I watched the presentation three times - I never heard that Apple would use Intel exclusively or that no more PPC based Macs would be made by a certain date. In fact he says they will be supporting PPC for a long time. The message was that they are starting a transition and it would be complete by such and such date. I think the door is open for Apple to have more than one horse to pick from, more competition in the platform is good. I hope Apple takes OSX to a wider range of CPUs from more manufacturers.
Also, those low power version sure look like PB chips to me. Doubt it takes 6 months - my bet is Oct/Nov - after back to school but before christmas - or for January. Also don't forget that g5 have faster system busses, that seem like a big bottleneck for PB today compared to desktop machines. More than just CPU mhz.
I simply slavver at the idea of a dual-core 2Ghz+ iMac 20"
My perfect machine. (My current PBook 1.25 is almost right, but it hasn't quite got the oomph I need sometimes, and a 2Ghz iMac is not a bump far enough (I have no need for big-box PowerMac, and my laptop will stay with me for some time to come anyway :-)
Put a decent graphics card in, and out pops my wallet.
Apple isn't interested in the world of the enterprise client. They have said that many times, and they don't have enterprise friendly policies in place.
It's possible that they might make it in if the new machines will run Windows as an equal client on a Mac. But Apple still won't do machine certification as Dell and others do. There are a lot of problems there. Multiple vendors for the hardware, etc.
Macs will get more popular at home and at the university level, where they are already moving back strongly. It's always possible that it will help as those ex students move into business. But the other problems will remain unless Apple changes their strategy.
Allowing the OS to boot on non Mac's. might work for the overall market, but wouldn't help Apple unless, as I said earlier, Apple has other businesses in place that would reduce their dependance on computer sales significantly.
Only time will tell. After all, we've been surprised before.
I watched the presentation three times - I never heard that Apple would use Intel exclusively or that no more PPC based Macs would be made by a certain date. In fact he says they will be supporting PPC for a long time. The message was that they are starting a transition and it would be complete by such and such date. I think the door is open for Apple to have more than one horse to pick from, more competition in the platform is good. I hope Apple takes OSX to a wider range of CPUs from more manufacturers.
Hmm? I really don't feel like going back and looking at the quotes, but that's REALLY not the way it sounded to me.
I watched the presentation three times - I never heard that Apple would use Intel exclusively or that no more PPC based Macs would be made by a certain date. In fact he says they will be supporting PPC for a long time. The message was that they are starting a transition and it would be complete by such and such date. I think the door is open for Apple to have more than one horse to pick from, more competition in the platform is good. I hope Apple takes OSX to a wider range of CPUs from more manufacturers.
Also, those low power version sure look like PB chips to me. Doubt it takes 6 months - my bet is Oct/Nov - after back to school but before christmas - or for January. Also don't forget that g5 have faster system busses, that seem like a big bottleneck for PB today compared to desktop machines. More than just CPU mhz.
He did say that their transition would be finished by the end of 2007 when the Powermacs would move to x86. He didn't mention the XServes, but they are classified by Apple as being under the umbrella of professional non-portables. Apple doesn't even break out the numbers of XServes and Powermacs in the sales numbers.
When he says that Apple will continue to support PPC machines, he means that they will have Universal Binaries for several years after the transition.
Also, by federal law, all products must have service and parts available for a minimum of seven years after they are discontinued. So there shouldn't be a problem there as well. I don't know what laws are applicable in other countries. It's probably different. Perhaps others here could let us know.
Did someone not get his coffee this morning? Relax, and read what I actually wrote.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
And, going on your later mail, you're next switcher box isn't going to be a Dell with OS X installed if Dell doesn't license the OS. You might think everyone wants to go out, get a computer, then go out, buy an OS, and try to update the computer to the new OS, but most people will NOT do this.
I know this. Most will want to buy a Mac. But by doing so, Apple lowers the "switch" price tag to $129, rather than $499. If people want to try it out, and not drop $500-$1000, then now they can. This means increased OS sales. When this person then wants to buy a new comp, he/she buys a Mac with OS X preinstalled. If this person decides he/she still wants a Dell, then Apple has still gotten $129 from someone who otherwise wouldn't have given them a dime. Personally, I think a good number of people who do that would switch.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Oh, what a dream. "Apple's revenue won't fall, even though lots of people will buy dell." Exactly how does Apple's revenue not fall when everyone but your parents aren't buying their computers.
So which is it? First you say "most people will NOT do this" [buy a Dell and then OS X and do a clean install]. Then you say "everyone but my parents" will. If you're going to be a troll, at least try and be logical.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Apple will only allow OS X on Dells if AND ONLY IF they can determine they will make more money from OS licensing then they would trying to sell their hardware. And they make a ton of money from hardware right now (as I read last week, last quarter, they earned $2-3billion from computer sales, $200 million from software). And companies and businesses that care on how they spend cash will easily spend money on cheaper dells and a copy of OS X. Esp. if they can get two Dells for the price of one overpriced Mac.
As for the hardware vs. software thing, a majority of Apple's hardware revenue comes from iPods now, not CPUs.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Apple might not die because they have digital hub devices (um, they only have one now, though, so they better get going if they plan on making money and following your schedule), but these aren't big money devices. The iPod sells well, but its a low-revenue product, so a million a quarter only maxes out at $500million, and is probably more like $250-300 million in revenues. Tivo has a hell of a product, and they're still trying to turn a profit. Grand schemes, but why get any of these pieces, when I can buy a cheaper Dell mini with 7.1 and HD output, hooked to my Dell laptops all around the house?
A cheap Dell mini with 7.1 and HD output? Running on what? A celeron and integrated graphics?
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Office is still the defacto, you can't get passed that, no matter how hard you try.
