O'Reilly Thinks Mac OS X May Be the 'Next Big Thing' 99
Arkham writes "Tim O'Reilly gave a speech at WWDC called 'Watching the Alpha Geeks: Mac OS X and the next big thing', in which he suggested that Apple is doing the right things to be a big success. Specifically, Apple should continue to 1) adhere to standards, 2) keep things small and modular, and 3) document as you go -- man pages and RFCs. Anyone who has used Mac OS X can see that Apple is trying hard to be a good open-source citizen (for example, the new zero-config Rendezvous technology). The question is, at what point will these efforts pay off (more users, and thus more money)?" What is this "money" you speak of?
Never tried... (Score:4, Insightful)
Never tried OSX yet, but i've heard too many good things to let it just slide by the and not be used. Hence this week im gonna grab a G4 from work to have a try on :)
Anyway apple are playing the Darwin core, and gettin the Open Source community to take a look at it...get the support of the people and you will have a excellent OS...linux for example :)
Documentation (Score:1, Insightful)
Too many APIs are are shoddily documented at present.
Where Apple is going (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Apple has become very successful over the last few years because they started catering for those consumers who don't like to fight with the computer and who have difficulty comprehending computers. Most of us who have been at this for years with various OS's and computers (WinXXX, Mac OS XX, Linux, BSD , x86, PPC etc) have become used to working out how the things work. We all have that certain contempt for users who have difficulty comprehending how to use a contextual menu, a config file or the labyrinth of MS control panels. Apple addressed this with the iMacs, iBooks and Mac OSX IMO, by providing a simple "dumbed down" UI (and this will go even further with the next release of OSX, which has a "simple finder" option) and by continuing to use single button mice. Until you've seen a friend who uses windows and look at astonishment at you as you use the contextual menu, you won't be able to appreciate this.
2.Apple made a very wise decision to mix it's OS with an "OpenSource" core (Yes I know) and a propietry GUI. It gives Apple plus points with O'Reilly for instance and some possibilities for dvelopers to influence where the OS is going. At the same time Apple remains in control of the OS and GUI and can concentrate efforts and resources where they are needed.
3. Using NeXT's technology was a big bonus, because ObjC is not that much harder than Java and quite a lot easier than C++ (although many will still use C++).
4.Apple does actually sometimes seem to listen to their users (Spring loaded folders coming back) and does actually seem to bring useful innovations (Rendevouz, Ink, Firewire)into an industry which is scared of taking risks.
5.Also very importantly, and this is not brought up that often, Apple doesn't have the reputation of absolute ruthlessness that Microsoft does. Make no mistake, Apple is still a business and will go over the occasional body (Retailers) but compared to MS they are angels. They seem to have realised that brutal EULA'S only make for bad press and bad attitudes. Apple doesn't care if you run PPC Linux next to Mac OSX and doesn't care if you run an MS emulator, because you bought the hardware.
6. Apple's marketing is an order of magnitude better than MS'. Apple almost never brings technical details into the advertising and relies on celver associations. Compare this to the MS OfficeXP campaign where they showed the smart tabs on the shoulder of a naked woman. What were you supposed to think? OfficeXP = built in porn?
7.Apple does however have one extremely week point, and this is the CPU. NO amount of "Myth" marketing makes up for the fact that they are very far behind in terms of processor peformance. Their reliance on a floundering company, Motorola, for the core of their machines is dangerous. There is still no sign of the mythical G5 and nothing has been said about it for the near future. IMO Apple would be better off buying the PPC area from Motorola, but what do I know.
From a 'Beta Geek' (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not hate Microsoft, nor do I worship Apple. I think MS could be a little more friendly, but business is business, as long as it's legal of course.
So, having said that, when I was in the market for a new laptop a few months back, I compared all of reasonable laptops on the market, regardless of who made it and what OS it ran.
I finally went with the 14.1 LCD'ed iBook for several reasons, and I can honestly say that I have not been unhappy with any feature, whether hardward or software, and that is saying something.
OS X is the best OS I have ever used. It has the darwin core so I can program while out of the office (I have apache, mysql, php, perl, and emacs, it's more of a server-top really). Plus you get the beautiful GUI front-end and excellent gaming support for when you need to relax.
All in all, the best OS I have ever used.
reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
But there is a slight element of ridiculousness to this whole post. The idea that what Apple needs to do to be "a big sucess" and make "more money" is create more man pages is absurd.
Golly gee, maybe they can be as sucessful as Linux next! Do ya think??
If you don't even understand the irony of the above line then you really need a reality check.
