Apple's Focus is Still Software 146
bonch writes "Via a Forbes interview, Steve Jobs reassures Apple faithful that despite the runaway success of products like the iPod they are still a committed software company. He also talks about the real motivations behind negotiating Microsoft's 1997 $150 million investment in Apple, the development that went into the original iTunes (only four months!), their future expected revenues, and much more. MacObserver provides an overview, and Fortune has excerpts here."
Gee (Score:2, Insightful)
That couldn't be because they cannibalized another product and its development staff, and pretty much produced a half-baked "brushed steel" version of the same, now could it?
I remember the original iTunes, and I far preferred the product they'd based it on, Casady & Greene's SoundJam MP.
Re:Gee (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, the original iTunes was crap - I'm sorry. I'm a long-time Mac user and today's iTunes is worlds ahead of the original incarnation they put out.
Here's an old review [macworld.com]. They didn't even add an equalizer (standard on MP) until the second release! Everything that makes the program useful today was lacking when they first released it. The only thing this had going for it was the fact that it was free - and, thankfully, that it got a lot better.
Re:Gee (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember C&G's SoundJam too, and the article actually mentions it and Apple's "cannibalization," as you put it, of its development staff. The details don't really seem to jibe with what I remember, though--did Fortune magazine get it wrong?
Re:Gee (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know what SoundStep is, and certainly SoundJam was ready for market long ago... it was reviewed in MacWorld, it was a popular product.
Who knows.
Re:Gee (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gee (Score:2)
Re:Gee (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gee (Score:2, Informative)
Crap? No. Minimal? Yes. (Score:2)
Since then, iTunes has gotten a hell of a lot better.
And I've never bothered with the equalizer or the music store. Funny how the feature you HAVE TO HAVE influences your judgment of the product in its early life...
(of course, for some people, holding out on
Re:Gee - Audion for Mac OS Classic and OS X (Score:2, Informative)
on the other hand, SoundJam's competitor, Audion, is still around, available for Mac OS Classic as well as Mac OS X for free:
http://www.panic.com/audion/ [panic.com]
Here's a comparison chart (slightly biased, perhaps) of Audion vs. the early version of iTunes:
http://www.panic.com/audion/chart.html/ [panic.com]
Regards,
Walter.
Why not RTFA? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, according to the article, Jeff Robbin (SoundJam's developer) and his team started over from scratch and "pounded out the first version of iTunes in less than four months."
Not sure why they didn't just take SoundJam and re-skinned it, but if it needed to be rewritten from the ground up, there may have been a need for future expandability somewhere...
Re:Gee (Score:2)
Yes, SoundJam was better than iTunes. And iTunes 1 was based on SoundJam.
However, the rest of your post is sketchy at best. C&G never owned SoundJam. SoundJam was owned by the developers who wrote it, including Jeff Robbins. Jeff Robbins also worked at Apple at the time.
Apple purchased the publishing rights to SoundJam, purchased the source code from Jeff & co, and transferred the developers (who they already employed) to the new iTunes division.
By iTunes 2, Apple had reached feature parity wi
Re:Gee (Score:2)
The rest of my post? Dude, you summed it up in the first line: "Yes, SoundJam was better than iTunes. And iTunes 1 was based on SoundJam."
I took issue with the Fortune interviewer apparently being fuckin' amazed that they could turn out something like iTunes 1 in four months. And my reply is, well, it wasn't very good. Later I clarified and said, "okay, it got better" - and being a Mac-head, I use it every day, even on my Windows PC at work. But that doesn
That's what I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
I ended up thinking "wow, Apple is really a software company that happens to make hardware".
Re:That's what I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac mini is kinda neat, in that it's so small and all, but it's not really selling as well as it is just because of its small size. In general, Apple hardware is impressively engineered, but people often aren't buying Apple hardware for the Apple hardware. They buy Apple hardware for the Apple software. The real reason the mini was the "big event of the night" is that it was a sub-$500 way to get OSX.
