Apple's Focus is Still Software

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."

Comments

Gee

[wizbit]

the development that went into the original iTunes (only four months!)

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

[wizbit]

Wow, record time. Mods got an itchy trigger finger today?

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. 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

[Gob Blesh It]

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?

One was a company called SoundStep, founded by a then 28-year-old software engineer with an MBA named Jeff Robbin, who had left Apple literally the month Jobs returned. His program, SoundJam, wasn't ready for market, but Jobs bought the company anyway, primarily because Robbin had impressed people while at Apple before.

The alacrity and breadth of what transpired over the next 13 months are hard to believe in hindsight. Robbin and a couple of other programmers started over from scratch and pounded out the first version of iTunes in less than four months. That was just in time for Steve to show it off at the annual Macworld trade show.

Re:Gee

[Dephex Twin]

Hmm, the way I remember it was different too. I had registered my copy of SoundJam on OS 9 and absolutely loved it. Then when OS X first came out, a carbon beta of SoundJam quickly came out for it. Then it mysteriously disappeared from downloading, with some vague explanation from C&G. When iTunes was released, it was very obvious that it was made from SoundJam, but with a number of features stripped out. Also, I remember that you didn't have the same player that you could skin, and that really annoyed me.

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

[mmkkbb]

soundstep is the company that made soundjam. c&g was just the publisher.

Re:Gee

[thejoelpatrol]

Yep, they got that one wrong. I don't know how--any idiot can tell you that SoundJam went through several full versions before being bought by Apple. For a truly facinating read on the history of SoundJam, Audion (its competitor) and iTunes, read this history of Audion

Re:Gee

[Trillan]

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 with SoundJam (except for skins). Since then, iTunes has just gotten better and better.

So I'm not entirely sure where the bile comes from. Who was hard done by here? Was it C&G, who Jeff & co could have pulled the product from at any time? Was it Jeff & co, who not only got a nice payment, but got full time jobs working on the product he loved? Was it the users, who got the best MP3 player on any platform free? Who was it?

Re:Gee

[Dephex Twin]

Well, that clarifies the company mismatch, but do you know what they might have meant with regards to the product not being ready for primetime?

Re:Gee

[mmkkbb]

maybe it wasn't ready for market BY APPLE? i had a registered copy of soundjam, mostly for the shoutcast streamer, but i remember it being crashy and SLOW

Re:Gee

[Golias]

I'll second that. I also used SoundJam back in the day, and found it to even be inferior in many ways to various Windows-based MP3 players of the time.

iTunes, while not very feature-rich at first, was a big step up in terms of performance and stability, and I've been cheerfully using it pretty much since the day it was released.

Now, a few revisions down the road, it's flat-out the best jukebox-type program out there (IMHO.) I even use the Windows version of it on my company's PC when I'm at work.

Re:Gee

[wizbit]

However, the rest of your post is sketchy at best

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't change the fact that they basically rushed into the music player software business with a half-baked product that frankly wasn't very impressive until it became the sole point of communication with their iPod the next year.

Jeff Robbins also worked at Apple at the time.

No, he left Apple when Jobs arrived to go work on SoundJam. They later hired him back, as the article says, because he'd impressed them before. Frankly I'd be impressed by a 28-year-old with an MBA and a successful software company, too.

By iTunes 2, Apple had reached feature parity with SoundJam (except for skins). Since then, iTunes has just gotten better and better.

A fact also revisited in my second post. And so what? Again, that doesn't change the fact that their initial release was pretty crappy. I'm glad it got better (and went cross-platform) but I was happy with SJMP and resented Apple for essentially killing it for their own inferior product at the time.

Re:Gee

[geggo98]

You can read the complete story of iTunes, SoundJam and Audion here.

Re:Gee

[Alan Partridge]

I was a SoundJam MP user and I can confidently assure you that it was genuinely inferior in terms of interface, and pretty much identical to iTunes in every other respect.

And I paid $25 for the fucker! I bloody bought Audion too!

Re:Gee

[Alan Partridge]

SoundJam was wicked fast - that's why everyone was using it - it was the only mp3 encoder available that was accelerated for both Altivec and the recently introduced multi-CPU machines (like my then-new dual 450 G4).

That's what I thought

[Knights who say 'INT]

I watched Steve's kenyote speech, and he spent fiteen times as much time demo'ing software than talking about the Mac mini -- which I thought was the big event of the night. Some totally noncharismatic VP demo'ed Pages for ages, a band was called to demo GarageBand, and Steve generally spent a lot of time clicking around.

I ended up thinking "wow, Apple is really a software company that happens to make hardware".

Re:That's what I thought

[nine-times]

I watched Steve's kenyote speech, and he spent fiteen times as much time demo'ing software than talking about the Mac mini -- which I thought was the big event of the night....I ended up thinking "wow, Apple is really a software company that happens to make hardware".

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.

Re:That's what I thought

[jcr]

Well, how much is there to say about the Mini? It's a Mac, at an unprecedented price-point. That's great, but it's not an hour's worth of material for a Keynote speech.

-jcr

Re:That's what I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-charismatic VP?

Looks like someone has yet to catch SCHILLER MANIA!!!!!!!

Re:That's what I thought

[Juanvaldes]

exactly, while I too wish apple would push the mini there is simply not much to say about it. You put up it's hardware specs, show off the price say it runs OS X (and can talk about all the software for it) and lastly show off the physical unit. People will look at it and all but we absorb information rapidly no need to dwell upon it.

