Remember all the articles that came out years ago a little while after Jobs came back to Apple.
MS lost a court case to Apple where MS HAD STOLEN Quicktime code, MS settled and gave Apple big concessions.
An agreement came out of that time between Apple and MS about the future interfaces of OSs !
Many articles covered this because the interfaces outlined in the agreements made the Mac very similar to Windogs.
NOW WHAT IF JOBS AND BILL DECIDED WAY BACK THEN THAT THE MAC WOULD GO INTEL AROUND THIS TIME.
AND Mac users would be compelled to use BOTH OSs on these Mac/s and that is why they decided to make the interfaces so similar so that people that could use one could use both.
Perhaps this was the intention, WHY would they do this, does it have something to do with collecting information from their users. Could it be that Mac OS X is collecting detail communications information through eMail and web surfing and Windops is simply collecting business information.
In other words the two of them, Bill G. and Steve J. are collect illegal business and personal information that will allow the two of them to dominate the planet economically and politically.
The last stage of their plot would be that the Mac becomes the dominant platform so that the detailed personal information collected by Mac OS X, eMail and web surfing, would be collected from most influential people.
The reason the Mac OS collects the more detailed information is because Apple being the smaller company and NOT under the scrutiny of the feds and being a closed platform the type of platform where it is understood that the OS company could be collecting all sorts of personal information without the user knowledge.
So because of this Apple could get away with this where MS could not, being an open platform and under great public scurrility. Thus with the new Mac/ platform BOTH OSs would be used and both types of information would be collected.
And they would do most of this after the feds do their business on MS which any business person would have known was coming. So now well after the feds are done, they close their trap.
So Mac/s will become very popular, the dominant platform, and then business will begin to fail and companies apparently distantly affiliated with Apple and MS will take over their business, and individuals targeted by BG and SJ will be HANDLED, no one will be the wiser but Apple and MS will become huge even while their businesses don't seem to be growing much but SERVICES will be increasing greatly.
That would probably be listed as software and consulting services (S and CS), these would become their largest revenues if this conspiracy is real.
Although the growth in S and CS could all occur mostly in Japan and China, this is where the companies secretly affiliated with MS and Apple could be, thus the growth would difficult to characterize as dubious.
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.
Without VirtualPC you would have to reboot the machine any time you wanted to run Windows on the X86 Mac. VirtualPC allows you to run Windows within OSX, which is a great convenience worth paying for. VirtualPC will run at native speed on an X86 Mac, in case you didn't know.
VirtualPC allows MSFT to sell a copy of Windows to every Mac user (including PowerPC users), so it is a great asset in the war against OSX. Limiting future versions of VirtualPC to Xboxes makes no sense to me.
In fact, VirtualPC might be one of Apple's biggest worries in the future because it could make many Windows software developers decide not to port to OSX. If the Windows version of your software runs at native speed under VirtualPC on X86 Macs, why spend a ton of money porting to OSX? Just tell OSX users to buy VirtualPC, or offer VirtualPC bundled with your product at a higher cost and you are done.
Without VirtualPC you would have to reboot the machine any time you wanted to run Windows on the X86 Mac. VirtualPC allows you to run Windows within OSX, which is a great convenience worth paying for. VirtualPC will run at native speed on an X86 Mac, in case you didn't know.
VirtualPC allows MSFT to sell a copy of Windows to every Mac user (including PowerPC users), so it is a great asset in the war against OSX. Limiting future versions of VirtualPC to Xboxes makes no sense to me.
In fact, VirtualPC might be one of Apple's biggest worries in the future because it could make many Windows software developers decide not to port to OSX. If the Windows version of your software runs at native speed under VirtualPC on X86 Macs, why spend a ton of money porting to OSX? Just tell OSX users to buy VirtualPC, or offer VirtualPC bundled with your product at a higher cost and you are done.
Intel has some tech that would allow for multiple boots of any OS on a single processor and does not use VPC at all -- I believe Apple may be hot to use that tech. 8)
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 $1B more profit in Windows sales than Office. Office and Windows are their only cash cows. The rest are "bets" the company is hedging on.
