It'll be interesting to see how this changes things for Apple. I have to think about this a while and read some more before thinking about what this will mean.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
And the way Intel has been going the past...year, it's a BAAAAD move.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Given the inherent benefits of their current hardware platform, I doubt they're going to use Intel processors for their desktop computers. Remember, Intel makes more than just CPUs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, Intel could make a PPC.
Its too hard to know specifics until we hear an announcement, but I doubt there's a move to x86 in the near future, unless its with a killer emulation layer.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Yes, it would be much more likely that Intel would just make the chips, not dictate the design.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This whole thing snowballed from the C|net story that cited two anonymous sources. I even saw it on the CBC TV business news this morning, but there still hasn't been any independent corroboration; Apple, IBM, and Intel have all declined to comment. I think that if the rumour was strictly true (i.e. Apple is abandoning PPC entirely in favour of x86, which is not actually implied at all by the original C|net story), Apple would have already filed lawsuits as they have done regularly in the past with these sorts of leaks.
I think a lot of news agencies are betraying their lack of understanding by assuming it's going to be Pentium D Macs. That assumption is seriously premature. It could be any number of things:
Nothing, just a rumour.
Apple trying to put pressure on IBM to get processor speeds up and heat dissipation down.
Apple using Intel processors in a Media Centre style offering.
Apple licensing Intel's hardware Digital Rights Management for use in PPC-based Macs.
Apple going to Intel for another non-CPU component (e.g. northbridge).
Apple needing a new PPC supplier because IBM is going to be too busy making processors for the Xbox 360, PS3, and Nintendo Revolution, and Intel agreeing to manufacture PPC chips for Apple based on an existing design.
Apple transitioning from PPC to IA-64 (Intel's Itanium line of processors) because it sees no long-term future in PPC. (Cue developer revolt -- first 68k to PPC, then OS 9 to OS X, now this? Forget it!)
Apple transitioning from PPC to x86 (Intel's Pentium line of processors) because it sees no long-term future in PPC. (Again, cue developer revolt.)
Apple attempting to make the Mac a processor-agnostic platform by implementing an advanced emulation layer (e.g. the Transitive software, if it's all it's cracked up to be; I believe Transitive's CEO used to work at NeXT as COO when Steve was CEO there). Added: with this sort of scheme they can chuck whatever processor they like in there and it won't matter.
[ June 06, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, whaddaya know. It's true.
...hear that sound? It's the value of my dual G5 plunging into the toilet.
Added:
I've been keeping tabs on the WWDC keynote (Steve is still talking), but here is a link to the press release.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My guess is that this is the prelude to offering OS X on non-Apple computers. If people want to see a viable* Windows competitor, this is an important first step.
Dagonee *viability judged on perception and market forces much more so than technological capability.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Does anyone else see convincing evidence they're going to use x86 CPUs?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think it's more likely that the x86 Macs will be able to run Windows than that OS X will run on commodity x86 hardware, and I don't think either of those outcomes is very likely. Apple makes its money from hardware and iPods. This way -- switching processors but continuing to build the rest of the components -- they can still ensure that OS X will only boot on Apple-supplied hardware.
Apple allowed Mac clones once before, and the end result was that they ate into Apple's own hardware sales.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
*grumble* I just got a Powerbook G4 less than 48 hours ago. *grumble*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Does anyone else see convincing evidence they're going to use x86 CPUs?
The fact that Steve just said so, explicitly, in front of 3,600 people? Like, not half an hour ago? That's pretty convincing to me.
All of his keynote speech demos were running on a Pentium 4-based Mac. Intel's CEO was just on stage with Steve.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, we do know that it's CPUs. Even more specifically, we know that right now it's Pentiums. Software developers are being offered P4-based Macs.
Added: Which means that it's going to be x86, not Itanium. Also, Intel's going to have to come up with a swankier-looking version of their "Intel Inside" logo... Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Here's a stupid question: aside from cases, which don't really count, what hardware does Apple actually make? The motherboards?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Twink, I bet you a Coke that within 2 years, Apple announces a licensing deal that will put OS X or its successor on non-Apple hardware.
Edit: "2 years" being loosely defined as the corresponding WDC in 2007.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Two years? That's bold. I'll certainly take that bet. Even on the off chance it does happen at some point in the future, I will be utterly astonished if it's as early as WWDC 2007.
If Apple were a person, that person would be a complete control freak.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, I didn't take into account the fact that Apple announces products much later in the development cycle than most other companies. Even if I lose the actual bet, I suspect the development will be very far along by then.
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
so what does this mean to the laymen like me ?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Steve: "More than even the processor, more than even the hardware innovations, the soul is the software."
Perhaps he's acknowledging that if this doesn't work -- if the transition to Intel processors doesn't affect Apple's declining marketshare -- they'll do what Dag thinks and go software-and-gadget-only.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It worked for Microsoft.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Jon Boy: Apple makes the motherboards, yes.