Re:That's what I thought

[Moofie]

It's both.

Apple software with the typical crappy PC hardware would not be as good.

I certainly wouldn't put up with running OS X on a Dell. Sure, Apple's stumbled a time or two, but I count their engineering and quality control as a cut above anything else on the market.

Oh yeah. And their software pretty much rages too.

Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle?

[TeeJS]

I buy a good deal of macs for my school district (we're about 1/5 Mac) and I've noticed Apple seems to go in a cycle with HW/SW quality. Namely, when their hardware is on, their software is full of bugs, and when their software is on, the hardware comes with 5-10% DOA? I've been a big Apple fan for 10+ years, but haven't seen a time they have everything together at once. Maybe it's just because I tend to buy their cheapest pricepoint hardware most of the time (school budget...), but it's been very consistent over the last 10 years.

Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle?

[b17bmbr]

I buy a good deal of macs for my school district

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 of a singular platform (hw and sw), and can focus on a narrow audience. the only noticable problem, at least that i saw in the old mac lab was appletalk. it was slow and inconsistent.

Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle?

[bluGill]

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?

[TeeJS]

I have to admit - in my 10 years I've taken them from 100% mac to 1/5 mac. However, we did most of the transition pre-OS X, when apple was really floundering financially and in performance of product. We'd have a bid for 100-300 machines and Apple would consistently quote list price, while other vendors were seriously undercutting each other to get our business. We have made a decision to keep two grades Mac, in order to give the students some diveristy, so my purchases are mainly replacing 1/5 of them each year (we have a 5 year replacement cycle).

Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a word, no.

Re:Anyone else notice a software/hardware cycle?

[dn15]

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.

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 late that would be hard to miss considering the popularity of the iPod.) Likewise there are people who think Linux is no longer free because they saw a copy of Mandrake on the shelf at the local computer shop.

Full article

[Gob Blesh It]

If you want to read the full article, you need a subscription to FORTUNE magazine. Specifically, you need to enter the mailing address where your subscription is delivered.

By the way, I have it on good authority that NYU's Bobst Library, at 70 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012, subscribes to a whole bunch of periodicals.

Re:Full article

[Paradise Pete]

I have it on good authority that NYU's Bobst Library...

Thanks. Clever.

Re:Full article

[Have Blue]

Um... I can understand doing this for *free* registration pages, but it shouldn't be done for premium content. Even BugMeNot doesn't accept this, why should Slashdot? Someone mod parent down.

OS X on Intel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Apple being undercut badly in the commodity PC market could kill the goose who lays the golden OS eggs.

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

[commodoresloat]

I doubt they'd agree to do this. They have resisted it since the late 90s. Oddly enough the threat then that made them stop licensing the OS to other hardware manufacturers was not that there would be Macs made from cheap components but that there would be Macs made that were better than what Apple was producing. I should know; I still have my Power Computing Power Tower Pro. Apple stopped licensing just in time to block sales of the G3 version of this computer, which would have been faster than anything Apple was offering (with much better hardware in terms of sheer expandability). And don't forget the 4-processor Daystar Millennium. Even MacTell was making cases that whipped Apple's butt. Remember this is before blue computers, before the cube, etc., this was a time when Apple's brilliance in designing boxes was by and large a thing of the past. Bland beige boxes with little creativity and no room for expansion. It's no wonder hardware manufacturers moved in to fill the gap with bland beige boxes with lots of room for expansion (and, in some cases, faster or more processors).

Re:OS X on Intel

[Gob Blesh It]

I used to think it would be a bad idea too. But software seems to be a pretty reliable "golden egg" for Microsoft, and I don't see why it wouldn't work just as well for Apple?

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 the consumer market on such a large scale, as far as I know. Third-party programs (binaries) would have to be packaged and sold according to the architecture, or maybe they could be "fat" apps like we had for a while transitioning from 68k to PowerPC.

So what am I missing here?

Re:OS X on Intel

[piecewise]

Because Apple has nothing to prove to you.

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

[Gob Blesh It]

This has to be the most incoherent thing I've ever written. Dear Slashdot, please accept my apology.

Re:OS X on Intel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

[nuggetman]

So then we have an operating system which has zero programs, save misc Linux apps that run under OS X. But even those would have to be recompiled for x86(-64) OS X vs PPC OS X.

Re:OS X on Intel

[artifex2004]

Cameras are nothing without iLife.

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

[gl4ss]

*Now why would Apple give up billions of dollars just so they can win a bet you seem to have with them?*

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 shiny).

(yes, they are paying a premium, if it's worth it or not is up to debate - some people think that mercedes-benz makes affordable cars because it's good quality/prestige for the price, but that doesn't make them cheap or the most popular brand on earth)

btw.. i'm quite happy with my camera without iLife, and I'm quite happy with my mp3 player without iTunes - and wouldn't use it even if I had an ipod.

Re:OS X on Intel

[I_Love_Pocky!]

but really how many boxed OS's are sold?

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 switch to OSX, if only for aesthetic reasons.

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?

You assume the Windows monopoly will never be broken (if it is, your whole argument becomes rather irrelevant). Apple has a good shot of doing just that with their current mass market appeal. I hope the Mac-mini can do it, but I fear that without an x86 port of OSX, Windows will continue to dominate the field.

Re:OS X on Intel

[littlerubberfeet]

On the consumer level, you might be right. Apple is selling an experience. But, as an audio engineer, there is a huge benefit in using a unified platform. The CoreAudio API/interface lets me do things stabley that a PC could never do decently. I pay the premium for the platform just like a limo driver gets a stretch Benz or Cadillac instead of a Yugo.