And is it weeks away or 07 or 08? Which is it. And that's funny, saying they'll have an office killer. They already did. It was called AppleWorks. But then Apple killed it. And no one used it instead of office, anyway. And now iWork is so far behind in features people need for work, they have a long way to go to kill office (sorry, but ask anyone who actually writes large documents, Pages has too many holes and issues, mainly because its a Pagemaker replacement, not a Word replacement). And it takes Apple forever to update its apps (how long was it to get Keynote 2.0?) that you don't know whether they ever will update it or let it die. I know with keynote there was lots of speculation whether it was being EOL'd after version 1.
I said they are a probably a few weeks away from being able to announce an office suite. Get it? Comprendes? "Being able to." I.e., in case they need to. Which they probably will need to if they start approaching 10% marketshare with OS X. I did not say "they are going to announce in a few weeks."
As for AppleWorks, how exactly was it an "Office Killer" if no one used it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Oh, and you're brilliant idea for Apple to make money is to take pieces that are currently free, make them better (or, as some would argue, make them usable and fix their current slate of problems) and bundle them into an application. Yeah, that's a great idea. No one would complain about that, I'm sure. Just like no one complains about a new OS X version fixing bugs apple never fixed in previous versions.
Yes, Pages has some serious deficits, especially for large, professional, corporate uses. But this may perhaps be why Jobs introduced it, saying "Building a successor to AppleWorks." And it may also be why there's that little "i" in from of the bundle. ("iWork"). For that matter, iCal, Mail, and Address Book also have serious problems, if they are going to be used in a large corporate environment. This is why I said they would need to "buff" them. Pump them up into "Pro" versions that people have to pay for.
And in case you didn't notice, people do have to pay for iWork...they are not free. People complain about a lot of things, including things Apple has done. Apple has created free things and then charged for them on several occassions. (iLife--and it didn't even make them pro, just updated and started charging; iTools/.Mac...) But that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying they should buff them to pro versions and charge (more) for them. Get it?
Also, try and be a bit more civil in your tone in the future please.
He did say that their transition would be finished by the end of 2007 when the Powermacs would move to x86. He didn't mention the XServes, but they are classified by Apple as being under the umbrella of professional non-portables. Apple doesn't even break out the numbers of XServes and Powermacs in the sales numbers.
The xserves are an interesting case. What happens with these machines will more clearly define how Apple will handle the change. I could see a plan that would be reasonable where the XServes got up graded early in the process. The reason being low power high performance chips.
Quote:
When he says that Apple will continue to support PPC machines, he means that they will have Universal Binaries for several years after the transition.
I would rather that Apple put into writing exactly what their policies will be and what they mean by support. My feeling is that support would be limited to new revs of OS/X and that is it.
Quote:
Also, by federal law, all products must have service and parts available for a minimum of seven years after they are discontinued. So there shouldn't be a problem there as well. I don't know what laws are applicable in other countries. It's probably different. Perhaps others here could let us know.
You know I've heard about this mystery law before but I don't really think that it exist. There are some laws governing automobile manufactures but I have yet to see a reference to a general law that states that a manufacture must suport with service and parts for 7 years. In the PC insudtry this clearly would be hard to do.
No, CPU development doesn't work like that. If IBM developed a new CPU in reaction to Jobs' switch to Intel announcement, it would take one to two years to get even close to mass production. If anything, the CPUs announced today were the very reason for Apple's switch.
Consider that Apple has know of these two chips, the low-power 970fx and the dual core 970mp, since their early development stages. IBM most likely gave Apple a roadmap with these CPUs and predicted availability - then IBM flubbed everything by missing the timeline projections, and kept moving the expected release date farther and farther into the future. Meanwhile Apple's tower sales are tanking, and they're still cramming Motorola's 20th century turds into low end Macs and high end laptops. IBM repeatedly failed to meet Apple's needs and so Jobs decided to switch to Intel.
There are a host of missed opportunities by IBM and Apple, and these are only the ones we know about. My guess is that Jobs grew weary of IBM's glacial development of the PPC 970, and so pulled the trigger on Intel-based Macs,
Agreed, but we still have at least 2 years of good IBM chips coming out and hopefully in Macs soon. I'd buy dual G5's for another year or so with no worries about being out of date when the Mactels come out. I would love to see what the orders for the next years IBM chips are. I'm sure they are going to be healthy.
He did say that their transition would be finished by the end of 2007 when the Powermacs would move to x86. He didn't mention the XServes, but they are classified by Apple as being under the umbrella of professional non-portables. other countries. It's probably different. Perhaps others here could let us know.
I don't think Steve or anyone from Apple has publicly said what machines will make the transition when. The rumors were that the laptops and minis would go first, and the Power Macs last, and what we're hearing about the timing of new chips from Intel seems to support that. It also fits my theory that the G4 line is being put down as soon as possible, and the G5s will go last. But I don't believe there is any official announced timeline.
For those thinking there will be lines of both PPC and Intel Macs:
Quote:
At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.
As for the hardware vs. software thing, a majority of Apple's hardware revenue comes from iPods now, not CPUs.
I said they are a probably a few weeks away from being able to announce an office suite. Get it? Comprendes? "Being able to." I.e., in case they need to. Which they probably will need to if they start approaching 10% marketshare with OS X. I did not say "they are going to announce in a few weeks."
[/B]
As of the last quarter, cpu sales were close to 50% of Apple's total sales, and iPods were closer to 20%.
As far as the suite goes; that's quite a bit of quessing on your part. You really have no idea what Apple has in that area.
The xserves are an interesting case. What happens with these machines will more clearly define how Apple will handle the change. I could see a plan that would be reasonable where the XServes got up graded early in the process. The reason being low power high performance chips.
I would rather that Apple put into writing exactly what their policies will be and what they mean by support. My feeling is that support would be limited to new revs of OS/X and that is it.
You know I've heard about this mystery law before but I don't really think that it exist. There are some laws governing automobile manufactures but I have yet to see a reference to a general law that states that a manufacture must suport with service and parts for 7 years. In the PC insudtry this clearly would be hard to do.