Chris Kidd: What it means to you is "don't buy a Mac between now and July 6th, 2007" -- that being when the "Intel Inside" Macs will be released to the public, presumably with whatever Pentium M-derivative Intel has been cooking up to succeed the P4.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It worked for Microsoft.
Microsoft is a lot bigger than Apple and has the marketshare and resources to ensure good driver support from vendors across the staggering range of available hardware options. Apple does has some money, but no marketshare to speak of.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This was the worst kept secret ever. Not just within the last week or so, but also the fact that back when OS X was being developed it was well known that an Intel version was being built (even pre-release for the early versions). This ever since the project known as "Rhapsody" existed.
-Bok
EDIT: Tpyos ar dum.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Also, Apple would have to develop a PC-style BIOS for OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, since it's not like any PC hardware manufacturers will be interested in supporting OpenFirmware.
Added: Wait a minute. These Intel-based Macs will debut on July 6th, 2006. That's 6/6/6.
o_O
Added 2: Clearly I can't count. Thanks, Jon Boy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, that's 7/6/6.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
June 6, 2006, though, is 6/6/6.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Or, say, using AltiVec/VMX extensively.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Originally posted by Tstorm:
quote: Does anyone else see convincing evidence they're going to use x86 CPUs?
LOL. Sorry, I didn't hear the speech, or see the demo. I'm off in my own little world today, it seems.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: I would be extremely, extremely surprised were that to happen.
According to Apple's SEC filing of two days ago, their first quarter income this year was just under $1.5 billion from macintosh computers (a strong increase from the year before, 29%), a bit over $1 billion from the iPod, and under $750 million from other music stuff, software, other non-computer hardware, and services.
Also, Apple puts considerable R&D into software development with very little return on the software, because OS X sells Macs.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Exactly, so what will happen to Apple if you can run their software anywhere? I personally bought a Mac b/c I knew that I did want OSX. However I'm not sure that most people actually want that.
This will definately be an interesting change to watch. Maybe nothing big will change. I guess we'll see.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
well I would think that at the very leat we're going to see a somewhat steep decline in Mac sales over the next year (hopefully and probably picking up again after the apple intel machines are released.
overall though it looks at the moment as if the required software changes will be relativly slight, though I would be immensly surprised if it turned out to be as painless as Apple is making it seem at the moment...
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
What I find truely funny is Apple has become what it was supposed to fighting against. Anyone remember Apples 1984 commercial? Remember the enemy was IBM. Then in a abrupt about face the real enemy was Wintel. IBM was Apples friend and the G5 Mac was a super Computer. The G5 is so much better than a intel based PC. Now afer five years of telling people x86 was inferior to the G5 it has now told us the x86 marchitecture is better then a G5. So after all these years of telling people to think different it has become just another PC maker, albeit with a nicer looking OS. You want to play games, you can now duel boot with OS X and Windows. Soon we will see Apple selling PC's with both opperating systems so you can have the best of both worlds. I'm sorry Mac fans, after all your years of fighting, it has all been for nothing. We have seen the enemy and he is us
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You want to play games, you can now duel boot with OS X and Windows.
Not necessarily. Apple has said that they won't do anything to preclude booting Windows, but there's no guarantee that it'll be trivial. Apple doesn't want to have the Mac OS go the way of OS/2.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Agreed. On the other hand, Virtual PC (and wine, for that matter) will actually run at a decent speed. So it might be possible to play games that way.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think that would have the same end result, though. If an abstraction layer like VMWare or WINE allows Windows software to run easily and effectively on an x86 Mac, it could hurt the Mac software market.
Added: ...which would suck rocks, because Windows apps running on an x86 Mac would have the Windows look and feel, defeating the whole purpose of using a Mac in the first place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours.
...
Think about it. Apple releases a developers-only preview release of Mac OS X for Intel. It’s a fully functional release of the operating system, not a beta or prerelease copy. It will work reliably, and it will run the vast majority of existing Mac applications unmodified via the Rosetta translation technology. But because this is a one-off developer release, it’s of very little value to computer owners. Future software updates, like the soon-to-be-released 10.4.2 update, won’t install. Existing Mac software will run, but it will run in translation, which means it will be frustratingly slow. But according to reports, Apple’s bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed.
Given Apple’s experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple’s management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife ’05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation.
As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs.
Apple’s giving their potential future customers a free taste, that’s what they’re doing. It’s a try-before-you-buy deal.
I can't vouch for any factual entries. This is not the only speculation on the subject I've read, some of which dates back to before the chip announcement.
Still a long shot, and I don't buy the marketing through piracy analysis. But this outlines some of my thinking on the subject as far as technical feasibility and desirability.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Their "item the sixth" is hugely misleading:
quote:...apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.