They are NOT giving up Windows any time in the foreseeable future.
UHHHH Did you know that operating income is revenue - non-interest/tax expenses? In this case, cost of goods sold is a bunch of boxes and CDs and other expenses include some piddly logistical costs.
If you actually factor in the amount they invested to WRITE windows, you'd be looking at much different numbers. Then you'd have to factor in the future liabilities including service packs and payments on bandwidth for upgrading a million computers a day with 50+MB service packs.
That 8 billion could easily go down to a negative number.
Finally, "Operating Income" is _NOT_ profit. In fact, M$ made less than $8.1B for the whole of 2004.
Nice try though, nice to know someone understands accounting
That's not accounting, its operations and financy !!!
Accounting is what you do with Quicken or Account Edge.
It must be scary to have made soo much money from one flimsy profit center like Office.
Its just software, if some billionaire from some other market had decided to go against them everything could be different now.
You know they used to say that the owners of Word Perfect were soo outrageously wealthy, but no one knew for certain how much money they had because they were a private company.
VirtualPC allows MSFT to sell a copy of Windows to every Mac user (including PowerPC users), so it is a great asset in the war against OSX. Limiting future versions of VirtualPC to Xboxes makes no sense to me.
Or it will be Microsoft's biggest threat.
Perhaps many customers would pay a little more to buy a Mac since you can run both Mac OS X and Windows on it. That way the Mac's marketshare rises, and when it reaches a critical mass, developers will dump the Windows version since many can run the Mac OS X versions anyway and they really want to code for Mac OS X instead.
Don't be fooled, companies like Adobe would really love to use technologies like Core Graphics.
Perhaps many customers would pay a little more to buy a Mac since you can run both Mac OS X and Windows on it. That way the Mac's marketshare rises, and when it reaches a critical mass, developers will dump the Windows version since many can run the Mac OS X versions anyway and they really want to code for Mac OS X instead.
Don't be fooled, companies like Adobe would really love to use technologies like Core Graphics.
I would think and hope that the Universal Bianary will evolve to include a runtime for Mac OS X so that it can run on windups or Linux or XBox any Intel or PPC or Cell that has basic startup bios.
Don't get me wrong, the runtime would only supply the app with enough API support to run, no OS no Finder just one application. So it would run in windups and contact the OS only with the bear minimum manditory calls.
It would basically run like a game and might also have better performance than windups apps if the runtime is built correctly.
Intel has some tech that would allow for multiple boots of any OS on a single processor and does not use VPC at all -- I believe Apple may be hot to use that tech. 8)
I don't know anything about it. Do you have any links with info about that technology?
Note that VirtualPC not only runs Windows under OSX but it also tightly integrates the Windows environment with the OSX environment. You can drag and drop between Windows and OSX desktops, share OSX disks and folders with Windows, have all Windows graphics appear inside an OSX window, etc. VirtualPC is very well aware of the fact it is running under OSX and tries to fit in as much as possible. I am guessing the Intel technology you mentioned would keep each OS separate and unaware of each other, so it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to use as VirtualPC already is.
Perhaps many customers would pay a little more to buy a Mac since you can run both Mac OS X and Windows on it. That way the Mac's marketshare rises, and when it reaches a critical mass, developers will dump the Windows version since many can run the Mac OS X versions anyway and they really want to code for Mac OS X instead.
Everything is possible, but not everything is likely.
Well, maybe Jobs has changed his mind on licensing. Apple could license the OS to other Manufacturers and still prevent general installation on generic PC's. While, historically, Jobs has been averse to licensing, aftre this week, anything is possible.
If he doesn't license, he may see the hardware sales evaporate anyway, much as the IBM did in the 80's. Licensing would take anyway some of the incentive of reverse engineering of Apple specific hardware/software/firmware required for OSX
Thw switch does open the door if there is a bigger demand than Apple can fill.
I don't know anything about it. Do you have any links with info about that technology?