Who knows about the XServes? You could be right, but that could be the last. It would depend on who's buying them. It just happens that the G5 is superior to any x86 chip for scientific purposes. It's thought that Apple might lose customers in that area if they change chips. Remember that all of the high end computer cluster sales that Apple has made has been because of performance vs cost vs ease of use and set-up. Cost factors that even Dell lost out to.
I'm not sure that any company would ever commit that to writing as they reserve that to how the market is responding as well as when they want to force a transition. Look at MS with the Win 2000 support end. 48% of business's are still on 2000, but MS wants them OFF. I think that iLife and the other apps will be around for several years after a change. Apple certainly can't alienate their pro customers, who have large investments.
The law exists. I remember when it was first proposed, and passed. It was in the late '60's or early '70's. The idea was to force importers of cheap foreign goods to support their products, instead of changing models and abandoning their customers. It applies to everyone though, even the Pc industry. European countries followed suite with similar laws though I don't know how they correspond.
I don't think Steve or anyone from Apple has publicly said what machines will make the transition when. The rumors were that the laptops and minis would go first, and the Power Macs last, and what we're hearing about the timing of new chips from Intel seems to support that. It also fits my theory that the G4 line is being put down as soon as possible, and the G5s will go last. But I don't believe there is any official announced timeline.
For those thinking there will be lines of both PPC and Intel Macs:
Well the press release is admittedly more definitive than what Steve said on stage, thats disappointing. Apple must have struck a hell of a deal with Intel on price.
I guess if were looking for wiggle there is an opening in "macs". A set-top products or top-end workstations, servers might fall under a different nomenclature.
I know this. Most will want to buy a Mac. But by doing so, Apple lowers the "switch" price tag to $129, rather than $499. If people want to try it out, and not drop $500-$1000, then now they can. This means increased OS sales. When this person then wants to buy a new comp, he/she buys a Mac with OS X preinstalled. If this person decides he/she still wants a Dell, then Apple has still gotten $129 from someone who otherwise wouldn't have given them a dime. Personally, I think a good number of people who do that would switch.
[/B]
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
Quote:
Originally posted by DCQ
I said they are a probably a few weeks away from being able to announce an office suite. Get it? Comprendes? "Being able to." I.e., in case they need to. Which they probably will need to if they start approaching 10% marketshare with OS X. I did not say "they are going to announce in a few weeks."
[/B]
That kind of presumes they've written a spreadsheet application in the last x months since iWork05 came out. Let's be generous and presume they've been at it since way before iWork05 but it didn't quite make the cut. Somehow I doubt it's only a few weeks away and they are going to add it to iWork 05. It'll be part of iWork 06 released in January at the earliest.
If they're going after Office or AppleWorks as a replacement they also need a drawing application like Intaglio, which they should buy up and add straight in IMHO.
And if they are beating Office on Windows, they need a database app too - hopefully something more modern than Filemaker too.
Quote:
Originally posted by DCQ
Yes, Pages has some serious deficits, especially for large, professional, corporate uses.
[/B]
People keep repeating this yet I can't think of any major reasons why, having used both somewhat extensively now. Pages isn't Word, and that IMHO is both the reason why it's a breath of fresh air for some and a curse for others incapable of learning a different interface.
End Notes and revision marking seem to be the only real missing features for corporate use other than it just not being Word.
Quote:
Originally posted by DCQ
But this may perhaps be why Jobs introduced it, saying "Building a successor to AppleWorks." And it may also be why there's that little "i" in from of the bundle. ("iWork"). For that matter, iCal, Mail, and Address Book also have serious problems, if they are going to be used in a large corporate environment. This is why I said they would need to "buff" them. Pump them up into "Pro" versions that people have to pay for.
[/B]
Serious problems such as?
The only problems seem to be minor issues mixing with Microsoft environments - simple answer - don't build your enterprise entirely on a proprietary Microsoft backend.
Quote:
Originally posted by DCQ
And in case you didn't notice, people do have to pay for iWork...they are not free.
[/B]
Have you looked at the price of Microsoft Office?
Please, if you're going to compare Office with iWork, take a reality pill before starting.
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
That kind of presumes they've written a spreadsheet application in the last x months since iWork05 came out. Let's be generous and presume they've been at it since way before iWork05 but it didn't quite make the cut. Somehow I doubt it's only a few weeks away and they are going to add it to iWork 05. It'll be part of iWork 06 released in January at the earliest.
If they're going after Office or AppleWorks as a replacement they also need a drawing application like Intaglio, which they should buy up and add straight in IMHO.
And if they are beating Office on Windows, they need a database app too - hopefully something more modern than Filemaker too.
People keep repeating this yet I can't think of any major reasons why, having used both somewhat extensively now. Pages isn't Word, and that IMHO is both the reason why it's a breath of fresh air for some and a curse for others incapable of learning a different interface.
End Notes and revision marking seem to be the only real missing features for corporate use other than it just not being Word.
Serious problems such as?
The only problems seem to be minor issues mixing with Microsoft environments - simple answer - don't build your enterprise entirely on a proprietary Microsoft backend.
Have you looked at the price of Microsoft Office?
Please, if you're going to compare Office with iWork, take a reality pill before starting.
I pretty much agree with you. I do think that Filemaker would be a good choice though. It's very popular in the Windows corporate enviornment, and that's important. It would give any attempt in this direction an instant feeling of familiarity. Besides it's a good program, and scales both up and down.
I think that Apple missed the boat by not buying Macromedia. It was hinted for some time that it might be up for sale. The same thing with the apps that Corel ended up buying. Painter would sure look good at this point, as would Poser.
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
But even if 80% buy the Dell and run OSX on it, Apple will still sell millions of Macs, increase market share to double figures with nearly the same markup AND have tens of millions more dollars from software sales to the Dells.
This is the advantage of starting out with such a small market share now.
