Slashdot Log In
Apple's Colossal Disappointment?
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jul 26, 2005 04:42 PM
from the more-a-blunder-than-anything-else dept.
from the more-a-blunder-than-anything-else dept.
Mudzy writes "Michael Roberson, founder of Linspire, has an article at The TechZone talking about Apple's 'Colossal Disappointment' for not porting Mac OS X to PC after they announced the move to Intel processors. He discuss why this could be a mistake." From the article: "Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
They are exceptionnal engineers and very lousy businessman, let's hope they try to change in the near future...
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
And exactly how many companies that were making desktop computers in the '70s are still around today, have tens of millions of paying customers, and billions in the bank?
Get a clue. Don't measure everything against what a company like M$ did, much of which has since been determined to be illegal. Apple's business sense has been just fine. The company has weathered many storms precisely because they had financial buffers that the businessmen put in place as the technology landscape unfolded. No one knew exactly how it was all going to turn out, and most crashed and burned along the way. You should wish that you were so 'lousy' at succeeding in any business, let alone the cut throat computer business.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
History-wise, Apple look a bit daft occasionally. Nowadays, they're on top...
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
They make profit, they drive the market (and open new markets & massively expand existing small ones - iPod, consumer video), and seem generally content with their size.
If by "where they should be" you mean "Apple should have 95% of the marketshare like Microsoft," then I think you should go back and re-think some details. Apple is in a pretty good place, and has been so for quite a few years at this point. To varying degrees, Apple has been doing pretty well since their first return to decent profitability with the 2nd generation G3 desktops, followed by the generally steady climb up starting with the iMac (dotcom bust notwithstanding) and going through to their current situation with the iPods, Mac mini's, and current iMacs. I don't think they're in a bad place.
Parent
why would apple run on dells and white boxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
you think apple wants to enter the creaky world of "mad dog" peripherals and dock sweepings network cards, PCs with pushed speeds, and all sorts of marginal parts from mysterious outfits that come and go in the night? why in hell would anybody wish that support hell on them?
you control your hardware environment, you control the number of crash-and-burn intersices between hardware misbehaviors.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually a more apt comparison would be a weapons manufacturer and a munition manufacturer. It actually makes sense, as they have one product tailor-made to compliment the other. I don't see why Apple should have to make a choice here, I think their "one-stop shop" approach to computing makes a lot of sense in today's world of shite PCs running a shite OS...
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Informative)
I mean how many people do you think would like to run OSX on a cheap Dell pc? How many people do you think would like to run Windows or Linux on a cool looking mac? Of course the Apple fanboys would still run OSX on the mac, but could they be getting more market by offering choices?
You can run Windows and Linux on Macs. While Linux can be installed directly on a Mac Windows has to be installed in a virtual machine such as Virtual PC. As for MacOS on PCs, most PCs use Intel and Apple is switching to Intels. Now if you mean sale MacOS so Dell and others can build Macs, Apple tried that. For a short period Apple allowed other manufactures to clone Macs but Apple lost more in Mac sales than they made in licensing MacOS.
FalconParent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes people buy Apple is not their software. It's not their hardware (with the exception of the iPod, perhaps). It's certainly not their price or perceived value.
What Apple survives on is two things: 1) the semi-mythical and nearly impossible to quantify 'coolness' factor, and 2) the user experience. People buy Macs because they're easy to use (or at least they have a wide perception as being easy to use, which in marketing is virtually the same thing) and powerful. It's the whole "it just works" philosophy, as cliched as that might sound.
Apple can maintain it's edge in user experience because they have very tight hardware/software integration. By monopolizing the hardware which their OS will run on, they can limit the number of possible system configurations and then test the hell out of them, build drivers into the OS, etc. A lot of Mac users don't even know what a device driver is! (I'm pretty sure actually if I asked for a device driver to some friends of mine they'd ask whether I wanted the flat kind or the Philips-head kind.)