Note that VirtualPC not only runs Windows under OSX but it also tightly integrates the Windows environment with the OSX environment. You can drag and drop between Windows and OSX desktops, share OSX disks and folders with Windows, have all Windows graphics appear inside an OSX window, etc. VirtualPC is very well aware of the fact it is running under OSX and tries to fit in as much as possible. I am guessing the Intel technology you mentioned would keep each OS separate and unaware of each other, so it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to use as VirtualPC already is.
Vanderpool
Virtualization at the CPU level. Note, that Power5 already has this, Sparc is rumored to have had it a while ago and AMD announce theirs for 2005/2006
I would think and hope that the Universal Bianary will evolve to include a runtime for Mac OS X so that it can run on windups or Linux or XBox any Intel or PPC or Cell that has basic startup bios.
Don't get me wrong, the runtime would only supply the app with enough API support to run, no OS no Finder just one application. So it would run in windups and contact the OS only with the bear minimum manditory calls.
It would basically run like a game and might also have better performance than windups apps if the runtime is built correctly.
Not sure exactly what you are trying to describe here. If you mean that OSX apps would be able to run on Windows, then that has existed for many years. Apple hasn't released the API's for Windows (or linux) support, but NeXT had exactly that and Apple was planning it under Amelio.
The strength of NeXT was how abstracted apps were from the hardware or OS. Written properly to the OpenStep framework, and the apps could run on NeXT, on Windows. The OS was portable and could run on Intel. So, your apps could run on multiple hardware and OS platforms. OpenStep was the dream of Rhapsody and a primary reason that Amelio agreed to go with NeXT. Jobs had other ideas once he was in control, but I get the idea that initially it was what he wanted as well.
Thw switch does open the door if there is a bigger demand than Apple can fill.
Even if the demand is within what Apple can fill, Apple could find a way to use licensees to grow the market. In the 90's it was just done wrong. Everyone agrees with that. But, I think there is a niche in Apple sales to allow for and benefit from a properly controlled licensing scheme.
Apple is still a very closed company when it comes to their product line. But, who would have ever guessed they would have HP sign up to co-brand and sell an iPod? (whatever happened to that btw?) There is perhaps a shift in thinking at Apple.
If Apple did want to go back to licensing, they could never have successfully done it on the PPC platform. To grow the market, the companies that might sell 'clones' would have to be already known as tier 1 manufacturers by the public. Other than Macheads, who would by from a PowerComputing or UMAX or any of the other unknowns? People buy brands. You didn't see Apple sign a co-selling agreement with the iPod with Daewoo, they signed with HP. And so long as Apple was on PPC, no major PC manufacturer was interested in selling PPC hardware to consumers. Now that Apple will be on Intel, it opens the door to license to known, brandname companies.
Obviously, there were other major reasons that licensing failed for Apple in the past. But, assuming they were able to come up with a compelling plan to re-introduce it, a key component of that would almost have to be to go with companies that could a) move the product based on name and b)not diminish the brand of Apple, Macintosh and OSX by selling no-name OSX machines on the cheap. If Apple wants top dollar per license, they have to go with companies that already sell into the same mindspace as they, companies like Sony, Dell, (HP?).
Again, a week ago, I would have laughed if anyone suggested Apple might consider licensing again. But now....
The whole argument on the reliance of Office is reliant on the user already being knowledgeable in it. If the user goes into Pages blind, I'm sure it would be easier for them to grasp then Word.
It may also work the other way. An employee of mine uses PowerPoint all the time, they are used to it. Its the defacto-standard for presentations. But after seeing a presentation I made in Keynote, and a brief over-the-should watching of how I made a few slides, they almost fainted at the simplicity and the results.
Office is important, but its not the alpha and omega.
Oh and I hope there isn't too much fuss to get Tiger running on a PC. Maybe they use EFI and its super-hard or normal chips with a little something special added to them at low levels.
Maybe they use heavy DRM. Then we will never run it on PCs, cause no one on x86 would even test it for fear of being 0wn3d.
I don't know anything about it. Do you have any links with info about that technology?