I think that Apple missed the boat by not buying Macromedia. It was hinted for some time that it might be up for sale. The same thing with the apps that Corel ended up buying. Painter would sure look good at this point, as would Poser.
No kidding, but the battles with Adobe would have been ugly.
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
Some people may. But it'll probably be a pain in the rump. (Most people are afraid of their computers, and afraid of ruining them.) And if it's been a year or more, buying a new Mac would have the added benefit of getting them a copy of the latest OS version "free." I'm not disputing that some people will do this, but it'll probably be a small number, since most people don't want to do things like wipe hard drives and clean install new operating systems on brand new machines. They want something that works the way they want it to out of the box. And even if this happens on a significant scale (though I very much doubt it'd happen in such a way that Apple's hardware sales would dry up and kill the company), there are some upsides: more people using OS X, more software revenue, more marketshare, and more clout with developers (..more good press...higher share price...more mindshare...etc.). They could kill this kind of goodwill by being overly stingy and "proprietary" after the transition is done.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That kind of presumes they've written a spreadsheet application in the last x months since iWork05 came out. Let's be generous and presume they've been at it since way before iWork05 but it didn't quite make the cut. Somehow I doubt it's only a few weeks away and they are going to add it to iWork 05. It'll be part of iWork 06 released in January at the earliest.
Yes, I'm assuming they have one. I mean they already have AppleWorks. I'm sure that there are Apple programmers that have created some wild stuff that may never see the light of day. I mean, they've had OS X on Wintel for, what, five years now? And again, I'm not predicting that there is an imminent "Office killer" announcement. I'm just suggesting that Apple has plans, in case MS decides to try and squash them. I do think that iWork 06 will have a spreadsheet. But I'm only expecting a "pro" office announcement if Apple's marketshare rises dramatically, and if MS responds to try and crush Apple, and not before 08 at the earliest.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If they're going after Office or AppleWorks as a replacement they also need a drawing application like Intaglio, which they should buy up and add straight in IMHO.
That would be nice, but Office's drawing tools are quite pathetic.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And if they are beating Office on Windows, they need a database app too - hopefully something more modern than Filemaker too.
Others have responded on Filemaker. I think it's a decent app. It's kinda been forgotten and shoved in the closet for a while. But Apple could really make it shine if they needed it to.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
People keep repeating this yet I can't think of any major reasons why, having used both somewhat extensively now. Pages isn't Word, and that IMHO is both the reason why it's a breath of fresh air for some and a curse for others incapable of learning a different interface.
End Notes and revision marking seem to be the only real missing features for corporate use other than it just not being Word.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but not having end notes is a non-starter for me and my wife (academic writing). When I played around with it in my local Apple store, I liked a lot of it, but felt that it hadn't quite figured out how it was going to handle certain issues given its dtp-like model (mostly, deleting pages and linking/flowing text to boxes). I'm hopeful that Pages 2 will take care of those issues.
As for revision marking, I know a lot of people depend on this feature, particularly when working on group projects. (My former company used it often.) But I can understand why Apple didn't bother with it in a consumer level app. Plus, MS's implementation is pretty ugly. [tangent] As a proofreader, I hated seeing the dreaded underlines and strikethroughs. (That was my job, dammit! ) And sometimes it was hard to tell where an edit ended if text was formatted. I always thought that some kind of editing program that could add a non-destructive markup layer to a pdf would be really cool and genuinely useful. Imagine getting a pdf, being able to select text and then choose a bunch of different tools like "Delete," "Replace With," "Move," "Insert," "Note," "Query" etc. And then the original author could "Apply" the edits individually, or completely. Anyway... [/tangent]
Also, I've read that pdf exporting isn't perfect across platforms (drop shadows and the like).
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Serious problems such as?
The only problems seem to be minor issues mixing with Microsoft environments - simple answer - don't build your enterprise entirely on a proprietary Microsoft backend.
OK. I admit I don't know exactly what problems they'd face in a corporate intranet environment. (I'm imagining my old employer: 12,000 employees globally; 56 offices; 22 countries.) They may work well. But I'd guess that things like integrating iCal functionality into both Mail and iChat would be a minimal necessity (i.e., sending a Calendar invitation as an "attachment"). I don't know...that was just off the top of my head.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Have you looked at the price of Microsoft Office?
Please, if you're going to compare Office with iWork, take a reality pill before starting.
I'm confused. I was responding to the claim that this theoretical Office Suite would "just bundle everything that was already free and charge for it." I responded by clarifying that I was not saying that, that if it charged an "Office Suite" price then Apple should make "pro" versions of the apps, and that in any case iWork wasn't free (to drive home the point that Louzer was talking pure nonsense).
I'm not trying to compare MSOffice and iWork. Again, all I'm trying to do is speculate that Apple has things well in hand if its marketshare grows beyond what MS deems is appropriate.
eg. in iPhoto, spawn a thread per thumbnail preview.
Then let the OS decide which core to run the thread on.
This is not a good strategy -- there is too much overhead per thread in terms of both memory and context switching. Better is to spawn one thread per processing/core and then divide the work among those (2 cores, 100 thumbnails, each thread does 50).
Quote:
The problem is, OSX's threading leaves something to be desired when you compare it to other multi-threaded OSs like BeOS, QNX or even Windows.
I've seen this comment a couple of times, but I don't believe it to be true. The OSX thread implementation is based on the Mach threaded kernel and so ought to be very efficient. The pthreads are a thin API wrapper on that, and the Cocoa & Carbon threads are a API wrapper on pthreads.
Quote:
There's been great pushes by Apple and it's developers to make the OS and applications more thread friendly and so multi-CPU friendly but at the same time OSX still has issues and the beachball of death still appears far too often because of the poor threading in OSX and Cocoa, especially on single-cpu Macs.