If Apple sold the Mac OS for distribution on commodity x86 hardware, suddenly a lot of their advantage would disappear. You'd instantly go from a few dozen out-of-the-box configurations to thousands or millions, and have loads of incompatible hardware that people would expect to be able to use.
Also, they'd have to start playing hardball about software licensing, which they've never done and would probably alienate a lot of users, and do a lot of damage to their "nice guy" image. A lot of PC users are surprised to know that there is no serialization during the Mac OS install process. None at all. If you have an Apple computer and an install CD, you can put the system on it. There's obviously quite a bit of piracy that goes on (and always has) but I assume Apple just doesn't bother because they realize even the pirates have paid them some money for the hardware they're installing the stolen system on. And the progress of operating systems requires you to buy new hardware periodically anyway, so you're always going to cough up every few years. They can afford to be nice.
If Apple started selling the software by itself, I have no doubt (given their performance with iTMS) that they would come out with some pretty robust 'activation' scheme. This to me would be obnoxious: it's one of the things I've always enjoyed feeling above, as a Mac and Free Software user.
Apple had their experiment with commodity hardware back in the clone days (anyone remember CHRP?), and Jobs pulled the plug. I don't think they'll go back there again. The question which interests me most today is, when Apple releases their first x86 version of Mac OS X for actual Apple/Intel boxes, how hard will they try to keep hackers from moving it to commodity hardware just for hobby and experimental purposes.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem right there. One of the issues that I understand Apple has much less of is the fact that there's only a limited number of hardware and software combinations, and Apple knows how the OS will interact with the hardware, because it knows all the details on both.
Quite possibly, Apple's defination of "stable drivers" is quite more strict than yours (and mine as well), so that "It just works" is a reality, and to really protect hardware stability, they need to control the hardware platform so that the software behaves as expected.
Then again, they could just be control freaks for the sake of being control freaks.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Informative)
if they could produce enough stable drivers to support a wide range of hardware, i think it would be very good for them in terms of profit. in fact i don't see why they aren't going for this option... maybe they're afraid that their hardware will cease to have a following if people can run os x on cheaper but still capable machines. maybe they're afraid of what direct competition with microsoft could do to them. whatever it is i hope they get over it and release os x for non apple hardware. windows is begging for more competition
Already tried. Apple didn't make enough licensing MacOS to replace their lost hardware sales.
FalconParent
Re: was it os x? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft would call up Dell and say, "ship MacOS X on one single box and your price on Windows will triple."
And that will be the end of OS X on PCs. They killed Be in this manner and they can and will do it again.
The average user isn't going to care about OS X any more than they did about MacOS. I doubt that most non Mac users have any idea what the difference is between MacOS and MacOS X.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft *does* offer hardware companies access to Microsoft engineers on a contract basis for writing, testing, and debugging drivers. They charge [some unknown amount] for those services.
Microsoft also [probably for a fee, I don't know] offer a driver certification program.
If you can make your driver pass their driver certification, you are allowed to put the "Designed for Windows XP" logo on your product. If it does not, you may not.
If your driver does not pass the certification, then it will be an "unsigned" driver (like almost all nVidia and AIi drivers), and users will get a warning when installing it.
Installing an unsigned driver automatically sets a system restore point if you have system restore enabled and it is functioning properly.
Microsoft does provide some basic drivers, such as the drivers for a generic USB Mass Storage device, or for a generic USB Human Interface Device, and a few other items.
In the case of both ATi and nVidia, the last time I checked, they had employees that worked full-time inside the Microsoft facility so that they could have access to all the testing & driver development resources.
If you're really in to it, go get some/all of the Windows XP DDK (Driver Development Kit) and... erm... have fun!
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it has really been killing Microsoft's Bottom Line :)
Software is not a burden. Apple uses their software to sell their hardware. I wouldn't buy a computer if I had to code everything I wanted myself (i'd install Linux if I wanted that :) Just a joke, don't kill me).