Exactly!! (Score:5, Interesting)
And to anyone else in my same position who hasn't even tried OSX, the learning curve is surprisingly small. I recommend David Pogue's OSX: The Missing Manual Book which helped translate windows fuctionality to the mac equivalants. Also check out The Top 100 OSX Applications [creationrobot.com], it has helped me determine what the mac equivalant of my favorite windows software is.
Re:Exactly!! (Score:2)
Of course the best resource are all of the mac websties and forums, my home is Macnn [macnn.com]. Two useful threads from there: What application do I use if I need to....? [macnn.com] and Your top 5 [share|free]where (lots here) [macnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's what I thought (Score:2)
Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle? (Score:2)
what's your secret. i've been trying to get my district to go with some macs for a while, especially for my AP comp sci class. they're still stuck in the OS9 mentality. they say it's cost, but when you figure in anti-virus, security software, lockremote control, etc., it adds hundreds plus when you talk about maintanence and upkeep...
apple has traditionally been a hardware company. that is their forte. when they do software, they have the advantage
Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd consider it a disservice to students to not make them use at least Linux/BSD/Unix, Ms Windows and OSX. You need to prepare studnets for the real world, and in the real world there is more than Windows. Particularly in computer science where embedded systems that don't run Ms Windows are big. Not to mention artists who generally don't run MS Windows.
I don't know how you can apply this, but it should be a part of your argument somehow. Good luck.
Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle? (Score:2)
This is a valid argument. But be prepared for some potentially strong disagreement. Remember, the for most people the "real world" is Compaq and Dell running Windows XP. There are people out there who don't know that Apple is still in business (though as of la
Full article (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, I have it on good authority that NYU's Bobst Library [nyu.edu], at 70 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012, subscribes to a whole bunch of periodicals.
Re:Full article without entering anything (Score:5, Informative)
Steve Jobs, the silver-tongued king of Apple Computer, is explaining how the world's opinion of his company has risen with the triumph of the iPod. We're in our third phone conversation, following up on a 2 1/2-hour interview in the Apple boardroom a few days before. Jobs is obviously feeling good, and with good reason. Overnight, it seems, Apple has broken out of its box as a boutique computer maker and emerged as a force to be reckoned with in consumer electronics, music, and who knows what else. "The great thing is that Apple's DNA hasn't changed," he says. "The place where Apple has been standing for the last two decades is exactly where computer technology and the consumer electronics markets are converging. So it's not like we're having to cross the river to go somewhere else; the other side of the river is coming to us."
Apple's recent achievements, in fact, make it look as if it is walking on water. Its stock price, which languished during and after the dot-com crash, suddenly more than tripled last year. (It recently hit an all-time high of nearly $80 a share.) In January, Jobs crowed that Apple had posted the highest revenues and profits in its 28-year history for its fiscal first quarter ending Christmas Day. Propelled by sales of 4.6 million iPod portable digital music players, revenues zoomed by 74%, to $3.5 billion for the quarter, putting the company on track, by analysts' estimates, for a $13 billion 2005. Meanwhile profits more than tripled.
The DNA may not have changed, but the external transformation is dramatic. No longer is Apple's business limited to computers--though it did sell more than a million Macs last quarter for the first time in four years. Today the company's ever-expanding products encompass multimedia applications for creative professionals and consumers, the thriving
In his first extended interview since undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer last summer, Jobs eagerly explains how Apple has pulled all this off and drops hints about where the company is going and how big he expects it to get. (For excerpts from the interview, see 'Our DNA Hasn't Changed'.) But as the conversation unfolds, Steve doesn't talk about the next gotta-have-it gizmo or ultracool ad campaign or trendsetting industrial design. None of those, he says, is Apple's core strength or primary competitive advantage. Instead he's going to talk about software--the central strand that runs through all of Apple's success.