Saying stuff like "apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces" means he doesn't get to say stuff like "there is nothing at all that prevents." Dismissing the differences between a PC BIOS, Intel's EFI (which it looks like Apple will be moving to), and OpenFirmware (which Apple is moving from) as merely tivial constraints is absurd.
The big question -- one I note the author ignores completely -- is who designed the motherboard inside those dev kits. Rumour has it that Apple did, and it's just a minimally-revised version of the same motherboard that's in my G5 tower. If that's accurate, the likelihood that "every kid with a cable modem" is going to be running OS X is infintesimally small. But that's one of the "constraints" that the author dismisses out-of-hand.
In any case, nobody has convinced me that such a move would be at all sustainable for Apple. In my view, it would be analogous to waht happened to Be: first, building custom computers (the BeBox), then the switch to x86, then transitioning to software only, then death.
And BeOS was great, for its time. OS X is merely good.
I see a switch to software-only happening if and only if Apple starts losing money on hardware -- that is, if marketshare continues to trend downward. That won't happen in two years, they won't have had enough time to see the effects of the hardware switch on their sales. They won't even be finished the transition two years from now. I think such a switch would be their last-ditch attempt to survive. The doomsday scenario, so to speak. It didn't save Be and I don't think it would save Apple either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fortunately for my Coke supply, Apple offering OS X as software only doesn't have to be a good business decision, just one Apple makes.
However, this
quote:The big question -- one I note the author ignores completely -- is who designed the motherboard inside those dev kits. Rumour has it that Apple did, and it's just a minimally-revised version of the same motherboard that's in my G5 tower.
isn't quite accurate. He states:
quote:The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours. (Comments I made to the contrary yesterday and on Monday were erroneous. The source who fed me that information has been sent to bed without any supper, and says to tell you he’s very sorry and that it won’t happen again.)
Of course, I don't know that he's right, but he's taking the previous rumors into account.
I'd say that if this is true, then I'm far more likely to be right.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Even if that's true, why would Apple include support for any chipset other than the one in the dev kit? You still wouldn't be able to boot OS X on, say, your Dell.
Added: The doomsday scenario would leave me sufficiently disconsolate that buying you a Coke would be the least of my frustrations.
Added 2: Your only hope of getting the developer build of OS X/x86 is for the OpenDarwin developer community to spontaneously generate massive amounts of driver code. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It being possible for people pirating OS X dev versions or being members of the rather expensive (for non-student people) to boot OS X with only some mild hackery and many devices not working on non-Apple x86 hardware does not in any way imply OS X would become generally available for commodity x86 hardware.
Microsoft's dev box for their next XBOX is a dual G5 powermac, yet the XBOX OS is obviously not going to become generally available for Macs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I specifically said I didn't buy the marketing pirating analysis. But possibility that the Mac box was based on Intel, not Apple, parts makes it far more plausible that Apple is moving this way.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I disagree, actually. I don't think it means anything -- except maybe that this decision was made relatively recently. Since Apple isn't going to be using the P4 in its x86 Macs, the hardware contents of the dev kits isn't indicative of future direction.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
To use a related example, that MS is using dual G5 powermacs as dev boxes for the next XBOX doesn't mean the internal architecture's going to be all that similar (its not, its using CELL processors, which operate on a very different architecture).
Its just that today's OS are modular enough that once you have it working with the processor instruction set, you can pretty easily write code to run it on whatever basic hardware (mainly meaning motherboard) that processor is part of (provided you know in advance what said hardware is, as both MS and Apple do).
Right now P4's are all that are available to develop on, so Apple's made it so their developers can develop on them. This is true whether or not the release is on commodity hardware or not, so its no indication that it will be on commodity hardware. Intel may very well make the motherboard, but it will very likely, given apple's history, not be the same as any other motherboards.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Aside:
The Xbox 360 isn't using the Cell, it's using a triple-core in-order PPC processor that IBM calls Xenon (an easy name to confuse with Intel's Xeon line of P4s). It's similar to the Cell's "processing elements," but not exactly the same.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*doh*
I keep getting those confused. Its still a pretty separate architecture from the G5.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Entirely, yes. The only thing they share is the PPC ISA [Added: and AltiVec/VMX]. That whole in-order/out-of-order execution thing...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Michael Dell is interested in licensing Apple's Mac OS.
I've mentioned several times in the past few months that executives from several PC companies have told me of their interest in Apple's Mac OS X operating system. Sadly my sources would not let me attribute these assertions; PC executives are pretty leery of offending Microsoft, which holds enormous power over their businesses. So, many readers have challenged me on this point.
But Dell (the company) has for several years fearlessly—and lucratively—sold servers loaded with Linux, the operating system Microsoft reviles and dreads. And as the industry's top dog it wields more bargaining power with Microsoft than other PC-makers. So I emailed Michael Dell, now the company's chairman, and asked if he'd be interested in the Mac OS, assuming that Apple CEO Steve Jobs ever decides to license it to PC companies. (For now, Jobs says he won't.)