I think that Apples future lies in their software. Really, people are in love with their Mac because of OS X, not because of the silicon and components that make up the hardware.
Apple is transitioning to a future where they can produce more higher quality hardware, and they are going to use OS X to sell the pants off of it.
People think that Apple (the stock) is over-valued. I think that the market has merely recognized that Apple is now in a position to increase its sales 25%+ Year over Year for more than a couple straight quarters.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Hardly. If anything the original iMac should of taught you is that Apple above else is a fashion company.
They sell computers that look (objective, yes, but still) and function "great."
PowerBooks sell incredibly well because among other things compared to many PC Laptops they are made very well. Where many PC Laptops feel like they're made out of cheap plastic the Mac Laptops are made out of Bulletproof plastic (iBooks) and Aluminum (PowerBooks)
They're designed in a way that its practically impossible to accidently hit any buttons from the outside. No eject button that keeps getting pushed while you're trying on your lap. No Play/Stop buttons that get tapped at inconvient moments. And more over all of the ports are on the side of the laptops, nothing hidden on the back of the machine so no having to reach around and guess where the cable goes in or having to close the lid or rotate the laptop to get to it.
Lots of thought went into the actual case design of the PowerBook and iBook that in the case of many PC Laptops simply isn't there.
I had a PC Laptop (still do) that the CD-Rom drive try broke because as I was putting the laptop down the overly sensitive eject button on the drive got tapped and within a split second popped out while it was being put down and snapped off. That sort of thing doesn't happen with a PowerBook or iBook.
I already know people that are planning on buying Intel-based PowerBooks when they come out just to stick Windows on them because on average a 12" PowerBook holds up much better then the equivalent PC Laptop.
That's not to say that they are entirely without flaw, but stepping into a Apple Store it should be noticable that the design of the machines themselves is very significant to Apple and to many people that buy their products.
Moreover. Mac OS X simply isn't made to run on non-Apple hardware. The testing bluntly put isn't there. Its made to run on hardware that has been approved and shipped by Apple with its drivers tested to make sure it doesn't conflict with anything, hopefully. The amount of extra work that would have to be done developing and QA to ensure that Mac OS X works on all the hardware available for the PC right now just isn't done at Apple right now, nor has Apple shown the desire to do it.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Apple has many breads and many butters: Macs and iPods. They are both strategically important to the company's continued success. Software sales are a big business, too, and that's important to them.
2. Macs aren't reserved for the "bowels of marketing or tech document department[s]." A good number of students use them, lots of movie stars, bankers, lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, artists, writers, teachers, politicians, programmers..... (a light should start flashing in your head.. That's your idea light.)
In fact, the Mac has continued to dramatically outpace PC market gain.
3. If Apple's opportunity were closing EVERY DAY, then how have they forged such a comeback? The truth is, there is no abstract definition of when a company gets hot and when it doesn't. Solid innovation with great marketing at an affordable price is a formula for success. Besides, if their window were closing every day, why has the Mac's market gains continued to SPEED UP? Wouldn't that mean the window continues to open?
4. I know what an "executive wannabee" is, I think, but I don't know what it has to do with Mac OS X.
5. Ah yes, a new Windows is on the horizon. Vista! Longhorn! All of 18 months away and short on features compared to OS X Tiger (and Leopard). The truth is, more and more consumers are moving to Mac OS X in droves because they're sick of Windows treating them like second class citizens in the OS world, they're sick of crap security and viruses, and they appreciate the incredible design that went into their iPod and iTunes music store.
6. No offense to my audience here.. but I don't think Linux is on any march to "critical desktop mass." Your argument seems to be that the Mac is doomed and that droves of people are lining up to buy Linux boxes and compile a window manager. Um... you might want to find your way back to earth. Find out if anything hit Discovery on your way back, if you like.
7. Apple, like them or not, is a cultural icon more than ever. They are one of the world's top brands - and that is something that will fuel growth for 10 years. Brands are a powerful thing.