Steve being Steve, he's doing this partly because he's selling something. This spring, Apple will unveil Tiger, an update of its OS X operating system that, at $129 a pop, will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of high-profit sales. (More about Tiger later.) Even so, for Steve to credit software for Apple's success sounds so hopelessly dweeby, so Bill Gates, that it seems hardly worth muting your iPod for--until you consider the new business model it has helped Apple spawn. Indeed, the whole iPod phenomenon is, underneath it all, one big interwoven software creation. The iTunes jukebox that coordinates the mind-meld between your iPod and your Mac or PC is just the most obvious chunk of code. The iTunes Music Store, which accounts for 62
Beethoven of Business==Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Full article without entering anything (Score:3, Interesting)
-- Jeff Robbin, lead software designer for iTunes and the iPod
What a great quote. If I were an interface designer, that would go in a frame on my desk.
BugMeNot (Score:2)
Re:Full article (Score:2)
OS X on Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
The most interesting part of the Fortune article is where they reveal that three leading PC manufacturers have been attempting to license OS X for the Intel platform. I'm of two minds about it personally. Choice is good for the consumers, but, Apple being undercut badly in the commodity PC market could kill the goose who lays the golden OS eggs. They don't have the volume to compete with Dell, nor the willingness to use really cheap components from whoever is the low-bidder this week.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
Jobs keeps claiming Apple is a software company. I think this would be the perfect thing to do to prove that. Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs is right when he says Apple is a software company, you just don't understand what he means by that. A Mac is nothing without OS X. An iPod is nothing without iTunes. Cameras are nothing without iLife. Software is the center, the key to the success of everything else.
But quite smartly, Apple makes money off both. Now why would Apple give up billions of dollars just so they can win a bet you seem to have with them?
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:4, Insightful)
I was with you until this point. I've never seen an Apple-branded camera, and I've certainly never used my digital still or digital video cameras with iLife or any other Apple product. I might in the future, if Apple supports them (they're getting old), but they're certainly quite capable without Apple's software.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
quicktake 100 - not bad for its day
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Not even sure what megapixel it was, but all I know is that the pictures I took with it back in 1994/1995 look horrendous compared to what you could get for free* three years ago.
* specifically, if you bought a refurbished Dell in early 2002, you could get a Logitech camera that was roughly 1MP.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
I've never seen an Apple-branded camera
Well, now you have. [epi-centre.com] That was 1994, btw.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
QUICKTAKE (Score:2)
Apple had digital cameras years before they were useable, PDAs years before they hit the right price point, PVRs (in prototype) years before hard drives got big enough and hardware got fast enough for realtime encoding, a video game console years before MS entered the market... they made their own printers, their own scanners, etc
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Apple no longer has much of an interest in hardware. At one point they made (rebranded) dot matrix/inkjet/laser printers, scanners, a complete line of monitors (everything from a consumer 14" to a massive ColorSync 21"). Look hard enough and you'll still see toner for LaserWriters. Around the time Steve returned, they decided to just let others take on that
Apple rebranded (Score:2)
From memory, the rebranded hardware was as follows:
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
well, they would "give up" the business for a risk leap at getting hold of tens of billions of dollars.
but apple isn't a software company, nor a hardware. they're turning into lifestyle / digital experience company - they make desirable stuff(desktops, laptops, some gadgets) for a niche of people who are paying a premium to get it and think it's worth it(who because of functionality, who because of it's
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
However, for those who can come up with $500 bones, which I don't think anyone can argue is a very high premium, you can get the equivalent of what Fortune magazine calls a cross between a Porsche and an M1 Abrams Tank.
Apple is a hardware company (Score:2)
Neither do you, that is spin from a marketting/sales person, Jobs' specialty. Apple is a hardware company. Software, including Mac OS X, merely exists to get people to buy Apple hardware. That Mac hardware is pointless without Mac OS X is irrelevant. Follow the money, where does it come from. More importantly look at history, the Mac clones. If Apple were a software company Mac clones would have benef
Re:Apple is a hardware company (Score:2)
It had to be to justify the relatively expensive hardware, at least until the Mac Mini came along. Only few and highly specialized applications really benefitted from PowerPC with respect to performance. For the majority the "user experience" had to justify the hardware sale.
