS truly opens up the Office formats by going XML...then why need Office at all?
Pages, Keynote, OmniGraffle are all better than Office at some things, worse than Office at others, and they all do what I normally need on a daily basis extremely well. The XML Office format will just ensure perfect compatibility instead of the hackery that is involved at the moment and the only thing left that's needed is an Excel equivalent from Apple.
Originally posted by rageous
Apple is in NO position to take on MS. MS makes a killing licensing their OS. That doesn't mean licensing the OS is guaranteed to make Apple a killing. The point at which Apple can't have tight reigns on the hardware, the OS becomes just about as ineffective as XP. To maintain that tight integration, Apple needs to make the hardware, which it just so happens they're also making a lot of money doing.
You're relying on myths such as limited hardware being necessary for a quality OS.
Other 3rd party OSs run just fine with all sorts of crazy hardware.
Moreover, Windows XP and 2000 have been pretty damn stable for me on my home-built machine. Anti-mac zealots have been pointing to proprietary hardware as the reason for OS X's stability for years, but it's simply not true. Linux has disproven it, and to a large extent, windows XP and 2k have too.
Also, I pointed out the precise reasons why M$ would get out of the OS market, which you promptly ignored. The fact is: they're NOT making a killing. The development costs on windows are absolutely staggering, partially due to the programmer turnover and totally insane code under the hood.
Longhorn may make windows development easier, but it wont matter if longhorn doesn't sell, which it might not. XP STILL hasn't reached its 2nd year adoption estimates. People just aren't upgrading. What does longhorn offer that 2000 doesn't?
They don't make much money per license either. All those PC manufacturers like dell, gateway, and compaq pay literally a couple bucks for each license they package with their systems.
If you actually go and look at the profit breakdown at microsoft, you'll notice that only a small faction of its REVENUE come from sales of windows, whereas a much larger fraction of its EXPENSES come from windows development. They have more profitable ventures that they're already involved with. M$ is a company, not a power-hungry fool; it will do whatever it sees fit to make the most money possible. After longhorn's release, maybe they wont see a future for them in the OS market.
Originally posted by rageous
Apple is in NO position to take on MS.
True. But Mac OS X/x86 really calls the question of whether Apple's unique hardware space can be defended, through technical means, legal means, or a combination of the two.
While Apple can ensure that OS X on third-party PC's are illegal and not supported (thus preventing large scale enterprise adoption), if as a technical matter it's too easy the pressure on Apple to release it legally for third-party boxes will be intense.
And I suspect that Apple's sales include a lot of small-office, home-office types that could be productive with OS X on their generic PC's without worrying too much about the details of the EULA. Even a small group of productive "hackers" will create political pressure on Apple to let the genie out of the bottle.
In the end, I don't think Apple will do what the music industry is doing and DMCA their own customers to protect a business model which is no longer technologically feasible.
So Apple may be forced into OS competition with Microsoft whether it wants to or not.
Which logically leads to all sorts of previously illogical possibilities. Hence, "thinking the unthinkable" and the wild contents of this thread.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
...
If MS truly opens up the Office formats by going XML...then why need Office at all?
...
That's a very big if. From everything that I know about Microsoft's XML-based formats, they are really hybrid formats comprised of XML and binary. As such, they are just as proprietary as ever. You can save Microsoft documents as XML, but you lose a substantial fraction of your formatting.
Originally posted by slughead
If you actually go and look at the profit breakdown at microsoft, you'll notice that only a small faction of its REVENUE come from sales of windows, whereas a much larger fraction of its EXPENSES come from windows development. They have more profitable ventures that they're already involved with. M$ is a company, not a power-hungry fool; it will do whatever it sees fit to make the most money possible. After longhorn's release, maybe they wont see a future for them in the OS market.
Actually, no, you are wrong. Read Microsoft's 2004 10-K. They have 7 business sectors: Client; Server and Tools; Information Worker; Microsoft Business Solutions; MSN; Mobile and Embedded Devices; and Home and Entertainment.