"If Apple decides to open the Mac OS to others, we would be happy to offer it to our customers," Dell wrote in an email. It's the first time any PC industry executive has openly shown enthusiasm for selling machines with Apple's software. Though that's all Dell would say for the record, I suspect his interest is not unknown to Jobs. So, as I said in this column last week (and in an article in the new issue of FORTUNE), the ball is in Jobs' court.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, a fellow cynic. That was my thought when I read the headline.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But I think I was way early on the time frame.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Then you'll owe me a Coke in about a year's time.
See, while I do think that people will continue to get OS X running on homebrew machines, I don't think it will be widespread outside the geek community. Your average person who buys a computer to use the Internet and play Solitaire isn't going to be interested in trying to run OS X on unsupported hardware any more than he's interested in trying to run Linux on supported hardware. People want their operating systems to work without having to fiddle around; OS X won't work on vanilla hardware without fiddling around.
The fact that a bunch of geeks will run OS X on their homebrew PCs does not in any way imply that Apple will bless this practice with developer effort on their part. There is absolutely no reason for Apple to license the Mac OS to run on vanilla hardware, because, as I and others have been saying, it would be a support nightmare for them. One of the major distinguishing characteristics of what Apple offers is the closed system.
There would have to be a compelling reason for Apple to do this; as long as Mac sales continue to be strong, there is not only no compelling reason, there's no reason at all. Interestingly, Mac sales didn't slump between when the Intel transition was announced and when the hardware went on sale. I'm curious to see if this will translate into significantly increased Mac sales as the transition goes ahead. If Mac sales do increase, the already-weak justification for making OS X available on non-Mac hardware completely evaporates.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Then you'll owe me a Coke in about a year's time.
Absolutely. A bet's a bet.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
While you're here, could you explain the logic behind your reasoning to me? There's a disconnect between your brain and mine somewhere, because I just don't get why you think this is inevitable. I just don't see "OS X can and will be run on non-Apple hardware" -> "Apple will formally support/encourage this practice" as an intuitive logical step.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Because there is money to be made at it if they do? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's the thing -- I don't think there is. Hardware sales make Apple a lot of money, because their hardware sales are very high-margin. Why would they want to jeopardize their principal cash cow?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Twinky,
I honestly don't understand why they wouldn't? As Kwea said, there's money to be made, is there not?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There's also a lot of money to be lost, Storm. The Mac OS and attendant bundled software is in a large part simply a vehicle for selling high-priced, high-margin Macintosh hardware, much like iTunes and iTMS for Windows is just a vehicle for selling iPods.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I see what you're saying, but it just boggles my mind that every other OS on the planet is working to expand its driver database, and to work on as many different kinds of processors as possible, and Apple is still stuck in a thirty year old business model.
*shrug*
I guess if it's working for them, what the hey.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, none of those other desktop OS companies also sell desktop computer hardware. It's to their benefit to get their OSes running on as much hardware as possible.
Apple, on the other hand, has been making money hand over fist for much of the last five years despite spending most of that time well behind the x86 world in the processor game. Part of that is due to the stellar success of the iPod, but Mac sales have also earned them a bundle. If Mac sales were decent when the systems were hobbled by the G4, there must be some potential for significant sales increases now that Apple systems across the board will be performance-competitive for pretty much everything but some server tasks (OS X is a dog on stuff like MySQL).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While you're here, could you explain the logic behind your reasoning to me? There's a disconnect between your brain and mine somewhere, because I just don't get why you think this is inevitable. I just don't see "OS X can and will be run on non-Apple hardware" -> "Apple will formally support/encourage this practice" as an intuitive logical step.
It's more "If it's going to happen anyway, let's make some money off it."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
See, I just don't think the money they would earn in software sales would be enough to offset the loss of hardware revenue and the support [nightmare]. I think it's very much in Apple's interest to keep the Mac OS tied to their own hardware.
Edit: I originally had "revenue" where "nightmare" is now, by mistake.
[ February 14, 2006, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Well, none of those other desktop OS companies also sell desktop computer hardware. It's to their benefit to get their OSes running on as much hardware as possible.
Apple, on the other hand, has been making money hand over fist for much of the last five years despite spending most of that time well behind the x86 world in the processor game.
Interesting. I did not know that. I've always thought of Apple as being one step above bankruptcy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
They were bleeding red ink in the mid-late 90s, but since then things have been pretty good at 1 Infinite Loop. At one point they had upwards of $4 billion in cash on hand, though since then they've spent a chunk of that on acquisitions.
Added: The scenario I see where they might go software and gadget-only, as I noted earlier in this thread, is a case like that of Be, where Mac sales slump steadily toward oblivion and ditching the Mac hardware is a last-ditch attempt to stave off bankruptcy for the company. We'll see how Mac hardware sales are doing in a couple of years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, I just don't think the money they would earn in software sales would be enough to offset the loss of hardware revenue and the support revenue. I think it's very much in Apple's interest to keep the Mac OS tied to their own hardware.