Re:"It's a floor wax!", "NO! It's a dessert toppin (Score:2)
Not really, you are confusing what they are famous for and what they make money from. Their software is bundled with their hardware, it does not really stand alone. Retail MacOS X packages are merely upgrades.
I'm a geezer too so I get the title, but the analogy is off. Mac OS X has no secondary
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs keeps claiming Apple is a software company.
He does?
Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?
Apple currently makes 95% of its money on hardware. They use that money to fund software development, including OS X. If Apple made a version for Intel, they would be competing head to head with MS's monopoly. MS has partnerships with all the hardware vendors, software developers, and peripheral manufacturer's. All of those companies and the PC manufacturers are completely dependent upon MS's goodwill to survive. How many do you think will agree to ship OS X by default when it means they are suddenly paying double or triple the software cost to their competitors not only on those boxes, but also on the rest of their boxes? Do you know how small the margins are right now?
They could sell independent of the PC manufacturers, but really how many boxed OS's are sold? Almost all OS sales are pre-installs. Basically, you can't fight an established monopoly with more money than god. Especially while destroying what is currently your main revenue stream.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
In the current Windows pre-install dominated market there is no need for boxed OS sales. I think the primary market for a boxed OSX is to current users of Windows who want a better OS for the computer they already own.
Almost all OS sales are pre-installs.
Granted that is the current state of affairs. However, don't underestimate the "coolness" factor Apple has going for them right now thanks to the iPod. I think you would have a lot of people who would swit
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
In the current Windows pre-install dominated market there is no need for boxed OS sales. I think the primary market for a boxed OSX is to current users of Windows who want a better OS for the computer they already own.
Upgrades to OS X are not very different from a customer's perspective as upgrades to a better version of Windows, one that can't run any of their existing software and has only a handful of applications available. Most people buy a new machine when they want an upgrade, and they don't even know what an OS is.
I think you would have a lot of people who would switch to OSX, if only for aesthetic reasons.
A lot of people are switching to OS X, and not just for aesthetics. What advantage does OS X on x86 have over OS X on PPC? Do you think it is the cost that is the stumbling block? It would probably be cheaper to give away hardware to thousands of users than it would to convince developers to port their applications to x86.
You assume the Windows monopoly will never be broken
No, I'm assuming that it currently exists and that MS can buy their way out of legal difficulties. If Apple makes OS X for x86, they are killing their hardware business, and betting the farm that they can break MS's monopoly. How many investors do you think would back such a risky move? If you really think a superior OS can win, why is no one running BeOS?
It is far more likely that Windows will move to PPC (again) than that Apple will move to x86. I'd love for Apple to have hardware competition for OS X, but it is a house of cards. If Apple goes head to head on hardware and loses, then what happens? OS X development grinds to a halt and it all falls apart. I seriously doubt Apple can pay for their development with the cash they make selling software, even were they to grab a large chunk of the market. I seriously doubt developers would port all their applications to two different hardware platforms for OS X. All of this talk of Apple on OS X is interesting, and it is interesting that PC manufacturers would like to make a go of it, but in reality most of the people who think this going to happen, are just saying what they want to happen, not what is in Apple's best interests as a business.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true. The dogma is that Apple makes money selling computers, and the OS is just a way to push the hardware. That's why cloning was such a brickbrained idea, and why it almost killed Apple.
But, as another poster pointed out, Apple may still make 95% of its revenue from hardware, but only 60% from computer hardware. The iPod may be changing the equation a bit. For the first time, Apple
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
The only possible motivation would be to exploit untapped markets, and the biggest untapped market segment for Apple is what is called "The Enterprise". Apple could partner with IBM, HP, or even Dell to open up this market for OS X Server.