Then there is the whole issue of RISC vs. CISC architecture, but I digress.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, all the pro-level apps (FCPHD, Shake, Logic, etc.) were programmed for a RISC architecture, so they would suck on X86

Re:OS X on Intel

[mccoma]

"I've never seen an Apple-branded camera

quicktake 100 - not bad for its day

Re:OS X on Intel

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I've never seen an Apple-branded camera

Well, now you have. That was 1994, btw.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a very important difference between revenue and profit you seem to have missed.

But part of the whole Apple culture includes the computer hardware itself, so it's probably a moot point.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't have digressed, it just made you look like an completely ignorant mac zealot.

Re:OS X on Intel

[ElitistWhiner]

"Cheap components" is bogus bullshit. PC hardware mfg'rs were more than capable of ramping up their specifications and quality when Jobs did Intel versions of OPENSTEP.

PC versions of OS X will be faster, better and cheaper than Apple branded hardware because of expertise, volume and margins.

PC hardware is notoriously promiscious whereas Apple hardware will be locked down with few bits to twiddle. There is a market for PC based hardware which requires set-up, assembly and mods to run OS X. For those who aren't Geeks, or care to fiddle with the bits, Apple will be a natural choice.

Job's knows Apple's hardware penetration is only 5% so he'll cut OS X loose to have 10X marketshare in the future, gladly. Apple has a life beyond computers and isn't dependent anymore on CPU sales.

Re:OS X on Intel

[John Harrison]

Ugggh! My dorm had that beast when I was in college. It took crappy pictures, was heavy, and ran out of batteries quickly. Of course it was the first digital camera that I ever used, so maybe I am judging it too harshly. Even so, at the time I thought that it just wasn't quite ready for prime-time.

Re:OS X on Intel

[blurryrunner]

Actually, if you RTFA, you would see the statement:

...Apple's computer hardware business, which still accounts for 60% of annual sales.

Its 60% and not 95%. That's a bigger deal.

-blurry

Re:OS X on Intel

[John Newman]

Apple currently makes 95% of its money on hardware. They use that money to fund software development, including OS X.

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 has a reliable cash cow that's not a computer. If, and it's a big if, they were ever interested in trying to make the transition to being a software company, there would be no better time than now. They can afford to let Mac sales slow or drop, and let clones/licensees pick up some of their market share, while the iPod continues to pay the bills.

That said, I don't see any motivation to actually do this. The downsides are plenty (commoditization, random hardware support, variable hardware quality, loss of computer revenue, incompatibility between PPC and x86), and could seriously dent Apple's reputation. While the upside - market share - may or may not actually happen. And Apple might be able to double their market share on their own, anyway. Aside from the CPUs, there shouldn't be any problems scaling up production, since every PC maker uses the same parts and the same Taiwanese assemblers. I don't see the appeal of outsourcing hardware sales. If Apple's even thinking about it, I imagine they'll change their minds when the Mini's sales figures start coming in.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Ohreally_factor]

I think that's the GP's point: To those who can't afford anything better than a Yugo, everyone else is paying a premium. To someone who can't afford a car at all and must take public transportation, all car buyers are paying a premium.

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.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Ohreally_factor]

That said, I don't see any motivation to actually do this. The downsides are plenty (commoditization, random hardware support, variable hardware quality, loss of computer revenue, incompatibility between PPC and x86), and could seriously dent Apple's reputation.

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 way to look at untapped markets is by geography. Apple's presence outside of the US, Europe, and Japan (I'm including Canada as part of the US, but not Mexico, heh heh) is virtually nil. With the right licensing partner (Sony? Samsung? Lenovo?) Apple could gain a foothold in the fast growing Asian markets.

I'm not sure who they could partner with in Latin America. I do know that there are mac users in Latin America, but during a fact finding trip to Mexico (to check out the titty bars) I found very few Macs, most of them in Video Production businesses, a few graphic designers, and one really cool all Mac cyber cafe. Mexico's middle class is growing, and more people can afford Macs, especially boxes like the mini.

Your other points about why this won't happen are excellent.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Scudsucker]

Yeah, but most of the difference is made up of iPods. No, iPods aren't computers, but they are hardware.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Scudsucker]

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?

Because Apple is not a monopoly and Microsoft is? You can't come into a market that's been commoditized to the extreme, and compete against a player in that market that made about $10 billion last quarter alone. It's just not going to happen.

Re:OS X on Intel

[mbbac]

Microsoft seems to be doing just fine living off of the OS market, why couldn't Apple?

Because they've tried it twice and it never works. Apple licensed Mac OS to clone manufacturers. Next licensed NextStep (what came to be OS X) to IBM (IBM never used it) and to other manufacturers and end users.

Face it, Microsoft got very lucky with their business model.

Re:OS X on Intel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"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 you don't sell as cheap of components as Dell, you will lose on volume and price.

PC versions of OS X will be faster, better and cheaper than Apple branded hardware because of expertise, volume and margins.

It is highly unlikely there will ever be PC versions of OS X (assuming you mean OS X on x86 commercially). If they were to exist, I doubt they would be faster (the system has some optimization for PPC), better (whatever that means), or cheaper (try to spec out something like the mac mini in the PC world). They would have more options, and there would be more hardware incompatibilities.

There is a market for PC based hardware which requires set-up, assembly and mods to run OS X.