Anyhow, like I said I am positively giddy about O'Reilly's love for OS X. I myself benefitted directly from the Apache Web Serving In OS X [oreillynet.com] series of articles which appeared under the O'Reilly banner not long ago. But still...the idea that pandering to the uber-geek is going to do wonders for Apple's marketshare or bottom line is absurd on it's face. They should still do it...but it's consumer products like iMovie, pricing and marketing that affect the bottom line, not man pages.
Read what I wrote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple was doing very badly in the mid '90s and losing a lot of money and customers until Jobs turned the company around. He did this mostly with the iMac at the time. He refined and simplified the product line which also helped a lot and introduced OSX which has done more to get users of other OS's to switch to Macs than any other previous OS (which tended to do the opposite)
"Um...Again it sounds like you are unaware that Apple has been all about ease-of-use for the last two decades"
OF course I know this, and agree that the classic Mac OS was easy to use. But the OS was very unstable and crash prone and quite backward. I sort of include not having to reboot your Mac three or four times a day under ease of use.
"Yet again...this feature has been available for years in previous versions of the Mac OS. Quite useful, I'm told, for very young children.
"
Again, I know this. I was referring to OSX, which hasn't had this until now.
OSX is the future on Macs. Classic Mac OS is not.
My Big Thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Since OS X came out, I have seen some changes that could be perceived as fodder for the "next big thing" argument, even here on Slashdot. For instance:
The reasons for these changes are, to be sure, numurous and loaded with opinion such as those in my own case: No more switching back and forth from Mac to Linux just to get a "full featured" desktop machine. Open a Word doc, make a movie, use your firewire and USB peripherals, surf with IE if you want, jump on the command line, drag and drop, run Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Bash, Grep, etc.... All this and I get hardware that was designed as if someone read my mind (iBook).
Actually becoming the "next big thing" would be great for Apple and it's users but seeing how I've been waiting for years for the next Beatles and the next Michael Jordan, I'm not holding my breath.
Re:I like OS X too.. but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to realize, though, that you aren't Apple's target market. You're willing to take the time to futz around with putting a PC together piecemeal. After you spend $800 on hardware, you're still going to spend several hours installing and configuring the OS and apps. You're willing to track down and fix problems that occur when you want to add hardware, etc.
For you, time is less expensive than cash, and that's cool. You probably enjoy the process as well (I know I do) and most importantly, you have the ability to do the work.
Most of Apple's target market are people who don't have the ability or who don't want to spend the time screwing around with the OS and applications. They just want the computer to work.
With OS X, Apple has provided a fantastic system for people who "just want it to work" as well as providing the hood latch for people who want to get in and get their hands dirty. For you, that might not be worth the price, but the point of the article is that for a growing number of "alpha geeks" it is.
Yes, you can get a barebones Dell or build a FrankenPC for $800. But you won't get the Apple OS, all of the included applications, etc. Estimate the amount of time it would take you to build a system with all of the same features and applications as a $1200 iMac and multiply times standard consulting rates. The savings might not be as large as you think. Especially when you factor in the time it took you to learn the skills that allow you to assemble the box in the first place. It might still be cheaper, but not $400 cheaper.
An iMac with a DVD burner, 512 megs of RAM and its included software is very close in price to a similarly equipped brand-name PC. And both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. And you could make the same argument for building your own $800 PC vs. buying a loaded Dell or Gateway.
I don't see the point in trying to compare a brand-name computer that's shooting for a seamless out-of-box experience with the roll-your-own crowd... the priorities and benefits are too dissimilar.
Re:I like OS X too.. but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you misspelled the word adequate. Even the best x86 PC hardware is far from decent: it doesn't have a real bootloader/monitor in ROM, it can't handle booting to anything but a small handful of archaic video modes (much less boot to a serial console) and it has all kinds of wierd kludgery in the essential hardware (gate A20 cruft, default unidriectional parallel ports, no standard on-board sound or ethernet, etc.). It is no suprise that you can get your PC stuff at a significant discount.
I will easily admit that you can't get the highest MHz CPU, or the flashiest video chipset, in a Mac, but you get better quality hardware at a comparable price to other name brand computers (if you are comparing an Apple to a machine you threw together from parts or bought from a parts-shop hole-in-the-wall, you probably haven't considered the warrantee price).
All of this said, I run a few x86 PCs at home, along side my Macs (the house is evenly split: 3 PCs, 3 PowerMacs, 1 Compaq LTE and 1 PowerBook) mostly because an x86 box was the best choice fo Linux until a few years ago (LinuxPPC is damn nice these days, though it lacks some support for some browser plug-ins). Still, I've always been frustrated by the things I can't do on a stock x86 PC that take no effort at all on a Mac.