Another
Re:OS X on Cell (Score:2)
I think that if any of these licensing partnerships ever come to pass, it will be on Cell hardware, not Intel. Especially if the partners are IBM or Sony.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Don't forget the atrocious range of hardware variations that Apple would have to write for in order to support "PC" hardware. The commodity hardware market is the reason that MacOS7 was never released for "PC" hardware, even though Apple had ported it to Intel in a test project. (Yes, I worked at Apple at that time, when it was creating the first QuickTime too. Really cutting edge media software. The old bumper stic
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Face it, Microsoft got very lucky with their business model.
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, Apple could continue, as always, to manufacture and sell hardware for people who care about both functionality and style, usability and good taste. They could keep using the PowerPC and supporting its development. I mean, there's nothing that says an OS can't run and be sold on two architectures--it's just never been tried in
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:4, Funny)
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X on IBM-branded PPC makes more sense (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM has the advantage of fabricating its own chips, and Apple could keep a portion of its hardware sales by co-designing the IBM hardware and making something off each sale. They would also of course make a software license fee. IBM would make a killing, and given the fact that they have been looking for UNIX-like alternatives to Windows on the desktop for years anyway (witness their Linux R&D) this would really jump-start that effort. IBM would of course continue to sell its Lenovo co-marketed Windows products, thereby making money off both OS choices as it weans people off Windows and onto OS X.
With IBM selling "Apple co-designed" IBM PPC business notebooks and workstations running OS X, it seems to me that this would be a great boost for both companies. It would also probably help spur further R&D on IBM's PPC line which would get us faster computers sooner.
IBM got out of the home market years ago. (Score:2)
Re:OS X on IBM-branded PPC makes more sense (Score:2)
IBM is escaping the consumer and business PC market because they were losing money on it, just like everyone else except Dell. If Apple is to partner with IBM, I foresee it as being a supplier for workstations. IBM may very well start putting macs in all sorts of businesses. They work well with IBMs push towards Linux for their server offerings and will save IBM a bundle in costs, since the support for macs is notoriously cheap.
Will we ever see OS X on any of IBMs offerings? It is possible, maybe as
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
"Cheap components" is bogus bullshit.
Most components used in macs are compatible with the ones used in PCs (barring boards, CPUs, and some misc.). There are good quality components and cheap components. One major PC manufacturer made a profit on PC sales in 04. That manufacturer was Dell. They did so by buying in volume, buying really cheap components, having little stored inventory, and selling with smaller margins than the competition. To make money selling PCs you have to compete with Dell. If y
Re:OS X on Intel (Score:2)
Then if we could just get Apple to open up the boot rom (I believe that's what they use to make OSX only boot on genuine apple systems, correct me if I'm wrong here) specs, or stop using it all together and use something like the GNU Bios (whatever it's called).
Apple already uses an implementation of Open Firmware for it's BIOS, as does Sun, IBM, and several other players. I think the boot ROM went away when Apple moved to the G3 chips. I don't think their is anything currently stopping anyone from bu
vanilla (Score:3, Interesting)
Tho I did like the part where he said that the audio market today was people getting ipods and the bose ipod speakers instead of a real shelf system... Dont know about the rest of you, but i like my ipod hooked up to my Technics receiver/floor speakers just fine. Though it is just crushing to know that I dont have an apple-styled bose gizmo the size of a shoebox in which to stick my ipod...
Re:vanilla (Score:2, Funny)
You must have missed when Steve pulled off his shoe and started banging the podium shouting "We will bury you!" It was about that moment that the Woz burst in the room and threw a hammer at the screen....