The issue here is not with the threading, but instead with the rest of the OS not being thread-friendly. Prior to Tiger there were only 2 major mutexes (or funnels) in the OS so if you had threads calling the OS they would synchronized where another OS might not be. If they did not call the OS then they would run fine. As of Tiger there is now finer grained locking on parts of the OS, and going forward this will become even better.
FWIW, Windows had (and I believe still has) one really major lock/funnel that tends to force synchronization on a lot of code. Longhorn will probably be the first version of Windows to get away from that major funnel.
Comments
Also, those low power version sure look like PB chips to me. Doubt it takes 6 months - my bet is Oct/Nov - after back to school but before christmas - or for January. Also don't forget that g5 have faster system busses, that seem like a big bottleneck for PB today compared to desktop machines. More than just CPU mhz.
My perfect machine. (My current PBook 1.25 is almost right, but it hasn't quite got the oomph I need sometimes, and a 2Ghz iMac is not a bump far enough (I have no need for big-box PowerMac, and my laptop will stay with me for some time to come anyway :-)
Put a decent graphics card in, and out pops my wallet.
It's possible that they might make it in if the new machines will run Windows as an equal client on a Mac. But Apple still won't do machine certification as Dell and others do. There are a lot of problems there. Multiple vendors for the hardware, etc.
Macs will get more popular at home and at the university level, where they are already moving back strongly. It's always possible that it will help as those ex students move into business. But the other problems will remain unless Apple changes their strategy.
Allowing the OS to boot on non Mac's. might work for the overall market, but wouldn't help Apple unless, as I said earlier, Apple has other businesses in place that would reduce their dependance on computer sales significantly.
Only time will tell. After all, we've been surprised before.
Originally posted by junkie
I watched the presentation three times - I never heard that Apple would use Intel exclusively or that no more PPC based Macs would be made by a certain date. In fact he says they will be supporting PPC for a long time. The message was that they are starting a transition and it would be complete by such and such date. I think the door is open for Apple to have more than one horse to pick from, more competition in the platform is good. I hope Apple takes OSX to a wider range of CPUs from more manufacturers.
Hmm? I really don't feel like going back and looking at the quotes, but that's REALLY not the way it sounded to me.
Originally posted by junkie
I watched the presentation three times - I never heard that Apple would use Intel exclusively or that no more PPC based Macs would be made by a certain date. In fact he says they will be supporting PPC for a long time. The message was that they are starting a transition and it would be complete by such and such date. I think the door is open for Apple to have more than one horse to pick from, more competition in the platform is good. I hope Apple takes OSX to a wider range of CPUs from more manufacturers.
Also, those low power version sure look like PB chips to me. Doubt it takes 6 months - my bet is Oct/Nov - after back to school but before christmas - or for January. Also don't forget that g5 have faster system busses, that seem like a big bottleneck for PB today compared to desktop machines. More than just CPU mhz.
He did say that their transition would be finished by the end of 2007 when the Powermacs would move to x86. He didn't mention the XServes, but they are classified by Apple as being under the umbrella of professional non-portables. Apple doesn't even break out the numbers of XServes and Powermacs in the sales numbers.
When he says that Apple will continue to support PPC machines, he means that they will have Universal Binaries for several years after the transition.
Also, by federal law, all products must have service and parts available for a minimum of seven years after they are discontinued. So there shouldn't be a problem there as well. I don't know what laws are applicable in other countries. It's probably different. Perhaps others here could let us know.
Originally posted by Louzer
And, going on your later mail, you're next switcher box isn't going to be a Dell with OS X installed if Dell doesn't license the OS. You might think everyone wants to go out, get a computer, then go out, buy an OS, and try to update the computer to the new OS, but most people will NOT do this.
I know this. Most will want to buy a Mac. But by doing so, Apple lowers the "switch" price tag to $129, rather than $499. If people want to try it out, and not drop $500-$1000, then now they can. This means increased OS sales. When this person then wants to buy a new comp, he/she buys a Mac with OS X preinstalled. If this person decides he/she still wants a Dell, then Apple has still gotten $129 from someone who otherwise wouldn't have given them a dime. Personally, I think a good number of people who do that would switch.
Originally posted by Louzer
Oh, what a dream. "Apple's revenue won't fall, even though lots of people will buy dell." Exactly how does Apple's revenue not fall when everyone but your parents aren't buying their computers.
So which is it? First you say "most people will NOT do this" [buy a Dell and then OS X and do a clean install]. Then you say "everyone but my parents" will. If you're going to be a troll, at least try and be logical.
Originally posted by Louzer
Apple will only allow OS X on Dells if AND ONLY IF they can determine they will make more money from OS licensing then they would trying to sell their hardware. And they make a ton of money from hardware right now (as I read last week, last quarter, they earned $2-3billion from computer sales, $200 million from software). And companies and businesses that care on how they spend cash will easily spend money on cheaper dells and a copy of OS X. Esp. if they can get two Dells for the price of one overpriced Mac.
As for the hardware vs. software thing, a majority of Apple's hardware revenue comes from iPods now, not CPUs.
Originally posted by Louzer
Apple might not die because they have digital hub devices (um, they only have one now, though, so they better get going if they plan on making money and following your schedule), but these aren't big money devices. The iPod sells well, but its a low-revenue product, so a million a quarter only maxes out at $500million, and is probably more like $250-300 million in revenues. Tivo has a hell of a product, and they're still trying to turn a profit. Grand schemes, but why get any of these pieces, when I can buy a cheaper Dell mini with 7.1 and HD output, hooked to my Dell laptops all around the house?
A cheap Dell mini with 7.1 and HD output? Running on what? A celeron and integrated graphics?
Originally posted by Louzer
Office is still the defacto, you can't get passed that, no matter how hard you try.
And is it weeks away or 07 or 08? Which is it. And that's funny, saying they'll have an office killer. They already did. It was called AppleWorks. But then Apple killed it. And no one used it instead of office, anyway. And now iWork is so far behind in features people need for work, they have a long way to go to kill office (sorry, but ask anyone who actually writes large documents, Pages has too many holes and issues, mainly because its a Pagemaker replacement, not a Word replacement). And it takes Apple forever to update its apps (how long was it to get Keynote 2.0?) that you don't know whether they ever will update it or let it die. I know with keynote there was lots of speculation whether it was being EOL'd after version 1.