I don't think it's ultimately sustainable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I dunno, I think that if anything, becoming an OS vendor would be even less so. OS/2? Be? Amiga? Heck, Linux?
Added: Also, people have been saying that about Apple for well over a decade. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Twinky,
What if Apple made available a cheap, unsupported, open source version of its OS and said,"Do what you will." Let's think about this.
*They still make money selling their Apple boxes to people that have the supported OS.
*As you say, they apparently don't make that much money off of their OS anyway.
*They get the free technical output (bug fixes and software) of having a million monkeys banging on keyboards as they play with their OS. To me, this seems huge.
*More people are exposed and become familiar with the Apple OS, so more people will advocate for the machines in business and at home.
*In my extremely unexpert opinion, they might be able to do this by making OS X more compatible with existing BSD kernels?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A couple of things:
(1) OpenDarwin, among (many) other things. Apple is already leveraging open source fairly significantly, and to a certain extent what you're talking about is already available.
(2) In some respects, merely allowing unsupported builds of OS X out into the wild -- which they can't stop anyway -- may well have the sort of effect you're talking about in terms of exposure.
(3) I don't think exposure to the Mac OS would necessarily translate to increased hardware sales. If you could run OS X on a Dell, why buy Apple unless you like swanky cases?
Finally, in terms of exposure, I'd say that the iPod+iTMS has done far more for Apple than allowing their OS to run on generic hardware would. I've heard a lot of geeks say that they'd like to try OS X out on x86, which leads me to believe that the real reason they advocate this is that they want to see it, not that they think it'd be a sound business decision. I don't think it would be a sound business decision unless their situation changes dramatically, so that's why I don't think we'll see it happen.
Added: However, Apple has made decisions that I didn't think were particularly sound; they've also made decisions that turned out to be unsound regardless of what I thought about them. I'd be surprised, though, particularly given their exprience with the hardware licensing fiasco.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: OpenDarwin, among...
Interesting. Did not know about that.
quote: If you could run OS X on a Dell, why buy Apple unless you like swanky cases?
I don't exactly understand why people buy Apple computers now, unless they like swanky cases. Apple people tell me it's because of rock solid dependability and ease of use for novices or something. O.K. Apple still sells to these people because they don't know how to install Apple on a Dell, which is not as dependable, etc.
For those people who do know how to do it, supported software and dependability is a HUGE benefit, Twinky. Many IT departments don't use, or have stopped using, Linux because it's very unsupported and they can't get answers to problems NOW.
quote: Finally, in terms of exposure, I'd say that the iPod+iTMS has done far more for Apple than allowing their OS to run on generic hardware would. I've heard a lot of geeks say that they'd like to try OS X out on x86, which leads me to believe that the real reason they advocate this is that they want to see it, not that they think it'd be a sound business decision. I don't think it would be a sound business decision unless their situation changes dramatically, so that's why I don't think we'll see it happen.
The Ipod and Itunes aren't the OS. Granted, they make money, but they don't make me want to go out and buy an Apple or the OS.
There are things like Pear out there which allow you to run OS X on an x86, but I've heard it's pretty slow and kind of kludgy. You are correct that I would like to play around with the software , however I think giving Apple OS more exposure can't help but be good for the Apple bottom line.
[quote]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: stopped using Linux? Obviously there are shifts both ways, but Linux has been making huge inroads against (backed by giant companies) Unix for years now. I don't know what you're reading, but the net change in Linux in use is highly in Linux's favor.
Dagonee: there's no particular economic reason it wouldn't be sustainable. Apple does benefit from all those commodity parts -- they select among them themselves -- and their markups aren't particularly large given the feature-sets, particularly on laptops. They're one of the largest computer manufacturers, after all; they're doing just fine. Its a mistake to see their primary competition as MS, since Apple's not an operating system company. That's just value-added for the hardware. They are through and through a computer hardware company, and doing very well at it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The political aspects of all this talk fascinate me most.
I think these corporations work a little like political parties. You "leak" parts of your protected sources to the public, and amazingly the public does all your tweaking for free, telling you what works and what doesn't without you having to even admit your asking. Seems the geek community can muster as much of a contribution to the advancement of future computer systems as any corporation, and probably more.
Look at the rash of Wiki-culture spreading across the net in the last few years, there is an army of experts (and teenagers) working for free to expand gigantic databases for public consumption, why not WIKI-OS as well?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: there's no particular economic reason it wouldn't be sustainable. Apple does benefit from all those commodity parts -- they select among them themselves -- and their markups aren't particularly large given the feature-sets, particularly on laptops. They're one of the largest computer manufacturers, after all; they're doing just fine. Its a mistake to see their primary competition as MS, since Apple's not an operating system company. That's just value-added for the hardware. They are through and through a computer hardware company, and doing very well at it.