Yes there is, a very, very small and inconsequential market. Percentage of boxed, not pre-installed OSs is very small. The percentage that are not stuck on windows, even smaller. You want it to happen for yourself, but the business case is shaky, and that is being generous.

Job's knows Apple's hardware penetration is only 5% so he'll cut OS X loose to have 10X marketshare in the future, gladly. Apple has a life beyond computers and isn't dependent anymore on CPU sales.

Jobs knows 95% of Apple's profit comes from hardware, the other platform is dominated by a monopoly who has "influenced" the government to allow it to break the law with no real punishment, and that the only two companies that made money selling personal computers in 04 were Apple and Dell. I suspect the risk is far too great.

Re:OS X on Intel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

[mbbac]

A lot of cameras use QuickTime and Apple once had a camera called a QuickTake.

Re:OS X on Intel

[bjb]

If I remember correctly, it only had enough memory to take either 8 640x480 pictures or 32 320x200 pictures. It required a Macintosh and the data was dumped via the serial port.

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Its[sic] 60% and not 95%. That's a bigger deal.

Well, you are partially right. The 95% was an estimate off the top of my head, and was probably too high. 60% of profit is from computer sales. Apple also makes money from support, consumer electronics, and hardware. Let's neglect support for now. That leaves 40% to split between consumer electronics and the iPod. We know the revenue from each is close, maybe 80% of their money from hardware sales is a better estimate.

More to the point, if 60% of their money comes from selling computers, and that business goes away, then Apple goes from being profitable to dying. Can they make up that much in new software sales? Maybe. Will they bet the company on it? Not likely.

Re:OS X on Intel

[John Harrison]

I don't remember details such as number of pictures but it was very limited. I remember taking pictures of dorm residents and then running to my room, hooking it up to the Mac, and then heading back to the party while I waited for it to download. I would then retrieve the camera later and take more photos. Not only was the resolution crappy, but the light sensitivity was terrible.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even sure what megapixel it was

You remember it had a maximum resolution of 640x480, but don't know how many megapixels it was? Most people can multiply 640 and 480 to figure it out.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Alan Partridge]

Office lock-in is not luck. Just remember, Microsoft make NO money on ANYTHING except Office - everything else is there to reinforce and sustain the Office monopoly.

Re:OS X on Intel

[iroll]

Even better than that, why not have mobo makers start making PPC motherboards for the Freescale & IBM PPC's. Make 'em in ATX form factor, with all the PCI, SATA, etc stuff just like your AMD/Intel motherboard Then you could have your linux-on-PPC, built-it-yourself computer without paying the 'apple tax.' ;) 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). Then you could have commodity PPC boxes, or even OSX boxes, without Apple dirtying their little hands or guaranteeing any kind of compatability. Because you can buy a full copy of OSX already, you just don't have any non-Apple hardware to run it on.

This of course presupposes that there is a substantial market for PPC motherboards, which, apparently, manufactures believe there is not.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Bob_Robertson]

If Apple made a version for Intel, they would be competing head to head with MS's monopoly.

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 sticker had it right, Mac '89 = Win95.)

Apple's profits have always been in its hardware markup, but by making the hardware Apple controlls the interfaces and specs. This allows them to make "really beautiful" hardware that works, because there is no commodity economies of scale. No competition. But competition is what drives innovation, which is why Apple leap-frogs the PC. They feel a pinch, do something good, then rest on their laurels until they feel a pinch again.

Apple has a solid user base, a firm 10% (or is that 5%?) of the personal computer market, and no competition because the people who buy Apple will always buy Apple regardless of price. They are their own little monopoly, and they like it that way. That's why no one else is allowed to produce Apple clones.

Bob-

Re:OS X on Intel

[jcr]

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.

That doesn't surprise me at all. It's got to be hard for anyone in the x86 business to have their quality limited by Microsoft. Sony tries really hard to make a good laptop, but however clever their hardware guys are, it's still susceptible to all the limitations of the OS they ship it with.

-jcr

Re:OS X on Intel

[Moofie]

Wow. You mean the first digital camera I ever saw wasn't as capable as a camera you could get ten years later?

What a staggering revelation. You should, like, get a patent or something. I bet computers got faster and cheaper over the same timeframe.

Re:OS X on Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Article:
...Apple's computer hardware business, which still accounts for 60% of annual sales.

You:
Well, you are partially right. The 95% was an estimate off the top of my head, and was probably too high. 60% of profit is from computer sales.

Me:
NO! Sales are not the same thing as profits, you fuckwit. If you buy a $2000 computer from Apple, their sales increase by $2000. Their profits increase by (I have no fucking clue, but let's say) $100. This is because the computer does not merely manifest itself out of aether, but instead has a cost associated with it, paid by Apple to both their own labour for assembling it, to various companies for the components that go into said hardware, and a bunch of other things that don't really matter.

So when we say that 60% of Apple's sales come from hardware (a notoriously low margin business, in which even Apple can't command a high markup), we are intimating that a significantly lower percentage of their profit came from that source than the percentage of sales. This is because Apple also sells higher margin goods, such as iPods. $2000 spent on iPods probably yield $400 in profit, if not more. I honestly don't feel like reading their financial statements for a post on Slashdot.

Your lesson in this basic economical concept should now be complete. If you still don't understand, read it a couple more times. Failing that, grab any introductory textbook on microeconomics. It's almost time to spend your time on better things than squeezing pimples, anyway.

Re:OS X on Intel

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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 building a PPC machine that will run OS X except for the cost. The last project I saw to implement such a box ended up using a Apple motherboard (in violation of the sales agreement, it is supposed to be for repairs only) because it was much cheaper than any other supplier.