10-K from the SEC
Here are the operating incomes (loss) in millions for each:
Client is the Windows OS (client version) : $8,015
Server & Tools are the Enterprise: $96
Information Worker is Office: $7,151
Microsoft Business Solutions are end-to-end business products: $(255)
MSN: $121
Mobile & Embedded is WinCE, etc.: $(224)
Home & Entertainment is Xbox (and ironically, the MacBU): $(1,215)
So, they made almost $1B more profit in Windows sales than Office. Office and Windows are their only cash cows. The rest are "bets" the company is hedging on.
They are NOT giving up Windows any time in the foreseeable future.
IF it were ever to happen, Apple would probably start to do what they are doing with the iPod. Co-brand for a few years until the profits for the hardware aren't worth it. It's not unreasonable to expect them to live just off of the iTMS infrastructure someday.
Or they could take their first baby step by offering an open OSX for Intel PCs with limited configurations of video cards, processors, motherboards, accessories, etc. This would be building your own Mac but in an uglier, bigger box. They would require OS registration to hardware ala M$ (to limit piracy) and charge $300 for it.
You then get money you never expected from hardware you didn't build. If all goes well, drop the price and take on M$.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, but then get ready to Mac OS X without Microsoft Office.
As others have already said, MSFT isn't likely to drop Office for OSX during nuclear war. I would go as far as saying that the more successful OSX for X86 gets the less likely MSFT is to drop Office for OSX. Why? Because Office is the only way MSFT has to collect cash from OSX users. The development work for OSX Office is already done, so why in the world would they want to stop the cash flow from it now? Think about this scenario. A PC user has been using Windows for years, bought Office long time ago. She switches to OSX for X86 and the first thing she wants to do is buy Office for OSX. So each switch from Windows to OSX is very likely to generate more Office revenue for MSFT.
LINUX is a very different situation. When a Windows user switches to LINUX the cash flow to MSFT ends completely. It is a total loss. If MSFT kills OSX Office then each switch from Windows to OSX would be a total loss too.
I also have to say that I have never owned a copy of Office for OSX and have done fine without it, although I acknowledge that Office is important for a lot of other Mac users.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'm doing that right this instance. And have been for 2 years. Although I must admit the experience has been much better in the last 5 months.
If MS truly opens up the Office formats by going XML...then why need Office at all?
Sure, YOU don't need Office, but you are obviously a bright guy who understands computers. Pretend you're one of the average Americans who doesn't understand computers but gets by with memorizing a few applications and learning how to poke around in the file system GUI. These people hate learning and desire to use computers only to get their work done and read some chain emails, after which they sprawl out on the couch to soak in the TeeVee with a load of soda and junk food. They buy a computer for home use that's as close as possible to the one they use at work - so they don't have to learn anything new. They take their computer into Best Buy once or twice a year to have it wiped of viruses and malware and maybe get a clean install of Windows so it works again. They think Macs are for graphic artists and homosexuals, "fags" as they would say.
When dealing with such a consumer base, you must be able to see why having Office for Mac is important. It's already a momentous leap for the rubes to learn a whole new operating system, along with a new email application and other helper apps like Preview, iTunes, and Safari. If they can't point and click to open their work Office documents at home, they are going to be angry and confused. They will not buy a Mac, or if they get suckered in to trying one, they'll never buy one again. "Think Different!" These people don't want to think different - they don't even want to think at all!
Computers aren't much different from politics: fear sells, and it is what motivates most buyer's decisions. Fear of the new, of the different, and of learning. Fear of not being one of the crowd at work. Fear of getting a document from work or from a friend, and not knowing how to open it.
I see this all the time, and part time as an IT help dude. When many people encounter the least bit of resistance at a computer, their first reaction is to throw up their hands and cry out for help. No problem solving is attempted at all, their response is just a primal helplessness, pathetically showcasing the worst attributes of humanity; ignorance and fear mixed with a disdain for learning.
Originally posted by Tidris
I would go as far as saying that the more successful OSX for X86 gets the less likely MSFT is to drop Office for OSX. Why? Because Office is the only way MSFT has to collect cash from OSX users.