I said they are a probably a few weeks away from being able to announce an office suite. Get it? Comprendes? "Being able to." I.e., in case they need to. Which they probably will need to if they start approaching 10% marketshare with OS X. I did not say "they are going to announce in a few weeks."
As for AppleWorks, how exactly was it an "Office Killer" if no one used it?
Originally posted by Louzer
Oh, and you're brilliant idea for Apple to make money is to take pieces that are currently free, make them better (or, as some would argue, make them usable and fix their current slate of problems) and bundle them into an application. Yeah, that's a great idea. No one would complain about that, I'm sure. Just like no one complains about a new OS X version fixing bugs apple never fixed in previous versions.
Yes, Pages has some serious deficits, especially for large, professional, corporate uses. But this may perhaps be why Jobs introduced it, saying "Building a successor to AppleWorks." And it may also be why there's that little "i" in from of the bundle. ("iWork"). For that matter, iCal, Mail, and Address Book also have serious problems, if they are going to be used in a large corporate environment. This is why I said they would need to "buff" them. Pump them up into "Pro" versions that people have to pay for.
And in case you didn't notice, people do have to pay for iWork...they are not free. People complain about a lot of things, including things Apple has done. Apple has created free things and then charged for them on several occassions. (iLife--and it didn't even make them pro, just updated and started charging; iTools/.Mac...) But that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying they should buff them to pro versions and charge (more) for them. Get it?
Also, try and be a bit more civil in your tone in the future please.
Originally posted by melgross
He did say that their transition would be finished by the end of 2007 when the Powermacs would move to x86. He didn't mention the XServes, but they are classified by Apple as being under the umbrella of professional non-portables. Apple doesn't even break out the numbers of XServes and Powermacs in the sales numbers.
The xserves are an interesting case. What happens with these machines will more clearly define how Apple will handle the change. I could see a plan that would be reasonable where the XServes got up graded early in the process. The reason being low power high performance chips.
Quote:
When he says that Apple will continue to support PPC machines, he means that they will have Universal Binaries for several years after the transition.
I would rather that Apple put into writing exactly what their policies will be and what they mean by support. My feeling is that support would be limited to new revs of OS/X and that is it.
Quote:
Also, by federal law, all products must have service and parts available for a minimum of seven years after they are discontinued. So there shouldn't be a problem there as well. I don't know what laws are applicable in other countries. It's probably different. Perhaps others here could let us know.
You know I've heard about this mystery law before but I don't really think that it exist. There are some laws governing automobile manufactures but I have yet to see a reference to a general law that states that a manufacture must suport with service and parts for 7 years. In the PC insudtry this clearly would be hard to do.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
No, CPU development doesn't work like that. If IBM developed a new CPU in reaction to Jobs' switch to Intel announcement, it would take one to two years to get even close to mass production. If anything, the CPUs announced today were the very reason for Apple's switch.
Consider that Apple has know of these two chips, the low-power 970fx and the dual core 970mp, since their early development stages. IBM most likely gave Apple a roadmap with these CPUs and predicted availability - then IBM flubbed everything by missing the timeline projections, and kept moving the expected release date farther and farther into the future. Meanwhile Apple's tower sales are tanking, and they're still cramming Motorola's 20th century turds into low end Macs and high end laptops. IBM repeatedly failed to meet Apple's needs and so Jobs decided to switch to Intel.
There are a host of missed opportunities by IBM and Apple, and these are only the ones we know about. My guess is that Jobs grew weary of IBM's glacial development of the PPC 970, and so pulled the trigger on Intel-based Macs,
Agreed, but we still have at least 2 years of good IBM chips coming out and hopefully in Macs soon. I'd buy dual G5's for another year or so with no worries about being out of date when the Mactels come out. I would love to see what the orders for the next years IBM chips are. I'm sure they are going to be healthy.
Originally posted by melgross
He did say that their transition would be finished by the end of 2007 when the Powermacs would move to x86. He didn't mention the XServes, but they are classified by Apple as being under the umbrella of professional non-portables. other countries. It's probably different. Perhaps others here could let us know.
I don't think Steve or anyone from Apple has publicly said what machines will make the transition when. The rumors were that the laptops and minis would go first, and the Power Macs last, and what we're hearing about the timing of new chips from Intel seems to support that. It also fits my theory that the G4 line is being put down as soon as possible, and the G5s will go last. But I don't believe there is any official announced timeline.
For those thinking there will be lines of both PPC and Intel Macs:
At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.
Originally posted by DCQ
[B
As for the hardware vs. software thing, a majority of Apple's hardware revenue comes from iPods now, not CPUs.
I said they are a probably a few weeks away from being able to announce an office suite. Get it? Comprendes? "Being able to." I.e., in case they need to. Which they probably will need to if they start approaching 10% marketshare with OS X. I did not say "they are going to announce in a few weeks."
[/B]
As of the last quarter, cpu sales were close to 50% of Apple's total sales, and iPods were closer to 20%.
As far as the suite goes; that's quite a bit of quessing on your part. You really have no idea what Apple has in that area.
Originally posted by wizard69
The xserves are an interesting case. What happens with these machines will more clearly define how Apple will handle the change. I could see a plan that would be reasonable where the XServes got up graded early in the process. The reason being low power high performance chips.
I would rather that Apple put into writing exactly what their policies will be and what they mean by support. My feeling is that support would be limited to new revs of OS/X and that is it.
You know I've heard about this mystery law before but I don't really think that it exist. There are some laws governing automobile manufactures but I have yet to see a reference to a general law that states that a manufacture must suport with service and parts for 7 years. In the PC insudtry this clearly would be hard to do.