Anyway, next time you want to go on a rant, back it up with some facts. Don't just make absurd comments.
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Informative)
If I am not mistaken, I think .NET 2.0 was pulled (or at least significantly scaled [eweek.com] back [theregister.co.uk])and would be included as a later stand alone addition/download (a la WinFS [com.com]).
XAML, if you want to do a little reading for fun, there is a good review [devx.com] of it that concludes:
There are also people out there who see XAML as just a proprietary XML and MS will try to do to XML what they did with JScript/JavaScript
That doesn't count loads of other features, like the explorer, IE 7, a ton of security features, better search, better web services through Indigo (try doing web services with PHP now - I've done it, and it's such a pain that it's not really worth it. Microsoft nailed web services in 2002, and the new stuff is even better!).
I have alway been happy with SOAP/XML and it seems like they are doing [w3.org] pretty [apache.org] well [google.com] Also, it seems like Indigo isn't what it used to be [theregister.co.uk], or at least not yet. We also do not know how these new services will affect other internet users, presumably they will be a Vista only feature and in that case, how many developers will fully embrace them with MS's current adoption [betanews.com] rate [oreillynet.com] for XP. Will the Vista adoption rate be better or worse? One could argue not as good due to the increased system requirements for the "full" Vista experience, compared to the 98/2000 upgrade path. We went from 66MHz/16MB/225MB to 133MHz/64MB/2GB to "current processor, current computer". From that I guess 2GHz/512MB-1GB/64MB-128MB-256 VRAM [wikipedia.org], (hard drive space is not an issue anymore) That is quite an increase in specs, though I admit that is extrapolation from this [com.com]:
Apple is doing the slapdash hacks, and Microsoft leads the way in beautifully architected software.
Now you are just tossing out some flamebait. "Slapdash hacks" is a disservice to the wonderful integretion of OOS into OS X. Also OS X has been lauded by many (I hate to do this, but this was the best all-in-one [apple.com] collection I could find without searching/cutting/pasting all night. This is only slightly bigger than the attention Apple was given for Panther.
Also, MS has been accused of many, many things, but has never been accused of creating "beautifully architected software". Seriously, XP SP2 took some important steps, but I am not going to say any such words until I see a final p
Parent
Re:Apple isn't stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, isn't it?
(I am a Windows user.)
Parent
Windows vs. Mac increasingly less relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple sells _computers_, not just software (Score:5, Insightful)
Look how well that worked before: Palm + OPENSTEP (Score:4, Insightful)
Palm spins off PalmOS and licenses OS here and their hardware. Result: Palm corp gets nearly destroyed, Handspring merges back, and Windows Pocket takes off.
And then there's the fact that Steve Jobs tried exactly the same thing before, with nearly the same operating system back when it was grey instead of lickable: OPENSTEP.
How well were they able to keep up with drivers for modern hardware? Very poorly.
How well were they able to convince major PC makers to include OPENSTEP as pre-built option, at a competitive price? Not one bit.
Did this make NeXT Inc, stronger or weaker compared to when NeXT made hardware? Much weaker.
Jobs had a near-death experience doing exactly this strategy.
There's also the fact that this puts them in direct competition with Microsoft, attempting to copy Microsoft's business model, and competing with Microsoft for clients.
How well has this worked for IBM {OS/2}? Not very well at all.
How well does this work for Linux, which is even free and has zillions of people trying to write drivers? Only marginally, after 10 years. You can't easily click a button and get a Linux based Dell (especially a laptop) with everything pre-loaded, supported, and with all features working. After 10 years.
Parent
Ohh how quickly we forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ohh how quickly we forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad idea for Apple, in the short term at least. Since it would cut deaply and immediately into Hardware sales as it did with the Mac clones (I bought a clone, but would I have bought an Apple?).
Keep in mind that being an OS company has worked pretty well for Microsoft as a business model, but they weren't trying to sell their own hardware except as accessories for the software (ie the MS mouse) I think in the long term that Apple could get out of the hardware business altogether and sell the OS only. Or alternately split the hardware and software businesses as was envisioned with the clones.
