Dvorak: Discontinue the Mac

paradesign writes "In an 'E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac', John C. Dvorak makes the claim that the Macintosh should be discontinued. He adds, 'I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that.' Worth a read, but keep in mind where its published." I am not posting this as a Dvorak basher to make people realize he is clueless, although plenty of people will accuse me of that.

Comments

DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK!!!

[kevin lyda]

all the hits will only encourage this idiot.

Re:DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK!!!

[Hes Nikke]

it's too late for me, but since i've already clicked, i can mirror the artical :)

E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac
June 17, 2002
By John C. Dvorak

Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Mac has become the AS/400 of desktop computing, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Apple never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Windows platform?

I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Mac buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Macintosh computer as an old hound that can't hunt.

Let's look at the recent Apple offerings. The company made the e-Mac available to the public after initially saying it wouldn't do so. The e-Mac is the educational version of the i-Mac, and similar to the original i-Mac, built with a display in a fancy package. The company also rolled out some blade computers for Mac-heads who like running massive Web sites with Mac technology. The obvious next iteration of the Mac will be the current Luxo-looking i-Mac with a bigger screen and probably new colors. After that, what is Apple going to do?

Remember that in 1984 the Mac arrived amidst a flurry of experimental activity, much of which was triggered by the Xerox Star and the Apple Lisa. The Lisa was designed with ideas lifted from the Xerox Star. The Mac was an improvement, but apparently there hasn't been a new idea since.

There was a moment around 1992 when IBM and Apple were going to consolidate the Mac into a PowerPC architecture. The two companies entered into a joint venture called Taligent to develop the next generation OS. This was actually a good idea. This group incorporated Apple's so-called Pink development folks, but it eventually fell apart, leaving Apple with a development gap from which it never fully recovered. During this era there was much talk about a common reference platform that could standardize the PowerPC chip as a serious competitor to x86 processors. IBM began working out the details of its DesktopOS, a complex architecture that was to use personality modules that would let it pretend to be anything it wanted. This ambitious concept never saw the light of day.

The Taligent fiasco was unraveling amidst a series of inconsequential Apple CEOs who ran Apple like a tire company. After they nearly tanked the operation, Steve Jobs was brought back to add some flair, but underneath the glitz the new Mac was still the old Mac. OS X, with its underlying Unix kernel, an update. The new kernel was necessary to better manage today's networked multimedia.

The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.

Having said that, why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh? The answer is obvious if we look at recent history and compare it to the era when the Mac was invented. Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the Xerox Star in over 20 years. All the R&D money has been diverted, mismanaged, killed by zealous bean counters, or simply wasted. Most of the big R&D labs have been closed or cut back. All the R&D seems to be in semiconductor technologies, which is because that particular business is more of a psychopathic rat-race than anything else and you get eaten by the rats if you miss a step.

So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called Mac. Apple has nothing it could possibly replace it with. There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away.

In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but up with hormones, and patched with reconstructive surgery, instead. The Mac will go in the only direction possible: haute design. In fact this is the only direction for computing in general. The next era will be like the car business in the 1950's. Lots of chrome, big fins, and a new model every year. Form over substance. If you, the reader, see it differently, I'd like to know how. Get in the discussion and tell me.