Re:vanilla (Score:2, Interesting)
It does work the other way, too. When my CD player died, I never bothered to buy a new one. Now I just have a Mac Mini that has access to all of my music through iTunes. It's also become my DVD player because it has a DVI output for the video and 5.1 audio (via t
Still a SOFTWARE company?? (Score:4, Informative)
if he's changing his tune, maybe that's a sign that OS X could make an x86 debut?? (doubtful, but hopeful)
Re:Still a SOFTWARE company?? (Score:3, Interesting)
if he's changing his tune, maybe that's a sign that OS X could make an x86 debut?
This is very, very doubtful. I think their current strategy is to clone the strengths of the Intel platform with their own product line. Intel has really cheap systems, very fast systems, and an enormous number of different offerings. The mini-mac is an attempt to cater to the really cheap crowd. The G5 is the current best shot at speed (and it is pretty damn fast). Apple will never be able to offer as wide a range of pr
Re:Still a SOFTWARE company?? (Score:2)
We already did. There were versions of NT released for PPC back in the day.
Re:Still a SOFTWARE company?? (Score:2)
We already did. There were versions of NT released for PPC back in the day.
True enough. I think you will see Windows back on commodity PPC before you see OS X on Intel.
Re:Still a SOFTWARE company?? (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe that's a sign that OS X could make an x86 debut?? (doubtful, but hopeful)
And what apps would you run on it? Think there's a lot of "OS X on Intel" developers just waiting for their chance? If there's any at all, there'd be fewer than OS X-developers-on-PPC, which are already pretty scarce.
Re:Still a SOFTWARE company?? (Score:2)
OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs was "buying time" with the Microsoft deal and the original iMac to maintain interest in Apple and its perceived viability while software engineers furiously worked to bring Mac OS X to market, which Jobs saw as Apple's biggest bet on the future.
I am personally glad they made the bet. OS X is what brought me back to Mac after over 10 years. I know some older Mac enthusiasts who swear by the older OS's, but those OS's were losing ground. I had to use PC's for the lack of software. They were great if you did graphical layout or things like that. The problem for me was the unavailability of Matlab. I simply had to be able to use Matlab. I needed the fastest way to do that and throughout the 90's that meant using a PC. Once OS X came in, Apple courted The Mathworks to port it to OS X. From my memory, The Mathworks said no, so Apple did the port themselves using X11. Once I saw that Matlab worked on Macs with OS X via X11--and it was both stable and fast, I immediately began shopping for a Mac....and have never regretted that decision.
Re: OS X (Score:2)
Propagating the myth (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, their non-voting stock would be worth well over $1 billion if they hadn't sold it years ago (for a decent profit even then). Without mentioning this people might still believe that "Microsoft owns (a part of) Apple". Duh.
Nice article other than that though.
Re:Propagating the myth (Score:2)
Re:Propagating the myth (Score:2)
Microsoft stake (Score:2)
(Microsoft's stake in Apple is now worth well over $1 billion.)
I was pretty sure that Microsoft had since converted this stake back to cash. If it really is worth $1B, that's a sizable portion of the company. Can anyone confirm? If I'm correct, it throws a lot of the rest of the article into factual doubt.
Re:Microsoft stake (Score:2)
SoundJam (Score:3, Informative)
I heard once that iTunes is actually built on top of SoundJam MP [mp3machine.com] code.
SoundJam MP converts music quickly into high quality MP3s from CD, AIFF, QuickTime(TM), and WAV formats, and allows you to play MP3 streams over the internet. SoundJam MP takes full advantage of the 10:1 compression of the MP3 format allowing you to compress your music collection to a fraction of its size, while maintaining near CD quality. You can quickly and easily create customizable play-lists, and organize your music by artist, track, song, and music style. It also includes a 10 band graphic equalizer that allows you to control the quality and tone of your music manually or by using preset music styles: Jazz, Rock, Classical and more. Includes a selection skins to change the look and plug-ins for cool visual effects.