Though, I agree why mess with a good thing, but the clone strategy was in response to slipping market share, not the cause of it. Ultimately, I think the clones helped maintain mindshare and helped Apple reinvent itself.
Another counter example, Sun now has a x86 version of Solaris that works on non Sun hardware. But that makes sense simply because it means that unix admins and college students can hone their Solaris skills on commodity hardware which helps support their core server business.
Overall, I'd just be a little less quick to judge the lessons learned from the Apple clone experience. After all, it was a short lived business model and the Mac OS wasn't nearly as good a product as it is now.
Parent
Disappointment? (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is in catbird seat (Score:5, Interesting)
When the conditions are most ripe...
when Apple is ready to face that challenge from a support perspective...
when Microsoft becomes more loathed with the release of Vista which will have 8,000 viruses out for it BEFORE its released...
you don't walk into a saloon and just start shooting up the place even if you're packing a big-ass gun. You wait to size up the situation, you make sure that you're transition to Intel is complete and solid, and you make your move when you want to.
Hell, just that very THREAT should be enough to keep Microsoft awake, pissing their pants at night. That's what the US military did to the Iraqi's the first Gulf War... we kept them awake for a whole 36 hours waiting for them to be so tired of staying awake, anticipating the strike that we did far more damage than if we had attacked at zero hour.
Don't be stupid and confuse shrewd business timing tactics for making bad decisions. This linspire guy has his head shoved up his ass if he thinks Jobs isn't interested in beating the stuffing out of Microsoft.
Apple will do what's best for them - not us (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it from Apple's point of view, the things he points out as negatives work more like positives:
1. Forced upgrades. Apple has announced "dual binary" support for their applications for an unspecified length of time, but either way the company has to be salivating at how many people will be buying new machines in 10 more months. And as recent reports show, they're selling more machine now than ever, so it would appear that the "halo effect" is greater than the "Osborne effect".
2. If Apple sales continue to do well after the final shift to Intel, then Apple can keep on their plans: make money off of computer and iPod sales (and whatever other new devices they come up with). Right now, they have a good line of movie editing software which only works on their software set (and they control the hardware to run it), they are developing other business tools (Pages and the like). So as long as people keep buying their machines and their market share is growing with the company making good profits, why change?
3. If, in some future, Apple decides to do cloning, it is in their best interest to do it later than sooner. My reasoning? They can use the next 10-36 months to iron out all of the issues dealing with the Intel transfer, see how the market reacts, how things like an "OS X WINE" works out, and so on. Then, with this expertise, they will be in a perfect position to dictate to cloners how things will work so the "Mac Experience" will be maintained, rather than just throwing the OS to the winds and hoping for the best.
Would I like it if Apple just let OS X free? Sure - but that's not in Apple's best interest. So, as long as they show a steady rise in profit and sales, I don't see them changing their minds any time soon. They seem to be doing what works, which probably makes them and their investors happy.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Control of Hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
Now imagine how much control Apple has, knowing exactly what hardware their OS will be running on. They can do any number of things to optimize their OS and software to the hardware, and still keep their high level of stability.
Porting OSX out to everything would have also gotten rid of the sexy mac machines vs. the ugly beige PCs. And I am sure the MBAs out there will tell me that there are all kinds of money reasons that Apple wants to control their own hardware.
From the Linspire founder perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote from him "I would love to see Apple's PC market share reverse its downward trend". Is pure FUD being sown by the Linspire folks. I think Linspire should focus on competing with the other Linux distros out there. For the last six months report after report has been showing Apple increasing their sales. i.e. PC units sold (+35% from the same quarter last year) and profitability primarily due to the iPod.
old news, but interesting facts (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure Michael is bluffing. He knows that if Apple allowed OS X to run on commodity hardware Linspire's potential market would be marginalized even further... it could be devastating to the Linux desktop push. Why would he want such competition from Apple?