Who knows about the XServes? You could be right, but that could be the last. It would depend on who's buying them. It just happens that the G5 is superior to any x86 chip for scientific purposes. It's thought that Apple might lose customers in that area if they change chips. Remember that all of the high end computer cluster sales that Apple has made has been because of performance vs cost vs ease of use and set-up. Cost factors that even Dell lost out to.
I'm not sure that any company would ever commit that to writing as they reserve that to how the market is responding as well as when they want to force a transition. Look at MS with the Win 2000 support end. 48% of business's are still on 2000, but MS wants them OFF. I think that iLife and the other apps will be around for several years after a change. Apple certainly can't alienate their pro customers, who have large investments.
The law exists. I remember when it was first proposed, and passed. It was in the late '60's or early '70's. The idea was to force importers of cheap foreign goods to support their products, instead of changing models and abandoning their customers. It applies to everyone though, even the Pc industry. European countries followed suite with similar laws though I don't know how they correspond.
Originally posted by BrunoBruin
I don't think Steve or anyone from Apple has publicly said what machines will make the transition when. The rumors were that the laptops and minis would go first, and the Power Macs last, and what we're hearing about the timing of new chips from Intel seems to support that. It also fits my theory that the G4 line is being put down as soon as possible, and the G5s will go last. But I don't believe there is any official announced timeline.
For those thinking there will be lines of both PPC and Intel Macs:
It was stated.
I guess if were looking for wiggle there is an opening in "macs". A set-top products or top-end workstations, servers might fall under a different nomenclature.
Originally posted by DCQ
I know this. Most will want to buy a Mac. But by doing so, Apple lowers the "switch" price tag to $129, rather than $499. If people want to try it out, and not drop $500-$1000, then now they can. This means increased OS sales. When this person then wants to buy a new comp, he/she buys a Mac with OS X preinstalled. If this person decides he/she still wants a Dell, then Apple has still gotten $129 from someone who otherwise wouldn't have given them a dime. Personally, I think a good number of people who do that would switch.
[/B]
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
Originally posted by DCQ
I said they are a probably a few weeks away from being able to announce an office suite. Get it? Comprendes? "Being able to." I.e., in case they need to. Which they probably will need to if they start approaching 10% marketshare with OS X. I did not say "they are going to announce in a few weeks."
[/B]
That kind of presumes they've written a spreadsheet application in the last x months since iWork05 came out. Let's be generous and presume they've been at it since way before iWork05 but it didn't quite make the cut. Somehow I doubt it's only a few weeks away and they are going to add it to iWork 05. It'll be part of iWork 06 released in January at the earliest.
If they're going after Office or AppleWorks as a replacement they also need a drawing application like Intaglio, which they should buy up and add straight in IMHO.
And if they are beating Office on Windows, they need a database app too - hopefully something more modern than Filemaker too.
Originally posted by DCQ
Yes, Pages has some serious deficits, especially for large, professional, corporate uses.
[/B]
People keep repeating this yet I can't think of any major reasons why, having used both somewhat extensively now. Pages isn't Word, and that IMHO is both the reason why it's a breath of fresh air for some and a curse for others incapable of learning a different interface.
End Notes and revision marking seem to be the only real missing features for corporate use other than it just not being Word.
Originally posted by DCQ
But this may perhaps be why Jobs introduced it, saying "Building a successor to AppleWorks." And it may also be why there's that little "i" in from of the bundle. ("iWork"). For that matter, iCal, Mail, and Address Book also have serious problems, if they are going to be used in a large corporate environment. This is why I said they would need to "buff" them. Pump them up into "Pro" versions that people have to pay for.
[/B]
Serious problems such as?
The only problems seem to be minor issues mixing with Microsoft environments - simple answer - don't build your enterprise entirely on a proprietary Microsoft backend.
Originally posted by DCQ
And in case you didn't notice, people do have to pay for iWork...they are not free.
[/B]
Have you looked at the price of Microsoft Office?
Please, if you're going to compare Office with iWork, take a reality pill before starting.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
That kind of presumes they've written a spreadsheet application in the last x months since iWork05 came out. Let's be generous and presume they've been at it since way before iWork05 but it didn't quite make the cut. Somehow I doubt it's only a few weeks away and they are going to add it to iWork 05. It'll be part of iWork 06 released in January at the earliest.
If they're going after Office or AppleWorks as a replacement they also need a drawing application like Intaglio, which they should buy up and add straight in IMHO.
And if they are beating Office on Windows, they need a database app too - hopefully something more modern than Filemaker too.
People keep repeating this yet I can't think of any major reasons why, having used both somewhat extensively now. Pages isn't Word, and that IMHO is both the reason why it's a breath of fresh air for some and a curse for others incapable of learning a different interface.
End Notes and revision marking seem to be the only real missing features for corporate use other than it just not being Word.
Serious problems such as?
The only problems seem to be minor issues mixing with Microsoft environments - simple answer - don't build your enterprise entirely on a proprietary Microsoft backend.
Have you looked at the price of Microsoft Office?
Please, if you're going to compare Office with iWork, take a reality pill before starting.
I pretty much agree with you. I do think that Filemaker would be a good choice though. It's very popular in the Windows corporate enviornment, and that's important. It would give any attempt in this direction an instant feeling of familiarity. Besides it's a good program, and scales both up and down.
I think that Apple missed the boat by not buying Macromedia. It was hinted for some time that it might be up for sale. The same thing with the apps that Corel ended up buying. Painter would sure look good at this point, as would Poser.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
But even if 80% buy the Dell and run OSX on it, Apple will still sell millions of Macs, increase market share to double figures with nearly the same markup AND have tens of millions more dollars from software sales to the Dells.
This is the advantage of starting out with such a small market share now.
Originally posted by melgross
I think that Apple missed the boat by not buying Macromedia. It was hinted for some time that it might be up for sale. The same thing with the apps that Corel ended up buying. Painter would sure look good at this point, as would Poser.