Basically right now, no one else makes as cheap of PPC machines as Apple. If some company were to do so, I imagine Apple would lock them out with some hardware mechanism.

Re:OS X on Intel

[myov]

One of the first digital cameras out there was the Quicktake, but its fate was similar to the Newton (Apple's out there early but didn't stick with it)

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 market. Apple wouldn't make a printer, but would be happy to recommend an HP. I believe the quote was something like "We want to concentrate on making great products". Apple had gone though years of making so many products without any kind of direction that Steve had a hard time figuring it out!

That seems to be the strategy on the other side though. HP's only direction these days is down. Dell will find a way to make anything. They'll hack up a $50 inkjet and rebrand it. Even Macs, funny enough (as I understand it, they have exclusive purchasing agreements with companies/schools, so if they want a Mac dell has to provide it).

Re:OS X on Intel

[Kyusaku Natsume]

I think that this year the Mac's user base in Mexico will grow really really fast. At my work, of 250 employees, I was the only Mac user 3 yars ago and was really hard to find a mac user outside the places you said. Now we are 7 users, and 10 people are saving to buy a Mini each. Not only that, our company is reversing it's policy of only HP Pc's and will buy mac's for web development, graphic design and video production.

The downside is that here the prices for Apple hardware are normally 30-50% higger than in the US, 15% from taxes, and the people of Apple Mexico looks like they don't want their business to grow, they don't make anything to make easy to buy a Mac. If Apple here pulled out a program like the educational discount or financed sales, their market share could easily grow 4 times.

vanilla

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

whole thing seemed pretty bubble-gum to me... unless someone noticed something revolutionary i didnt.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

unless someone noticed something revolutionary

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably already had the stereo when you bought the iPod. I think SJ was talking about teenagers who don't own stereo equipment yet. Instead of buying a CD player, and an amp, and a set of speakers, they just get an iPod and the speakers.

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 the MAudio Transit), and plays DVDs better than my old DVD player.

Still a SOFTWARE company??

[TrippTDF]

I remember Jobs saying that we would never see an OS X port to x86 because Apple was a hardware company first, and then software...

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??

[Aggamemnon]

No, if Apple port OSX to x86, it would kill them

Re:Still a SOFTWARE company??

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe I can buy OS X to run on Mac compatible hardware. Nope? Then they are still a hardware company that uses great software to sell the hardware.

Re:Still a SOFTWARE company??

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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 products as is available on Intel, but they try with customization.

I think you will see Windows on commodity PPC before you see OS X on Intel. If anything, I can see Apple licensing OS X on the PPC. This would still cut into their hardware sales drastically, but it would be "home turf" and the architecture is at least open for any and all comers. The Intel platform is open to Intel and anyone with the millions it costs to reverse engineer it, which so far is pretty much AMD and sort of Transmeta. Even so, I don't see Apple trying to fight it out in a commodity hardware market. The competition would be good, but what happens if Apple loses? Suddenly everyone is screwed since OS X development slows or grinds to a halt. Alternately, Apple could become a software company, like MS. It is possible, but as you said, doubtful.

Re:Still a SOFTWARE company??

[HAKdragon]

I think you will see Windows on commodity PPC before you see OS X on Intel

We already did. There were versions of NT released for PPC back in the day.

Re:Still a SOFTWARE company??

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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??

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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??

[ivano]

yep. xbox2

ciao

Re:Still a SOFTWARE company??

[Cro Magnon]

Well, they could always include a "VirtualPPC" to run Mac apps on Intel at molasses-like speed.

Re:Still a SOFTWARE company??

[Leo McGarry]

Why would Apple go to the trouble of porting to somebody else's architecture when they're in the middle of optimizing the heck out of their OS and applications for one architecture?

It's far more likely that Apple will partner with a hardware company to build servers, workstations and enterprise desktops around the PowerPC 970 family. Apple's got the home-computer market taken care of, and nobody makes a better laptop than the PowerBook series, so the enterprise is really the only hole in Apple's strategy.

The only problem with that idea is brand dilution. Apple is the oldest personal-computer company still in existence, now that IBM is out of the business. Apple has spent 20 years creating the Mac brand, and they'd be crazy to dilute it now.

So my gut tells me that you're not going to see a computer running Mac OS X that isn't a Mac, and you're not going to see Macs that don't have the Apple logo on them.

Re:Gee - Audion for Mac OS Classic and OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

as and when it became the basis of iTunes, SoundJam has bcome a thing of the past, and so has C & G.

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/

Here's a comparison chart (slightly biased, perhaps) of Audion vs. the early version of iTunes:

http://www.panic.com/audion/chart.html/

Regards,

Walter.

Re:Full article without entering anything

[Anonymous Coward]

"My God, there really has been a genie locked in that bottle! Apple's innovation and creativity have been unleashed in a way that they haven't been in 20 years. Look at the results. This isn't a company about 5% market share; this is a company that is capable of competing with world-class competitors and achieving market shares of 65%, 70%, and even 90%."

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 .Mac (pronounced dot-mac) Internet subscription service, and a popular line of easy-to-use wireless networking gizmos to link computers and stereos and other devices in the home and office. And, of course, the iPod. The company has even become a player in retail with its 100 Apple Stores: chic glass and anodized aluminum temples that fuse fashion, technology, and reverence for personal creativity into something Jobs likes to call the "Apple user experience."

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

Re:Focus on Software?