It's rather curious that a week after that, Michael stepped down from CEO of Linspire (check the Michael's Minute entitled "What's Our Purpose in Life") Cause-and-effect? Maybe. Correlation? Definitely.
Michael's not dumb. He feigned disappointment at the Apple on Intel announcement, but my guess is that it was a carefully orchestrated bluff to allow him to distance himself from Linspire in the weeks after.
Any company investing in LOTD with the hopes of profitability had better hope to god that Apple does not allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It's just common sense.
Re:old news, but interesting facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Article down already, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Robertson criticizes Apple for not porting OS X to work on stock PCs.
2) Robertson happens to be the head of a company competing for those very desktops.
Why would he really want Apple to step into the market he himself is trying to gain market share in? Maybe, just maybe, he's riding on Apple's popularity as an opportunity to promote his own solutions?
Nah. That's just crazy.
(On a side note, I saw him give a presentation once, and before he started the presentation he asked how many people owned/used iPods. Only a few hands went up. Then, during his presentation where he spoke about their "LTunes" and their iTMS clone, he criticized iPod for being hard to use, saying thigns like "how do you turn this thing off? This thing is hard to use. We practiced turning it on, but we didn't practice turning it off..." I'm sorry, he's either so brain-dead he can't use a consumer electronics device with clearly labeled play and stop buttons on it, or he's playing to the ignorance of the crowd. The former makes him stupid, the latter makes him dishonest. And I don't think he's THAT stupid.
IBM's lack of motivation, not their inability (Score:4, Insightful)
*yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)
There will *never* be a general PC release for OS X, their profit margin is just too good on their own hardware, why would they want to spawn a bunch of cheap competitors?
He seems to be missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if they ported OSX so it could run on every PC, that means supporting a billion devices, or letting a billion drivers do who-knows-what and it would be a mess, just like Linux and Windows are (yes, I'm a Linux fan, don't give me shit I'm just being realistic here...)
Blaming IBM's capabilities misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple delivered more product or *gasp* payed IBM to develop low power processors for the laptop market, they couldn't complain. Should Apple have paid IBM for development when getting it from AMD/Intel in the x86 world would be free? No, but people should believe that it was because their vendor was incapable. It was just the Apple itself isn't significant enough to justify chip development with low payoff for IBM.
-Ho
Hasn't this been done to death? (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, Apple have significantly less resources to test OS X with the wide range of x86 hardware out there than Microsoft does, and even Microsoft can't get it right half the time. If they were to dedicate the required time and energy to making sure it worked on as many configurations as reasonable, OS X for x86 would put Longhorn to shame in the "RSN" department with all the delays it'd experience.
This is why geeks aren't in charge of companies. If I were to speculate, I'd say this is Apple's strategy.
Re:Hasn't this been done to death? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple becomes the company that creates markets for all the Really Cool Stuff that will make its way into the commodity PC market two or three years later, once sufficient consumer demand exists. Apple gets first-mover advantage on all that tech, which means:
2a. Apple's branding of the technology goes into the cultural mindset. Face it, the term 'podcasting' is a kick in the balls for the marketing department of any other portable-audio-device vendor.
3a. Apple sticks to the "limited, 'overpriced' hardware" model, but becomes known as the platform to own if you really want to be on the cutting edge. Apple's market share grows 'modestly' to cover the 20% of the market that generates 80% of the profit.
4a. Apple gets a tasty new line of hardware design, middleware, and brand licensing once Microsoft, Dell, et al decide enough of a market exists to warrant adopting the new technologies.
5a. Apple develops a good relationship with Intel's R&D group, meaning some of Intel's resources get devoted to creating Apple's Next Big Thing, which can then be turned around and licensed to the PC market once sufficient consumer demand exists.
It isn't unreasonable to think that Apple could get $15-25 in technology and brand licensing for every Windows box sold, without ever having to license OS X itself. And the direct revenue from Apple's own version of the technologies, the tighter integration with Intel's R&D wing, the massive branding potential, and the increased market share wouldn't hurt either.