No kidding, but the battles with Adobe would have been ugly.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No, if they were happy with their Dell running OSX, they'll more than likely buy another cheap Dell and stick OSX on that too.
Some people may. But it'll probably be a pain in the rump. (Most people are afraid of their computers, and afraid of ruining them.) And if it's been a year or more, buying a new Mac would have the added benefit of getting them a copy of the latest OS version "free." I'm not disputing that some people will do this, but it'll probably be a small number, since most people don't want to do things like wipe hard drives and clean install new operating systems on brand new machines. They want something that works the way they want it to out of the box. And even if this happens on a significant scale (though I very much doubt it'd happen in such a way that Apple's hardware sales would dry up and kill the company), there are some upsides: more people using OS X, more software revenue, more marketshare, and more clout with developers (..more good press...higher share price...more mindshare...etc.). They could kill this kind of goodwill by being overly stingy and "proprietary" after the transition is done.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That kind of presumes they've written a spreadsheet application in the last x months since iWork05 came out. Let's be generous and presume they've been at it since way before iWork05 but it didn't quite make the cut. Somehow I doubt it's only a few weeks away and they are going to add it to iWork 05. It'll be part of iWork 06 released in January at the earliest.
Yes, I'm assuming they have one. I mean they already have AppleWorks. I'm sure that there are Apple programmers that have created some wild stuff that may never see the light of day. I mean, they've had OS X on Wintel for, what, five years now? And again, I'm not predicting that there is an imminent "Office killer" announcement. I'm just suggesting that Apple has plans, in case MS decides to try and squash them. I do think that iWork 06 will have a spreadsheet. But I'm only expecting a "pro" office announcement if Apple's marketshare rises dramatically, and if MS responds to try and crush Apple, and not before 08 at the earliest.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If they're going after Office or AppleWorks as a replacement they also need a drawing application like Intaglio, which they should buy up and add straight in IMHO.
That would be nice, but Office's drawing tools are quite pathetic.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And if they are beating Office on Windows, they need a database app too - hopefully something more modern than Filemaker too.
Others have responded on Filemaker. I think it's a decent app. It's kinda been forgotten and shoved in the closet for a while. But Apple could really make it shine if they needed it to.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
People keep repeating this yet I can't think of any major reasons why, having used both somewhat extensively now. Pages isn't Word, and that IMHO is both the reason why it's a breath of fresh air for some and a curse for others incapable of learning a different interface.
End Notes and revision marking seem to be the only real missing features for corporate use other than it just not being Word.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but not having end notes is a non-starter for me and my wife (academic writing). When I played around with it in my local Apple store, I liked a lot of it, but felt that it hadn't quite figured out how it was going to handle certain issues given its dtp-like model (mostly, deleting pages and linking/flowing text to boxes). I'm hopeful that Pages 2 will take care of those issues.
As for revision marking, I know a lot of people depend on this feature, particularly when working on group projects. (My former company used it often.) But I can understand why Apple didn't bother with it in a consumer level app. Plus, MS's implementation is pretty ugly. [tangent] As a proofreader, I hated seeing the dreaded underlines and strikethroughs. (That was my job, dammit!
Also, I've read that pdf exporting isn't perfect across platforms (drop shadows and the like).
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Serious problems such as?
The only problems seem to be minor issues mixing with Microsoft environments - simple answer - don't build your enterprise entirely on a proprietary Microsoft backend.
OK. I admit I don't know exactly what problems they'd face in a corporate intranet environment. (I'm imagining my old employer: 12,000 employees globally; 56 offices; 22 countries.) They may work well. But I'd guess that things like integrating iCal functionality into both Mail and iChat would be a minimal necessity (i.e., sending a Calendar invitation as an "attachment"). I don't know...that was just off the top of my head.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Have you looked at the price of Microsoft Office?
Please, if you're going to compare Office with iWork, take a reality pill before starting.
I'm confused. I was responding to the claim that this theoretical Office Suite would "just bundle everything that was already free and charge for it." I responded by clarifying that I was not saying that, that if it charged an "Office Suite" price then Apple should make "pro" versions of the apps, and that in any case iWork wasn't free (to drive home the point that Louzer was talking pure nonsense).
I'm not trying to compare MSOffice and iWork. Again, all I'm trying to do is speculate that Apple has things well in hand if its marketshare grows beyond what MS deems is appropriate.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
eg. in iPhoto, spawn a thread per thumbnail preview.
Then let the OS decide which core to run the thread on.
This is not a good strategy -- there is too much overhead per thread in terms of both memory and context switching. Better is to spawn one thread per processing/core and then divide the work among those (2 cores, 100 thumbnails, each thread does 50).
The problem is, OSX's threading leaves something to be desired when you compare it to other multi-threaded OSs like BeOS, QNX or even Windows.
I've seen this comment a couple of times, but I don't believe it to be true. The OSX thread implementation is based on the Mach threaded kernel and so ought to be very efficient. The pthreads are a thin API wrapper on that, and the Cocoa & Carbon threads are a API wrapper on pthreads.
There's been great pushes by Apple and it's developers to make the OS and applications more thread friendly and so multi-CPU friendly but at the same time OSX still has issues and the beachball of death still appears far too often because of the poor threading in OSX and Cocoa, especially on single-cpu Macs.
The issue here is not with the threading, but instead with the rest of the OS not being thread-friendly. Prior to Tiger there were only 2 major mutexes (or funnels) in the OS so if you had threads calling the OS they would synchronized where another OS might not be. If they did not call the OS then they would run fine. As of Tiger there is now finer grained locking on parts of the OS, and going forward this will become even better.
FWIW, Windows had (and I believe still has) one really major lock/funnel that tends to force synchronization on a lot of code. Longhorn will probably be the first version of Windows to get away from that major funnel.
I thought IBM had "nothing to offer"