As the perceived difference in capabilities that matter to most users between cutting edge and one- or two-generation old computers shrinks, desktop hardware will become more and more a commodity business, leaving less room for "premium" brands in the market.
I don't see their primary competition as MS. Rather, the primary advantage their desktop and laptop computers have is in competition with MS.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Computers have already pretty much reached that point. Many manufacturers have made the last couple of generations of mainstream computers slower than the ones preceding, particularly in laptops. Apple's laptop sales have remained strong.
Keep in mind that Apple computers have always had far longer actual usage (and I would argue, far longer possible usage under the average person's care) than comparable PCs. This is part of what keeps their sales low but their presence felt. Having to compete against older, still very capable computers is nothing new for Apple, and their sales figures have largely adjusted to that cycle.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I don't exactly understand why people buy Apple computers now, unless they like swanky cases. Apple people tell me it's because of rock solid dependability and ease of use for novices or something. O.K. Apple still sells to these people because they don't know how to install Apple on a Dell, which is not as dependable, etc.
For those people who do know how to do it, supported software and dependability is a HUGE benefit, Twinky. Many IT departments don't use, or have stopped using, Linux because it's very unsupported and they can't get answers to problems NOW.
People who know how to do it are a tiny, tiny minority.
I don't think Apple has any illusions about making serious inroads in the enterprise market. Why should they bother? In many major industries, key applications (MS Access, Lotus Notes, AutoCAD, every engineering software package I'm aware of) are Windows-only. Apple and the various Linux vendors are pretty much SOL here, and I think they know it.
What Apple sells is a complete, packaged user experience. From the moment you open the box to when you turn on your new hardware and start using it, what sets Apple apart from the rest of the industry is that they control every single step of the process. Because of this, they can make the whole experience incredibly slick. With Apple Stores, they're even trying to control the user's purchasing experience. People who like some or all of this "slickness" are willing to pay a price premium for it.
Apple doesn't support skins or many other user interface tweaking options; you can do things their way, do things without their blessing and risk them breaking with the next update, or you can buy your computer from someone else. If Apple could be psychoanalyzed, it would be a control freak.
quote:The Ipod and Itunes aren't the OS. Granted, they make money, but they don't make me want to go out and buy an Apple or the OS.
It's been argued that it does make a significant number of people more interested in Macs -- the so-called "halo effect," where people buy iPods and are impressed by the ease-of-use and slick iTunes/iTMS integration, and so when it comes time to buy a new computer they consider a Mac where they wouldn't have before. There's a strong case to be made for it, though it isn't unquestionably true by any stretch. Either way, though, the iPod and iTMS have definitely gotten them massive brand exposure, far more than a few geeks playing with the Mac OS on their homebrew systems could hope to do -- particularly since those geeks can, as Dagonee's recent link demonstrates, already take OS X for a drive on their machines.
Added: Actually, some guys at another forum I frequent have done just that, to see if they could.
quote:There are things like Pear out there which allow you to run OS X on an x86, but I've heard it's pretty slow and kind of kludgy. You are correct that I would like to play around with the software , however I think giving Apple OS more exposure can't help but be good for the Apple bottom line.
I really think that it just wouldn't be worth their while. No one else would write drivers for them; they'd have to make huge investments in code and support with no net payoff because they'd be cannibalizing their own hardware sales. That's what happened when they allowed Mac clones -- they allowed other companies to make hardware compatible with the Mac OS, so you could buy a computer that wasn't a Mac and still run the Mac OS on it. It was an unmitigated disaster. Apple wound up having to buy back the clone-makers' licences for a pretty penny.
Apple has always been about control -- they want to control every aspect of the user's experience, regardless of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Allowing their OS to run on non-Apple hardware would be antethical to their philosophy in addition to hurting them financially. For those reasons, I don't think they'll do it, unless they wind up in Be's situation and are forced to.
The desktop operating system market isn't a lucrative place, as the examples of OS/2, AmigaOS, NeXT, and Be have shown. The desktop hardware market, on the other hand, is highly lucrative. Time will certainly tell, but I'm pretty confident in my prediction that Apple will not support running OS X on generic hardware unless Mac sales go down the drain. Even if it would be a good decision for them, I still don't think they would do it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
twinky: one interesting thing that might happen is Apple making inroads in the enterprise market because their new machines run windows (not practicably, yet, you don't even get graphics, but the barriers will be surmounted).
Apple makes some very nice hardware, after all, and the ability to run Windows, Linux and OS X without emulation will quite possibly appeal in certain segments (for instance, architecture, where they need windows for the CAD software, but a lot of creative work is still done on macs).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure how likely that is, simply because I'm willing to bet that, for companies in that position, the cost of an architect having to reboot his computer to switch operating systems is greater than the cost of simply buying both a Dell and a Mac. However, if virtualization technology becomes common and cheap, all bets on that score are off.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I don't think Apple has any illusions about making serious inroads in the enterprise market. Why should they bother?