Actually I had forgoten that MSFT has another way to collect cash from OSX users, and that is VirtualPC. So, perhaps MSFT would want to drop OSX Office and require Mac people to use Windows Office through VirtualPC. That should generate a lot more revenue than OSX Office because you would be paying for a copy of VirtualPC + a copy of Windows to run under VirtualPC + a copy of Windows Office. In any case, Office would remain avaliable to OSX users, so it wouldn't be the end of the world.
Originally posted by Tidris
]As others have already said, MSFT isn't likely to drop Office for OSX during nuclear war. I would go as far as saying that the more successful OSX for X86 gets the less likely MSFT is to drop Office for OSX. Why? Because Office is the only way MSFT has to collect cash from OSX users. The development work for OSX Office is already done, so why in the world would they want to stop the cash flow from it now? Think about this scenario. A PC user has been using Windows for years, bought Office long time ago. She switches to OSX for X86 and the first thing she wants to do is buy Office for OSX. So each switch from Windows to OSX is very likely to generate more Office revenue for MSFT.
Yes, Office costs money to buy for a Macintosh, which means revenue for Microsoft, but Microsoft will support Office for Macs only to a certain extent.
Are you telling me that Microsoft will support Office:Mac if Mac OS X becomes a heavy-weight OS with a 30% market share?
NEVER.
Trust me, a lot of Linux guys would buy Office if it were available for Linux. I would, and I run Linux more than OS X or XP (which I sendomly run). A lot of people in the Linux world buy (or otherwise use) applications whose sole reason of existence is to run MS apps. Crossover Office for example. Granted, a lot of Linux users wouldn't use MS apps because they don't like MS, but not all Linux users use Linux because they dislike MS. I use it because I find it very stable, very versatile and highly configurable.
LINUX is a very different situation. When a Windows user switches to LINUX the cash flow to MSFT ends completely. It is a total loss. If MSFT kills OSX Office then each switch from Windows to OSX would be a total loss too.
Yes, but it makes (made) sense for MS to keep Office:Mac as long as OS X was running on a completely different platform with no real opportunity of de-throning MS, or even making a dent on its market share. Now that it runs on the same platform, or if it ran on any hardware out there, making it completely equal to Windows in terms of platforms, do you really think MS would support it? I highly doubt it. One could argue that they support Apple because they don't want to have trouble with the Justice Dep. because of anti-trust laws, but they could very well port Office to OS/2 or some other niche OS and just divert the problems.
I also have to say that I have never owned a copy of Office for OSX and have done fine without it, although I acknowledge that Office is important for a lot of other Mac users.
Yes it is, and Apple knows it is. That's why it has agreements with MS to keep making it. Linux has OpenOffice and/or StarOffice, Koffice and a bunch of other suites that work fine, but Apple is not in that position. Apple is a company. They have a lot to lose if their customers complain that Office is not available and they can't watch that .wmv movie.
Linux does fine without that, because one chooses Linux while realising that there is no Office for it. But not OS X. You expect to be able to purchase Office, if you so wish, and you just don't want to lose that compatibility with others (I would argue that you don't, that AbiWord or even NeoOffice work just fine, but that's another issue).
All in all, I think that Apple is in no position as of right now to have that great OS war with Microsoft. It may very well be so in a couple of years if it's smart and builds a nice, clean, Aqua-ish Office clone. And if Intel is willing to help Apple in their quest (which I think is one of the reasons for the switch).
Originally posted by Tidris
Actually I had forgoten that MSFT has another way to collect cash from OSX users, and that is VirtualPC. So, perhaps MSFT would want to drop OSX Office and require Mac people to use Windows Office through VirtualPC. That should generate a lot more revenue than OSX Office because you would be paying for a copy of VirtualPC + a copy of Windows to run under VirtualPC + a copy of Windows Office. In any case, Office would remain avaliable to OSX users, so it wouldn't be the end of the world.
If you had read the articles in the news on AppleInsider you would have noticed that the new Mac/s will be Windops compatible.
Therefore you will be able to run all the Windops software you want natively on Intel.
VPC is for Xbox NOT Mac users, so MS can only make money on Mac users with it desktop apps. But if they stop selling Mac version then they can also make money off of their OS but my bet is most of those on Macs would be boot legged or used from an old burnt out PC, even for business use.