[jo_ham]

Why? Because you want to use OS X?

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.

OS X

[elecngnr]

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

[X43B]

I agree completely. I had absolutely no interest in Apple pre OS X. If I remember correctly it was a considerable amount of time after OS X was released that Matlab was available. It wasn't until then that I considered OS X worth getting a second look. People may think I'm a Mac zealot but I guess more accuraltely I'm an OS X fan.

To be fair I think the Mathworks have done an excellent job supporting Linux, including the very affordable educational version ($100).

Re:OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Going by memory:
The MathWorks was influenced by all the "Apple is dying" news much like the general population did. It was self-fulfilling prophecy because then they abandoned Macs and therefore killing sales which made "Apple is dying" news. At that time, Macs were still the king of education and lots of science and engineering students used Macs (except those CAD people) and there were no reason why The MathWorks should abandon Macs. There were even less reasons to discontinue support for Matlab 5.x. But abandon Apple they did. Even when Apple bought NeXT for their next OS, there were even less reasons why Matlab should not return and support OS X, after all, OS X is UNIX based and Matlab runs on UNIX, Solaris, etc..

Only after Mac OS X established itself, Matlab returned to Macs via X11 (the least-work path). Actually, I rather hoped that they'd at least make an attempt to support OS X natively by putting Aqua on top of Matlab. But as it stands, The MathWorks doesn't want to spend money to do so. Maybe with the return of Macs in science and engineering, The MathWorks will see that it is worth the effort to do a proper port.

Re: OS X

[gidds]

Me too. I moved from an Atari to a Mac several months before Mac OS X became available. I tried to like OS 9, I really did, but it just annoyed me in so many ways: not just the instability, but the way that I never knew where a folder window would open, or the way that umpteen windows would all come to the front when I clicked on just one. But most of all, the way that all the important tools were missing: I couldn't get around the Finder by using a command shell, I couldn't kill a misbehaving process, I couldn't write C programs or shell script, I couldn't even download and build any of the usual tools.

Most of the folks who've used a Mac seem to fall into two groups: those who started with it, who generally love OS Certainly, when OS X came out, it was a real breath of fresh air. I'd have used it full-time immediately if all my hardware had been supported; as it was, that took several months. But almost immediately felt much more at home and in control with it, even though 10.0 was slow and incomplete.

If it hadn't been for (the prospect of) OS X, I expect I'd have gone for a Linux box instead of a Mac... and I'd probably have wasted hundreds of ours since then messing about with it instead of getting real things done!

Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware...

[generalleoff]

Ya know if apple is such a dedicated software company then 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. 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. Not to mention that doing stuff like that is FAR worse then anything MS had done or has ever done and probly ever will do. But cuz there so small they get away with it and come off looking like rebels :) Maybie apple will make a move to break into the mainstream if CELL processors manage to catch on.

Re:Focus on Software?

[GaryPatterson]

"If they're so focused on software they should release OS X for the x86."

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:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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:Focus on Software?

[wtmcgee]

I think that while marketshare may go up a few percentage points (maybe nearing 10% at best), profits would actually shrink.

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.

Why not RTFA?

[rjung2k]

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?

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...

BugMeNot

[rjung2k]

Bugmenot.com worked for me!

Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[zangdesign]

Another reason to avoid the x86 platform is the large base of commercial software. They would be forced to make too many compromises to allow Windows software to run on their system in order to maintain market viability.

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 a closed platform, they get the best of all world: they don't have to bend to fit a Window-centric world and open source software is easily modified to fit onto the system. The gaps in commercial software availability will begin to be filled over time.

And the best part, they are seen as innovative in a world of dull, boring PCs running Windows and Linux.

Apple is a hardware company

[AHumbleOpinion]

Jobs is right when he says Apple is a software company, you just don't understand what he means by that.

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 benefitted Apple. The fact that Apple terminated Mac clone hardware demonstrates that Apple is a hardware company.

Re:Apple is a hardware company

[littlerubberfeet]

Apple might be a hardware company, but it should be noted that the software is still top-notch.

Re:Apple is a hardware company

[AHumbleOpinion]

Apple might be a hardware company, but it should be noted that the software is still top-notch

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:Apple is a hardware company

[Moofie]

Yup. The software had to be good, and the hardware had to be good. And it has done so, consistently, since Jobs came back and fixed the company.

So what's your point?

Saying that Jobs is only good at marketing and spin is to damn him with faint praise. What some people call a "reality distortion field", I call a preternatural awareness of what makes good products that people want to buy.

I say more power to him. He's not hurting anybody.

Exactly!!

[kajoob]

I think you hit the nail on the head. I am seeing a lot of slashdot articles and discussion about "Oh my god, look how small it is! People will line up to buy this!", but for a windows user my entire life like myself my thought was "I've heard so much about OSX I'd like to give it a whirl, now I can finally afford a machine to run it." OSX is by no means perfect, there are some annoyances, but I am so much happier with my new mac mini than my windows box. So much so that I haven't booted my windows box since the day I got my mini.

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, it has helped me determine what the mac equivalant of my favorite windows software is.

Re:Exactly!!

[vilms]

And to anyone else in my same position who hasn't even tried OSX, the learning curve is surprisingly small.

Last night, after a bit of prep, I talked a Mac novice through the process of hooking up a firewire drive, containing a Mac OS X build that I'd created (that's the bit of prep), with the object intention of backing up 9, wiping the G4's disk and cloning my build to his Mac. Fully expecting everything to go wrong that could go wrong, I was gratified to find him happily clicking through his first Mac OS X experience an hour later. From that point on, hooking up his iPod (which is the reason this whole project came about) was simple enough for him to work out himself. Along with printing. And setting up his email/web etc.
after 20 years of using and supporting Macs, I still get a sad thrill out of "it all just working".