Note that VirtualPC not only runs Windows under OSX but it also tightly integrates the Windows environment with the OSX environment. You can drag and drop between Windows and OSX desktops, share OSX disks and folders with Windows, have all Windows graphics appear inside an OSX window, etc. VirtualPC is very well aware of the fact it is running under OSX and tries to fit in as much as possible. I am guessing the Intel technology you mentioned would keep each OS separate and unaware of each other, so it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to use as VirtualPC already is.
Things like this usually get mentioned briefly in the press and you don't hear about them again until somebody does something BIG and COOL with it.
There is soo much that can be done with this, network computing probably one of the biggest, and I was think this might be one of the reasons why Intel has a new CEO.
Although I don't buy this part of the article AT ALL...
"According to industry experts, the "operating system" as we know it is going to seem much less important in the near future."
I think this tech makes the processor less important, those EXPERTS may be payed by Intel !!!
Of course how could Steve Jobs live without his Xensource ???
I have been saying for years that building something like this for harddrives would be very useful.
MacOS X should be able to boot any computer that can boot from Darwin. It makes no sense to have two separate builds of Darwin for Apple and non-Apple Intel-based computers. I think it no coincidence that just a few weeks prior to Apple's announced switch to Intel, Apple leaked that several other Intel-based computer manufacturers have been strongly lobbying it for access to MacOS X. I find Phil Schiller's statement denial that MacOS X will run on non-Apple computers interesting, but I don't think it is the final word.
What makes you believe that Apple isn't going to reshape Darwin in future 10.4.x tar bundles?
Apple isn't going to increase the pool of device drivers for Darwin allowing others to run any generic pc. They will include I/O Kit for anyone to write a device driver for that generic pc, but they already do that.
Comments
MS lost a court case to Apple where MS HAD STOLEN Quicktime code, MS settled and gave Apple big concessions.
An agreement came out of that time between Apple and MS about the future interfaces of OSs !
Many articles covered this because the interfaces outlined in the agreements made the Mac very similar to Windogs.
NOW WHAT IF JOBS AND BILL DECIDED WAY BACK THEN THAT THE MAC WOULD GO INTEL AROUND THIS TIME.
AND Mac users would be compelled to use BOTH OSs on these Mac/s and that is why they decided to make the interfaces so similar so that people that could use one could use both.
Perhaps this was the intention, WHY would they do this, does it have something to do with collecting information from their users. Could it be that Mac OS X is collecting detail communications information through eMail and web surfing and Windops is simply collecting business information.
In other words the two of them, Bill G. and Steve J. are collect illegal business and personal information that will allow the two of them to dominate the planet economically and politically.
The last stage of their plot would be that the Mac becomes the dominant platform so that the detailed personal information collected by Mac OS X, eMail and web surfing, would be collected from most influential people.
The reason the Mac OS collects the more detailed information is because Apple being the smaller company and NOT under the scrutiny of the feds and being a closed platform the type of platform where it is understood that the OS company could be collecting all sorts of personal information without the user knowledge.
So because of this Apple could get away with this where MS could not, being an open platform and under great public scurrility. Thus with the new Mac/ platform BOTH OSs would be used and both types of information would be collected.
And they would do most of this after the feds do their business on MS which any business person would have known was coming. So now well after the feds are done, they close their trap.
So Mac/s will become very popular, the dominant platform, and then business will begin to fail and companies apparently distantly affiliated with Apple and MS will take over their business, and individuals targeted by BG and SJ will be HANDLED, no one will be the wiser but Apple and MS will become huge even while their businesses don't seem to be growing much but SERVICES will be increasing greatly.
That would probably be listed as software and consulting services (S and CS), these would become their largest revenues if this conspiracy is real.
Although the growth in S and CS could all occur mostly in Japan and China, this is where the companies secretly affiliated with MS and Apple could be, thus the growth would difficult to characterize as dubious.
Originally posted by MACchine
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.
Without VirtualPC you would have to reboot the machine any time you wanted to run Windows on the X86 Mac. VirtualPC allows you to run Windows within OSX, which is a great convenience worth paying for. VirtualPC will run at native speed on an X86 Mac, in case you didn't know.