*rubs forehead*
I am going to retire from this conversation and think about some of the things that have been brought up.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I don't think Apple has any illusions about making serious inroads in the enterprise market. Why should they bother? In many major industries, key applications (MS Access, Lotus Notes, AutoCAD, every engineering software package I'm aware of) are Windows-only. Apple and the various Linux vendors are pretty much SOL here, and I think they know it.
I happen to work closely with MacEnterprise.org and Apple is not idle. Apple's very competitive products in this market are the Xserve and Xraid. For what they are, their price is screaming deals. Also remember that NeXT was an enterprise company, whose customers were fortune 500 companies. So while old school Apple doesn't have much experience in enterprise, new school Apple does.
quote:Apple doesn't support skins or many other user interface tweaking options; you can do things their way, do things without their blessing and risk them breaking with the next update, or you can buy your computer from someone else. If Apple could be psychoanalyzed, it would be a control freak.
There are so many ways to skin OS X. The most obvious is haxies from http://www.unsanity.com, especially ShapeShifter (there is an XP skin). Naturally, Apple frowns strongly on haxies because it loads a framework that could cause unstableness. But modding Mac OS has been a strong practice since Mac OS 8. The 3rd party market for utilities is amazing. Konfabulator and QuickSilver were 2 utilities that were "added" to 10.4 (to the displeasure of the respective developers). So when you say Apple doesn't support skins, what you mean is that Apple hasn't bought or copied all the 3rd party developers yet.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
As far as Windows and Intel Macs go, why would anyone want to dual boot? WINE Arrives for Intel Macs Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Apple's main competitor is Dell, not MS.
SS: I buy Macs because I don't value the skill of being able to build my own CPU. My CPU's just work and I never have to open it unless I feel like upgrading the hard disk, video card, or memory. And I rarely worry about hardware drivers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I happen to work closely with MacEnterprise.org and Apple is not idle. Apple's very competitive products in this market are the Xserve and Xraid. For what they are, their price is screaming deals.
I haven't said anything about the quality of their server offerings, beyond the abysmal SQL performance of OS X Server. The Xserves are pretty.
However, if you work for a medium-sized or large company in any manufacturing or processing industry, the computer at your desk at work runs Windows. It has to. Unless AutoDesk, IBM, SAP, and Microsoft itself show any interest in making the relevant apps crossplatform, non-Windows operating systems will continue to be irrelevant in this space.
Apple is capable of making significant inroads in the small business sector by offering an integrated Xserve-workstation solution, and as you say, they're working on that. They're also trying to grow their share in industries that have historically been strong for them (print, graphic design, et cetera), but as far as I'm aware they have expressed no interest whatsoever in the chemical process industry, the plastics manufacturing industry, the automotive industry, or any of the other large industries that are completely dominated by Microsoft on the software side.
quote: Also remember that NeXT was an enterprise company, whose customers were fortune 500 companies. So while old school Apple doesn't have much experience in enterprise, new school Apple does.
NeXT was also a failure. I definitely hope Apple doesn't go the way of NeXT -- going out of the hardware business and being bought up by another company looking for software.
quote:There are so many ways to skin OS X. The most obvious is haxies from http://www.unsanity.com, especially ShapeShifter (there is an XP skin). Naturally, Apple frowns strongly on haxies because it loads a framework that could cause unstableness. But modding Mac OS has been a strong practice since Mac OS 8. The 3rd party market for utilities is amazing. Konfabulator and QuickSilver were 2 utilities that were "added" to 10.4 (to the displeasure of the respective developers). So when you say Apple doesn't support skins, what you mean is that Apple hasn't bought or copied all the 3rd party developers yet.
I'm well aware that there are third-party utilities available to mod OS X; I've been using Macs since the mid-eighties. Also, your examples support my view: there have been skin utilities for the Mac OS for ages, but Apple has steadfastly refused to incorporate any significant skinning functionality into their OS. Apple is all about controlling the user experience. There are many third-party ways to skin OS X because there has been strong demand for skin functionality for years and Apple has always refused to provide it.
The examples of Konfabulator and Quicksilver aren't really analogous, the latter particularly so -- the biggest similarity between Quicksilver and Spotlight is that they both "live" in the top right hand corner of the screen. Under the hood the difference is fundamental -- it's not like Quicksilver automatically indexed your hard drive or provided a developer API for using and altering file metadata.
I'm really not sure how you get from "Apple occasionally buys up and/or copies third-party developer ideas that it likes" to "Apple will provide skin functionality or formal support in a future OS release." I don't see that logical leap.
quote:As far as Windows and Intel Macs go, why would anyone want to dual boot? WINE Arrives for Intel Macs
WINE, contrary to what some Linux advocates would have you believe, is far from a be-all and end-all solution for running Windows applications. Dual-booting is still a necessity for many applications (for instance, in the area of Direct3D).