Re:Exactly!!

[Jackdaw Rookery]

Glad you found my list handy :)

Re:Exactly!!

[Juanvaldes]

Apples Application listing, Version Tracker and Macupdate are all great sites to find new software.
Of course the best resource are all of the mac websties and forums, my home is Macnn. Two useful threads from there: What application do I use if I need to....? and Your top 5 [share|free]where (lots here).

Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Intel reverse engineered it.

I believe Intel engineered it.

Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[Guy Harris]

Heh, x86 is proprietary and closed. Intel reverse engineered it.

Yeah, it must've taken them a lot of effort to reverse-engineer their own instruction set....

In Bizarro world "closed but popular" means "open" and "open, but not as popular" means "proprietary."

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 multiple vendors of OS X-compatible systems. I suspect that by "there[sic] mostly proprietary hardware" the person to whom you're responding meant Apple's systems, not Motorola and IBM's microprocessors.

Propagating the myth

[Erik K. Veland]

The two struck a deal under which Microsoft bought $150 million of Apple stock and promised to keep supplying Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer for the Mac, programs that made Apple's computers at least somewhat compatible with the PC world. (Microsoft's stake in Apple is now worth well over $1 billion.)

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

[SmittyTheBold]

The Frotune article makes it sound like MS still owns the stock, but I keep hearing from various people (inclusing yourself, obviously) that MS sold the stock years ago. Who's right? Do you have a reference besides another Slashdot comment?

Re:Propagating the myth

[Anonymous Coward]

The Frotune article makes it sound like MS still owns the stock, but I keep hearing from various people (inclusing yourself, obviously) that MS sold the stock years ago. Who's right? Do you have a reference besides another Slashdot comment?

From Wikipedia's article:
Microsoft bought a $150 million non-voting share of company as a result of a court settlement between themselves and Apple. (Microsoft has since sold all Apple stock holdings.)

Re:Propagating the myth

[SmittyTheBold]

Wikipedia is rather apt to be corrupted...is there any formal press coverage of the sale? Perhaps a NewsWire/Reuters clip or something of the sort?

"It's a floor wax!", "NO! It's a dessert topping!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is BOTH a hardware AND a software company, and its success (as the article points out) is due to how good they are at integrating its two sides. For those who don't get the subject title (god, I'm getting old) here is the old Saturday Night Live script that explains it.

Microsoft stake

[Johnny Mnemonic]

(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

[pressman]

Part of the deal was that MS' shares were non-voting stock, so basically all they were able to do was make some money off their investment and renew their commitment to Office for the Mac.

Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They made it little endian, which has the bytes turned around, so they had to reverse engineer it.

Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel reverse engineered it.

You're a troll, aren't you? Two posts that ridiculous in the same Slashdot article? (I just replied to the other...)

Ah well.

Re:Apple software is dedicated to apple hardware..

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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..

[Guy Harris]

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.

"Them" here, of course, referring to Intel's x86-based systems, such as their blade servers, 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, and a number of companies do that.

With PPC anyone can build them and sell them.

Yes, anyone could license PowerPC or Power Architecture or whatever IBM's calling the instruction set architecture these days, but I suspect most people building general-purpose computer systems based on PowerPC processors aren't building their own chips, so it's not clear that the fact that they could, in theory, do that is particularly relevant to the discussion that the original poster started.

Gee that's great, but we weren't talking about OS X systems, we were talking about PPC and x86.

Perhaps you were, but the original poster was talking about "Apple hardware", which isn't "PPC", it's systems one or two of the components of which are PowerPC processors and the other components of which are other chips, some custom from Apple and some from various vendors, and about "x86-based systems", which are't "x86", they're systems one or more of the components of which are x86 processors and the other components of which are other chips, custom or from various vendors.

SoundJam

[NEOtaku17]

I heard once that iTunes is actually built on top of SoundJam MP 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

[Have Blue]

It is. Apple has never denied this, they just never made a big deal out of it.

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.

Re:Focus on Software?

[rmohr02]

I was actually trying to be funny--looking at it like you just did, you'd have to be crazy to think Apple would release OS X for x86. Part of me wants them to, but I know they won't.

Re:Focus on Software?

[rmohr02]

That's an awfully long response for a comment I intended as a joke.

Re:Focus on Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about if they released an unsupported full source distro of OSX on the x86 (any licenced elements would be "replaced")? That would endear them to the OSS community and have it picked up as an actively developed distro, which apple could take advantage of in the main supported PPC branch. I can see how this would lead to new hardware & support sales for apple - in mainstream markets. I can't see any current customers settling for unsupported, compile-your-own (binary distribution not allowed) on x86, or any potential customers either.

OS X is Job's Trojan Horse for Microsoft

[ElitistWhiner]

...PC user's will have *choice*... they could even have Windows+OS X on the same desktop. And it is *choice* where Apple will dismantle the Microsoft monopoly.

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?

Beethoven of Business==Jobs

[ElitistWhiner]

... shrewd business strategist ... Job's is positioning Apple as an entire Industry (ie. airlines) where a hub & spoke architecture enables Apple to gateway user services, products and partnership opportunities...