VirtualPC allows MSFT to sell a copy of Windows to every Mac user (including PowerPC users), so it is a great asset in the war against OSX. Limiting future versions of VirtualPC to Xboxes makes no sense to me.
In fact, VirtualPC might be one of Apple's biggest worries in the future because it could make many Windows software developers decide not to port to OSX. If the Windows version of your software runs at native speed under VirtualPC on X86 Macs, why spend a ton of money porting to OSX? Just tell OSX users to buy VirtualPC, or offer VirtualPC bundled with your product at a higher cost and you are done.
Originally posted by Tidris
Without VirtualPC you would have to reboot the machine any time you wanted to run Windows on the X86 Mac. VirtualPC allows you to run Windows within OSX, which is a great convenience worth paying for. VirtualPC will run at native speed on an X86 Mac, in case you didn't know.
VirtualPC allows MSFT to sell a copy of Windows to every Mac user (including PowerPC users), so it is a great asset in the war against OSX. Limiting future versions of VirtualPC to Xboxes makes no sense to me.
In fact, VirtualPC might be one of Apple's biggest worries in the future because it could make many Windows software developers decide not to port to OSX. If the Windows version of your software runs at native speed under VirtualPC on X86 Macs, why spend a ton of money porting to OSX? Just tell OSX users to buy VirtualPC, or offer VirtualPC bundled with your product at a higher cost and you are done.
Intel has some tech that would allow for multiple boots of any OS on a single processor and does not use VPC at all -- I believe Apple may be hot to use that tech. 8)
Originally posted by atomicham
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 $1B more profit in Windows sales than Office. Office and Windows are their only cash cows. The rest are "bets" the company is hedging on.
They are NOT giving up Windows any time in the foreseeable future.
UHHHH Did you know that operating income is revenue - non-interest/tax expenses? In this case, cost of goods sold is a bunch of boxes and CDs and other expenses include some piddly logistical costs.
If you actually factor in the amount they invested to WRITE windows, you'd be looking at much different numbers. Then you'd have to factor in the future liabilities including service packs and payments on bandwidth for upgrading a million computers a day with 50+MB service packs.
That 8 billion could easily go down to a negative number.
Finally, "Operating Income" is _NOT_ profit. In fact, M$ made less than $8.1B for the whole of 2004.
Nice try though, nice to know someone understands accounting
Originally posted by slughead
nice to know someone understands accounting
That's not accounting, its operations and financy !!!
Accounting is what you do with Quicken or Account Edge.
It must be scary to have made soo much money from one flimsy profit center like Office.
Its just software, if some billionaire from some other market had decided to go against them everything could be different now.
You know they used to say that the owners of Word Perfect were soo outrageously wealthy, but no one knew for certain how much money they had because they were a private company.
Originally posted by MACchine
Accounting is what you do with Quicken or Account Edge.
Well I learned all that stuff in my "accounting" courses so I figured it was accounting...
Originally posted by Tidris
VirtualPC allows MSFT to sell a copy of Windows to every Mac user (including PowerPC users), so it is a great asset in the war against OSX. Limiting future versions of VirtualPC to Xboxes makes no sense to me.
Or it will be Microsoft's biggest threat.
Perhaps many customers would pay a little more to buy a Mac since you can run both Mac OS X and Windows on it. That way the Mac's marketshare rises, and when it reaches a critical mass, developers will dump the Windows version since many can run the Mac OS X versions anyway and they really want to code for Mac OS X instead.
Don't be fooled, companies like Adobe would really love to use technologies like Core Graphics.
Originally posted by JLL
Or it will be Microsoft's biggest threat.
Perhaps many customers would pay a little more to buy a Mac since you can run both Mac OS X and Windows on it. That way the Mac's marketshare rises, and when it reaches a critical mass, developers will dump the Windows version since many can run the Mac OS X versions anyway and they really want to code for Mac OS X instead.
Don't be fooled, companies like Adobe would really love to use technologies like Core Graphics.
I would think and hope that the Universal Bianary will evolve to include a runtime for Mac OS X so that it can run on windups or Linux or XBox any Intel or PPC or Cell that has basic startup bios.