------------
Would I like to see the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware for my own nefarious purposes? Yup. I'd build my own homebrew machine in a heartbeat, probably a small form factor box in a Shuttle or Soldam case. I doubt I'd ever buy Apple hardware again if that happened, unless it was a laptop. I've already seriously considered doing that anyway and switching to Windows, but my preference for the Mac OS is strong enough that I haven't done it yet.
At the end of the day, though, all of this is just opinion and speculation about the future of a computer company. Well, that and a Coke for me this time next year. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just make sure to keep using that "a" in front of "Coke." Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Now we just have to wait and see if the Intel switch makes their marketshare go up or down. I was very, very skeptical of the transition at first, but I'm moderately impressed with how it has been handled so far. Still, I think it'll be 2008 or even 2009 before we'll be able to really guess at whether they'll eventually go software-only. We could make the bet again then. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I can't manage to reach the article in either Safari or Firefox, but the simple answer is no, and the simple reason is that Dvorak's an idiot. He's paid to essentially make up arguments highly likely to start flame wars.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, he's using an argument that someone else initially made, and to me it makes a lot of sense. If most of your profit comes from hardware sales, and you're being held back by your OS that no one knows how to use, then get rid of the OS and get into the Windows PC market.
quote: The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Though these points aren't a slam-dunk for Epstein's thesis, other observations support it. The theory explains several odd occurrences, including Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that ran stories about a musicians' breakout box that has yet to be shipped. Like, who cares?
But if Apple's saber-rattling was done to scare the community into backing off so it wouldn't discover the Windows stratagem, then the incident makes more sense. As does Bill Gates's onscreen appearance during Apple's turnaround when Jobs was taking a pot of money from Microsoft. The Windows stratagem may have been a done deal by then. This may also explain the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What happens after that?
This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January. At Macworld, most observers said that these new Macs could indeed run Windows now.
That's the first half. He mentions that the only people who would really lose out in all of this in any way would be the die-hard fans of Mac OS, but he further argues that Jobs will win them over.
No idea why the article isn't coming up for you. Comes up just fine for me in Firefox.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If you're not aware, this came off of Slashdot from here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Where everyone is basically refuting Dvorak.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Dvorak has been saying for years that Apple is dead. He kept saying it far longer than most people did too. The guy is an idiot. I couldn't even read his article because his points are based on such bogus assumptions. Reading maliciously constructed business contracts make more sense that Dvorak.
Steve Jobs has invested in Mac OS X clear back to 1985, when it was called NeXT. It is built on his philosophy of what an OS should be like, even down to what programming language should prevail, Objective C. OS X is his baby.
He sells hardware for the money and because it makes the OS simpler to support. Besides the cases, the hardware is mostly made by other companies. So hardware is hardly his "baby".
That is an important thing to realize. Apple is a "case" company. They are a "package" company. They are an "experience" company.
It is the reason they don't offer impossible to get refunds so they can advertise their prices $500 cheaper than retail. They aren't going to lure people into dropping $1000 on a computer and then spend the next 3 months trying to get the $500 off only to realize they did something wrong and don't qualify.
It is the reason iLife exists.
It is the reason .Mac exists.
It is the reason most hardcore PC people hate Apple. They like to be independent of Steve. And that isn't what Apple sells. Apple sells a walk in the park, with Steve as your tour guide.
I view switching to Windows as being stuck in a firey hell, with Bill Gates holding the pitchfork. And I prefer Steve's version of reality than Bill's.
Not that either of them are acurate. But the Apple experience is much more pleasant.
[ February 17, 2006, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was getting server-side errors, I may just have been hitting in the worst of the slashdotting.
Dvorak's point is essentially nonsensical. Apple certainly is a hardware company, but it is only their differentiability from other computers that enables them to make much of a profit. Anything reducing that differentiability (economic differentiability, not technical differentiability; things which people thinking about the systems count as meaningful differences) should be viewed as suspect and almost certainly wrongheaded.
In particular, Dvorak underestimates the particular appeal of assorted non-OS software running on macs, and that most of this software would be prohibitive to port to windows development frameworks.
Apple is a hardware company in the sense that they derive most of their profits from hardware sales, but their value-added, what sells their hardware, is in the software (not just that made by Apple, either, though the iLife stuff is a large part of it). Remove the value-added and they start having to compete on the smaller margins other hardware companies have had to accept, either becoming an even smaller market-share elite b0xx0r company like alienware, or YACCM (Yet Another Commodity Computer Manufacturer).
Oh, and apple's switch campaign was quite successful. Their market share increased steadily throughout the period. They didn't topple Windows, but they weren't trying to. Oh, and Apple has used lawsuits against rumor sites obtaining information illegitimately for ages; that Dvorak attempts to make something of this happening yet again reveals quite well how idiotic he is.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)