# Play music streams over the Internet
# Play MP2, MP3, AIFF, Q-Design AIFF, QuickTime, WAV, Sound Designer, MOD and 'snd' music files.
# Manage your playlists
# Use CDDB lookup
# Use CDDB submission
# ID3 Tag support
# Apple Script support
Re:SoundJam (Score:2)
They also went on to add a huge number of features (smart playlists, the music store, AAC support, streaming to computers and remote speakers, the live search interface, Sound Check, etc) that by now it's very loosely based on SJ.
OS X is Job's Trojan Horse for Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
OS X is _NOT_ a monolithic OS, like Windows. Once Apple have OS X prepped and prepared on its modular foundations (no its not all there yet), Jobs will be able to rev OSX thrice for each new release of Windows. In a sideXside environment, OS X is going to look more modern, capable and powerful than Microsoft's aging sibling in the adjoining *window*... developer's will have a choice, user's will have a choice and Microsoft will have no choice... does anybody get it?
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:5, Informative)
You're trolling, but it's worth pointing out that Apple would die a death if they ported OS X to x86.
Several things would happen:
* People would either pirate it or buy it for their PCs
* It wouldn't work as well on the non-vertically-controlled hardware, so people would believe it was crap.
* Microsoft would work it's typical magic with PC vendors and make it financially painful for them to buy Windows licences for their PCs if they also sold PCs with OS X on them, or with no OS. Microsoft do this already, which is why PC vendors only ship Windows-pre-installed machines.
* The market share for Apple computers would decrease.
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, companies like Macromedia, Adobe, etc would have to port their Mac software BACK to the x86 platform and provide updates for the ppc and x86 versions of their software.
I just don't see it happening. If OS X ever goes to the x86 platform, Apple will be switching over full force as well. But you're not going to ever be able to just pick up a copy of OS X for your Dell PC.
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:2)
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:2)
Given what people really are serious about on
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:2)
I've got one more reason why not. Why should they go to the trouble of porting to a cpu that is archaic and on it's last legs? Apple is probably working on a port to Cell as we speak. Er, as we type. x86 has shot it's wad. When we see new cpu technology from Intel, it might have x86 extensions for compatibility at best, a la AMD. And if AMD is smart, they'll be trying to license Cell technology or
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:2)
For example, OpenFirmware could make worlds of difference. If the x86 folks had made that transition around the time Apple did, we'd all be better off - but everyone is still using a hacked-up BIOS from twenty-odd years ago.
The PC99 spec was supposed to get rid of legacy ports like PS/2, serial, and parallel. It's now six years later and virtually every Wi
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:2)
Darwin already exists for x86, so all that would really be necessary is the release of Aqua/Quartz for the x86 version of Darwin. It just won't happen. There are too many risks and not enough to gain (in Apple's opinion) for them to do this.
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see this argument based in two points.
* PC hardware is so much cheaper than Mac hardware that users can't afford to buy a Mac to try it
* PC users want the operating system (and maybe iLife apps) from Apple because it's so good.
The first point is rebutted nicely by the Mac Mini. Now it's relatively cheap to buy a new Mac. Sure, it's not the most powerful Apple available, but if I wanted to try out something to see if I like it, I wouldn't buy the top of the line and hope that I *really* like it a lot; I'd buy a cheap model and test it.
So Mac hardware isn't that expensive for users wanting to try out the Mac Mini. With resale values being reasonably good, a user could buy a Mac Mini, use it for three months and sell it at a total loss of maybe US$100.
The second point is a 'grass is greener' point. Although I happen to believe that the grass actually is greener on the Mac side, I wonder how users will go when they realise that not a single application they own or use will be available for OS X on x86 for some time.
That's right - even if Apple release OS X for PC hardware tomorrow, you won't be able to run anything with it. There's no software at all for it. Every single app will have to be recompiled to x86 binaries.
Sure, we might have a 'fat' binary like we used to with 680X0/PPC and now do with PPC32/PPC64, but there'd be precious few of them around. Adobe took over a year (from memory) to get Photoshop to OS X. Carbonising was a process a single engineer did in a weekend, but the company waited until they had a full release before they moved.