Don't get me wrong, the runtime would only supply the app with enough API support to run, no OS no Finder just one application. So it would run in windups and contact the OS only with the bear minimum manditory calls.
It would basically run like a game and might also have better performance than windups apps if the runtime is built correctly.
Originally posted by MACchine
Intel has some tech that would allow for multiple boots of any OS on a single processor and does not use VPC at all -- I believe Apple may be hot to use that tech. 8)
I don't know anything about it. Do you have any links with info about that technology?
Note that VirtualPC not only runs Windows under OSX but it also tightly integrates the Windows environment with the OSX environment. You can drag and drop between Windows and OSX desktops, share OSX disks and folders with Windows, have all Windows graphics appear inside an OSX window, etc. VirtualPC is very well aware of the fact it is running under OSX and tries to fit in as much as possible. I am guessing the Intel technology you mentioned would keep each OS separate and unaware of each other, so it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to use as VirtualPC already is.
Originally posted by JLL
Perhaps many customers would pay a little more to buy a Mac since you can run both Mac OS X and Windows on it. That way the Mac's marketshare rises, and when it reaches a critical mass, developers will dump the Windows version since many can run the Mac OS X versions anyway and they really want to code for Mac OS X instead.
Everything is possible, but not everything is likely.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, maybe Jobs has changed his mind on licensing. Apple could license the OS to other Manufacturers and still prevent general installation on generic PC's. While, historically, Jobs has been averse to licensing, aftre this week, anything is possible.
If he doesn't license, he may see the hardware sales evaporate anyway, much as the IBM did in the 80's. Licensing would take anyway some of the incentive of reverse engineering of Apple specific hardware/software/firmware required for OSX
Thw switch does open the door if there is a bigger demand than Apple can fill.
Originally posted by Tidris
I don't know anything about it. Do you have any links with info about that technology?
Note that VirtualPC not only runs Windows under OSX but it also tightly integrates the Windows environment with the OSX environment. You can drag and drop between Windows and OSX desktops, share OSX disks and folders with Windows, have all Windows graphics appear inside an OSX window, etc. VirtualPC is very well aware of the fact it is running under OSX and tries to fit in as much as possible. I am guessing the Intel technology you mentioned would keep each OS separate and unaware of each other, so it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to use as VirtualPC already is.
Vanderpool
Virtualization at the CPU level. Note, that Power5 already has this, Sparc is rumored to have had it a while ago and AMD announce theirs for 2005/2006
Intel Vanderpool page
Originally posted by MACchine
I would think and hope that the Universal Bianary will evolve to include a runtime for Mac OS X so that it can run on windups or Linux or XBox any Intel or PPC or Cell that has basic startup bios.
Don't get me wrong, the runtime would only supply the app with enough API support to run, no OS no Finder just one application. So it would run in windups and contact the OS only with the bear minimum manditory calls.
It would basically run like a game and might also have better performance than windups apps if the runtime is built correctly.
Not sure exactly what you are trying to describe here. If you mean that OSX apps would be able to run on Windows, then that has existed for many years. Apple hasn't released the API's for Windows (or linux) support, but NeXT had exactly that and Apple was planning it under Amelio.
The strength of NeXT was how abstracted apps were from the hardware or OS. Written properly to the OpenStep framework, and the apps could run on NeXT, on Windows. The OS was portable and could run on Intel. So, your apps could run on multiple hardware and OS platforms. OpenStep was the dream of Rhapsody and a primary reason that Amelio agreed to go with NeXT. Jobs had other ideas once he was in control, but I get the idea that initially it was what he wanted as well.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Thw switch does open the door if there is a bigger demand than Apple can fill.
Even if the demand is within what Apple can fill, Apple could find a way to use licensees to grow the market. In the 90's it was just done wrong. Everyone agrees with that. But, I think there is a niche in Apple sales to allow for and benefit from a properly controlled licensing scheme.
Apple is still a very closed company when it comes to their product line. But, who would have ever guessed they would have HP sign up to co-brand and sell an iPod? (whatever happened to that btw?) There is perhaps a shift in thinking at Apple.