Re:"It's a floor wax!", "NO! It's a dessert toppin

[AHumbleOpinion]

Apple is BOTH a hardware AND a software company

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 /alternative use, it's pure dessert topping. :-)

Re:OS X on Cell

[Ohreally_factor]

And one more thing . . .

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:Focus on Software?

[jo_ham]

You have to add the (/sarcasm) to the end of your post, or people take you seriously.

Given what people really are serious about on /. even the most outlandish opinions tend to be genuine!

Re:Focus on Software?

[Ohreally_factor]

You might have been joking/trolling, but this is brought up often enough by people who are completely serious.

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 trying to join the Cell Consortium.

Re:Focus on Software?

[jo_ham]

That would mean releasing the source for Aqua, which Apple just won't do. Maybe if they supplied that as a binary with the rest of the OS open (which it already is, to be honest).

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:Full article without entering anything

[yardbird]

I remember sitting with Steve and some other people night after night from nine until one, working out the user interface for the first iPod. It evolved by trial and error into something a little simpler every day. We knew we had reached the end when we looked at each other and said, "Well, of course. Why would we want to do it any other way?"

-- 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.

OS X on IBM-branded PPC makes more sense

[aclarke]

I know I'm not the first by any means to mention this here, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me for Apple to license OS X to IBM. With IBM attempting to get out of the home/business PC market with its sale of that division to Lenovo, they have a wide opening in their product offerings. Or at least will have over the next few years as that plan gets executed.

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.

Re:OS X on IBM-branded PPC makes more sense

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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 an option along side Linux on workstations and serves. I don't see it happening soon though. I also doubt that IBM will manufacture PCs again anytime soon. The margins are too small. It is a better idea for them to let others assume the risks and let them compete for IBM deals.

Re:Focus on Software?

[SmittyTheBold]

I honestly think that with a few improvements, the commodity PC could be a good home to OS X. As it stands, though, the generic x86 computer is crap.

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 Windows PC still has these ports.

I think that's a big problem for the acceptance of Apple in this area - Apple relies on their low inertia to respond quickly to changing demands. Once you have licensees and the like, change cannot be made as rapidly; few markets are a slow to adopt new technology as the consumer PC market.

IBM got out of the home market years ago.

[OS24Ever]

IBM got out of the home business years ago. They dropped the Aptiva product line almost two years ago from direct sales, and pulled it from Best Buy and the like about four years ago, if not longer ago.

Re:Focus on Software?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Perfectly stated. Licensing OSX for x86 is a terrible, terrible idea. But would it be so bad if Apple ported iLife (or even just iPhoto) to Windows? They did with iTunes and it is working as bait. Windows users see how awesome the iTunes experience is and they think "gee, what if my whole computer acted like this". Why not try and bait the non music fanatics as well?

QUICKTAKE

[solios]

I have a Quicktake 150. It's an Apple branded CCD. It's frigging OLD- old as in the drivers don't like being installed on 8.5 or higher. We're talking "optimized for 68k" here.

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, etc, etc.

And no, the Quicktake doesn't work with iPhoto. Nothing from the Beige Era does, not even their Applevision self-calibrating monitors. :-|

So. I've used an Apple branded camera. It's as real as the screen you're reading this on. It sucked.

The iPod family is really the only NEW thing for Apple- everything else they've been doing since Jobs got back falls into the category of rehash- updated and spit-shining old (and in some cases, ancient) ideas to work with the new OS and with hardware that's finally fast enough to push where the company was trying to go in the mid nineties.

Crap? No. Minimal? Yes.

[solios]

I hopped on iTunes the second it was available. It was free, the library management was great, and it was the first STABLE mp3 player I'd ever used on the Mac. For a 1.0 release it was extremely capable- and more stable than iTunes 2.0, no less. :P

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 the equalizer was probably as annoying as Adobe holding out on 16-bit image editing in photoshop for YEARS...)

Apple rebranded

[Macgrrl]

From memory, the rebranded hardware was as follows:

• Inkjet printers - Cannon then HP
• Laser printers - Cannon then HP
• Digital Cameras - Kodak
• Monitors - Sony then LG

Re:Apple rebranded

[myov]

Sounds about right. The early Stylewriters are Canons (and take the same BC-20/BC-02). Later ones were HP Deskjets (600 series, IIRC) with a Mac serial port.

Some LaserWriters used Canon engines. Not sure which were which though. I had a cross reference table at one point.

ColorSync monitors were Sony Trinitron tubes. The iMacs and last CRT Studio Displays were LG Diamondtrons (these ones had the HD15 VGA connector rather than the DB15 and match the B&W G3/G4's). Not sure what the low-end monitors used (I have an old Multiscan 14" as my server/loaner monitor. I know it's not a Trin.)

Re:Apple rebranded

[Macgrrl]

Many of the early HP LaserJets also used canon engines (e.g. LJ 4)

Re:Focus on Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just it - they won't - meaning they could. There is nothing in Aqua that is so revolutionary that warrants the secrecy. What risks? Microsoft coppies in essence any thing they want so having the source publically available can only strengthen Apple's position in defending its actual innovations.

Although darwin exists, it is realistically useless because of the lack of drivers, however as a part of a complete source OSX distro it would attract driver writers/ports in droves....

Re:Focus on Software?

[jo_ham]

Apple exists to make money. Opening Aqua/Quartz doesn't make business sense. They want to work with the open source community where it benefits them (and by extension, the open source community in return - Safari/KHTML, Darwin etc) but when it comes down to it, Apple is a business, and they will not make money by completely opening their OS.

Re:Focus on Software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not - Sun has... all of the above....