We geeks need to realize that an OS isn't a single, monolithic product. It's a whole package of things, and Apple can make a whole ton of money licensing individual items from the package without ever licensing the whole 'OS' package itself.
Parent
Hey Apple: Pay Attention (Score:5, Funny)
Linspires collosall disappointment (Score:4, Funny)
But its just a shitty, unpolished Linux distro.
Oh well.
The Argument is Backwards: We need windows on macs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Excuse Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
- The switch will be painless
Creating Fat Binaries is easy and quick for those using Xcode. Been there, done that already. And as Motorola is no longer supporting CodeWarrior, everybody not using Xcode woulld have had to make the jump sooner or later
- Apple has no interest in having the OS running on other hardware. They are a hardware company, this is how they run their business.
Just my 0.02
Alex
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah, there's a load of difference between developers supporting a platform and developers releasing a bunch of new binaries to existing customers without charge. Sure, Apple developers are going to recompile their apps, and some of them are going to take advantage of the opportunity to add a few features and make your Intel-native version a paid upgrade. Users who find the overhead incurred by Rosetta are going to come up with the extra cash ( or pirate the native version while cursing the developer, or find a cheaper competing product ).
Either way, few, if any, current OS X developers are going to look at the Intel transition and say "this is way too hard to do with my existing code base, I don't see opportunity here, I'm going to go code for ( Windows/Linux/Solaris/BeOS/SCOUnix/etc ) instead."... That's all that matters for Apple in the long term. In the short term, it's a little annoying for users, and it's an opportunity for enterprising developers to snatch business from competing products by offering better product or cheaper prices to users faced with a paid upgrade, and/or gain user loyalty by providing free Intel Native updates, like some are already doing.
NeXT had OpenStep which was originally going to be pushed forward with OS X, as "Yellow Box" - theoretically, a set of runtime DLLs could have been installed on a Windows box, and the same code could run on either platform. (I don't remember if it was a common binary, fat binary, or recompile).
OpenStep is a specification. GNUStep [gnustep.org] is an implementation of that specification, which works on Intel now- even Windows if you're willing to use Cygwin or MingW and don't mind an app that doesn't look like a windows app. I never got into OpenStep Toolkit for Windows development ( I *think* that was the implementation ), but if there are DLLs involved, they're probably for windowing and other such similar basic functionality that would be used by any app? The app itself would be a binary, 'fat' only if compiled for multiple platforms of course. If you were careful enough not to use Apple-only features, you could do the same thing with GNUStep today.
Certainly code written in Carbon is going to have no common technology with NeXT. Maybe apps written with Cocoa code take advantage of what used to be Yellow Box.
Other than Altivec code ( which, espeically if older, will almost always need a complete rewrite), Carbon code is going to be the toughest to port to Intel, from what I understand. I'm not talking about single-line carbon library calls, those are probably no problem, I'm talking about Carbon windows, controls, and real serious amounts of legacy stuff. On the other hand, if Microsoft can move Office, everyone else can get going and start moving that Carbon code to Cocoa. It's not hard. Hire me to do it for you. Really. What are you waiting for... I don't waste THAT much time posting to /., I swear...
Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing fewer apps with weird Carbon behavior that mistakenly claim the computer is out of memory and don't know the right path name. They're actually pretty rare already, and I'm not going to miss them.
Parent
Re:More posturing (Score:5, Funny)
But hey, ignorance about who wrote the article for the win.
Parent
Re:Follow Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Most copies of Windows come with a brand new computer. Dell probably pays less than $25 a pop for these, which is not a ton of revenue. When you factor in the costs of R&D, it's a shitty profit margin. They make their big bucks from applications like Office.
No, it really wouldn't. Microsoft only works because they're a monopoly. If Apple were to start behaving like a monopoly with 15% market share, they would die.
Parent