If Apple did want to go back to licensing, they could never have successfully done it on the PPC platform. To grow the market, the companies that might sell 'clones' would have to be already known as tier 1 manufacturers by the public. Other than Macheads, who would by from a PowerComputing or UMAX or any of the other unknowns? People buy brands. You didn't see Apple sign a co-selling agreement with the iPod with Daewoo, they signed with HP. And so long as Apple was on PPC, no major PC manufacturer was interested in selling PPC hardware to consumers. Now that Apple will be on Intel, it opens the door to license to known, brandname companies.
Obviously, there were other major reasons that licensing failed for Apple in the past. But, assuming they were able to come up with a compelling plan to re-introduce it, a key component of that would almost have to be to go with companies that could a) move the product based on name and b)not diminish the brand of Apple, Macintosh and OSX by selling no-name OSX machines on the cheap. If Apple wants top dollar per license, they have to go with companies that already sell into the same mindspace as they, companies like Sony, Dell, (HP?).
Again, a week ago, I would have laughed if anyone suggested Apple might consider licensing again. But now....
It may also work the other way. An employee of mine uses PowerPoint all the time, they are used to it. Its the defacto-standard for presentations. But after seeing a presentation I made in Keynote, and a brief over-the-should watching of how I made a few slides, they almost fainted at the simplicity and the results.
Office is important, but its not the alpha and omega.
Oh and I hope there isn't too much fuss to get Tiger running on a PC. Maybe they use EFI and its super-hard or normal chips with a little something special added to them at low levels.
Maybe they use heavy DRM. Then we will never run it on PCs, cause no one on x86 would even test it for fear of being 0wn3d.
Originally posted by Tulkas
hit reply instead of edit
OK, now what ???
Originally posted by Tidris
I don't know anything about it. Do you have any links with info about that technology?
Note that VirtualPC not only runs Windows under OSX but it also tightly integrates the Windows environment with the OSX environment. You can drag and drop between Windows and OSX desktops, share OSX disks and folders with Windows, have all Windows graphics appear inside an OSX window, etc. VirtualPC is very well aware of the fact it is running under OSX and tries to fit in as much as possible. I am guessing the Intel technology you mentioned would keep each OS separate and unaware of each other, so it wouldn't be nearly as convenient to use as VirtualPC already is.
YOU ARE VERY LUCKLY I FOUND THIS...
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story....story_id=34175
Things like this usually get mentioned briefly in the press and you don't hear about them again until somebody does something BIG and COOL with it.
There is soo much that can be done with this, network computing probably one of the biggest, and I was think this might be one of the reasons why Intel has a new CEO.
Although I don't buy this part of the article AT ALL...
"According to industry experts, the "operating system" as we know it is going to seem much less important in the near future."
I think this tech makes the processor less important, those EXPERTS may be payed by Intel !!!
Of course how could Steve Jobs live without his Xensource ???
I have been saying for years that building something like this for harddrives would be very useful.
Screenshots of Xen...
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG...ots/index.html
Originally posted by Mr. Me
MacOS X should be able to boot any computer that can boot from Darwin. It makes no sense to have two separate builds of Darwin for Apple and non-Apple Intel-based computers. I think it no coincidence that just a few weeks prior to Apple's announced switch to Intel, Apple leaked that several other Intel-based computer manufacturers have been strongly lobbying it for access to MacOS X. I find Phil Schiller's statement denial that MacOS X will run on non-Apple computers interesting, but I don't think it is the final word.
What makes you believe that Apple isn't going to reshape Darwin in future 10.4.x tar bundles?
Apple isn't going to increase the pool of device drivers for Darwin allowing others to run any generic pc. They will include I/O Kit for anyone to write a device driver for that generic pc, but they already do that.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Vanderpool
Virtualization at the CPU level. Note, that Power5 already has this, Sparc is rumored to have had it a while ago and AMD announce theirs for 2005/2006
Intel Vanderpool page
Vanderpool is interesting but does not cut it...
... we need horizontally integrated not vertically partitioned multiple OSs.
Xen is a pure software solution which has HUGE advantages, and it is open source which also makes it more useful.