Over time, apps would be released. Apple would include a full development IDE with the OS to increase uptake. That's all fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it'd be a long wait for commercial software.
And then - why should a company like Adobe release PhotoShop for OS X PPC, OS X x86 and Windows? If a user already has the PC hardware, why code up a new version for the same hardware? Every version costs money to develop and maintain, and what would be the return? The new platform would be a new thing, and it's success would be entirely unknown. Any developer looking to make money from it might conclude that there's no market there. After all - business users already buy the hardware that runs the software they want. Wouldn't the customers of Adobe already be happy with the hardware?
And would Apple put this out for x86, or for AMD64 only? Why worry about an old technology? I suspect they'd just go for 64-bit on the PC and not even try to support 32-bit x86. The PC industry will move from 32-bit to 64-bit completely over the next few years, so why bother supporting technology that is being obseleted (rhymes with 'deleted')?
What about the average users? They're sold on the idea that Windows has everything they need. It's got Office, games, just about anything they want. Why should they buy into OS X on PC hardware? It gives them nothing new. They won't have Office or any games. They'll have Apple's iLife, Mail, Safari and Chess, but what else? Why should non-hobbyists (ie the vast majority) buy this?
I don't know who would buy OS X for PC hardware. I don't know what software developers would sell software for that platform, and I don't know why the average user should switch. I see lots of questions, but no answers. I don't believe this idea will work very well at all.
Re:Focus on Software? (Score:2)
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have yet to figure out why they havent botherd to make an OS to run on x86 based systems rather then there mostly proprietary hardware
Heh, x86 is proprietary and closed. Intel reverse engineered it. AMD reverse engineered it. Transmeta has an implementation. Contrast this with the PowerPC platform. IBM wrote most of the specs. It is completely open and documented. IBM and Motorola sell large numbers of systems and their is no barrier for any other company to enter.
In Bizarro world "closed but popular" means "open" and "open, but not as popular" means "proprietary."
If apple botherd to try and spread out into the larger PC market they would slaughter MS rather quick and I woudlent mind seeing it happen. Apples software is limited mostly to apple branded hardware and that limits how well the company can compete.
Yeah because so many companies have done well competing with a company convicted of abusing their monopoly to stifle competition. That is why OS2 and BeOS are so popular. It is especially a good idea to destroy 95% of your income by entering into an overpopulated commodity market where all but one player is losing money at the same time as trying to compete with said monopoly. Brilliant!
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:3, Informative)
I believe Intel engineered it.
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:2)
Yeah, it must've taken them a lot of effort to reverse-engineer their own instruction set....
In the normal world, "x86-based systems" are "open" in the sense that anybody can build them (even if the x86 instruction set isn't explicitly licensed to anybody who wants it by the vendor), and Apple systems are "proprietary" in that there aren't m
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the normal world, "x86-based systems" are "open" in the sense that anybody can build them
Umm, anyone can buy them from Intel or AMD and resell them. With PPC anyone can build them and sell them.
Apple systems are "proprietary" in that there aren't multiple vendors of OS X-compatible systems
Gee that's great, but we weren't talking about OS X systems, we were talking about PPC and x86. Your statement is like saying x86 is proprietary because MS is the only vendor of Windows.
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:2)
"Them" here, of course, referring to Intel's x86-based systems, such as their blade servers [intel.com], rather than to their chips, as "x86-based systems" refers not to x86 chips, but to systems based on those chips (as per the use of the words "based" and "systems").
Yes, one could do that, but one could also design and build one's own systems based on x86 chips, an
Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware.. (Score:2)
This is not something Linux suffers from, although there are sterling efforts in place to get Windows programs to run on Linux. AFAIK, Linux is not about commercial viability, but rather about producing a solid open operating system.
By retaining a half-open, half-closed operating system on