Slashdot Mirror
Apple CFO Gives Info on Company Direction
osViews.com writes "Mac World is reporting a recent talk given by Apple's Chief Financial Officer (Peter Oppenheimer) at the Goldman Sachs Technology Investment Symposium. The article illustrates several things about about Apple's business plan, much of which is totally new information about the company's current and future direction. Here's the nutshell summary: iPod "Halo" effect is causing some Windows switchers, little demand for satellite radio/iPod integration, iPod shuffle margins below HD ipods, happy with rate of growth - no plans to license OS X, margins on Mac mini equal to eMac (both below corporate average), retail store to expand to 125, no plans for media center PC - prefers to stream multimedia to TV from primary computer over wireless network, no video for iPod, portable media centers a failure."
Kudos to the submitter and the editor for posting a useful and interesting story with a useful and concise summary. I wish we had more stories done exactly like this one.
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
Hook up near a TV, plug in your S-Video+Optical out, and you have your 'media center pc-less', or something.
So for $189 you have a base station, streaming music, streaming video, a print server, and no need for another computer.
Any bets on whether we'll see something like this soon?
GPL Deconstructed
...what we've already known either because the products are out or because there have been pre-release photos of real equipment.
As much as I'd like Apple to diversify and build more products suitable to my needs, a 17" wide "pizza box" of an entertainment center computer isn't very likely and probably wouldn't sell well enough to pay off development costs. I'd buy one if it were less than $800, but the odds of that are small.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I agree 100%
I wonder why anyone would be willing to watch tv on a micro screen
limit to portability are not in the device size, but in the UI size!!
Why do you think that, of all things, is going to sink Apple?
If anything I would have thought their intensely secretive nature would kill them.
Their iPod and iTunes products are exactly how they are expanding to the PC world.
Their mini is exactly how the PC world will get OS X.
If OS X is the only real desktop alternative, nothing is stopping people from buying Macs you know.
GPL Deconstructed
Halo wasn't even that good, but it's being given now not only credit for the success of the XBox but the success of the iPod??
Something is seriously wrong with us as consumers if we are so reordering our world for such a mediocre FPS.
Looks like it's once again time to dust off my "why OS X on x86 won't ever happen" post:
/., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.
----------
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel hardware ran on a tiny subset of the then-available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on
~Philly
running OS X on a piece of shit Fry's discount x86 box doth not a Mac make.
This is somewhat believable. I'd wager that average college students would be a prime target for the Mac Mini, as well - unlike Apple's laptops, it doesn't cost a mint, and its size would be a great advantage for students living in space-challenged dorm rooms. Most of the software they'd need would be on it, too. Your usual non-computer-geeky college kid would play games on their console, not their computer, and the Mac has Microsoft Office and fine Internet capabilities. Colleges use plenty of specialized software (e.g. statistics packages) but most kids go to the labs to use that stuff rather than bothering to acquire their own copies. If the Mini can make a successful tie-in with the iPod in the minds of this particular target audience, then Apple stands a fighting chance of boosting its market share at least with that segment.
Apple is very good at marketing perceived value (iMac, iPod, etc.) as opposed to embedded value (the way Microsoft pushes most of their products). I'd say that perceived value is what matters a lot in the impressionable minds of young students.
The coolest voice ever.
I don't buy that Apple will buy Tivo, but I can see them creating a Tivo-like device with these abilities:
DVR with free remote control service (why free? wait a second)
Ties right into the iTunes Movie store.
Right, Movie store. Imagine Jobs going to the MPAA and saying "Hey, remember all the problems the RIAA had with downloading? Lawsuits didn't help enough - but now we have legal music, and people are buying music online, and look how many songs I've sold.
"Join with me, and we can end this pointless conflict, and bring order to - *cough*, I mean, we can sell movies."
The PC/Mac will still be the hub - use iTunes to buy music, or buy a movie. You can put either on a new iPod, but for the movies, the iView (just a name I threw in) will be the best way.
Want to watch a movie? Forget Netflix - just use the iTunes store. How about a documentary (independent movie makers who have limited releases would love this - what if you could pick up a documentary for $10, and around 50,000 people all wanted to - now that little indie project just broke even).
Miss a TV show? Why DVR it (though you have that power) when you can go to your computer, type "Battlestar" or "Babylon" to get the entire current archives (including commercial), and for $3 (or $20 for the entire season), you can watch your movies *now* (or, with broadband and figuring about 300 MB per 30 minutes, about 30 minutes or so).
The biggest thing of this is what it turns Apple into. With the iPod and the iTunes Music store, apple is moving away from hardware systems, and going towards hardware accessories and services. Eventually, I can see a Linux client - but in the end, Apple won't care what you run as long as you buy an iPod and use their iTunes store for movies and music - they still make money (though they'll still tell you a Mac will work better, and as the services do well they'll sell more Macs along the way).
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
OSX is in fact irrelevant to Apple's future, as are most other major operating systems to their creators. What is the future, and the iPod and Nokia's 200million per year mobile phone sales prove, is that various interconnected devices that confirm to industry standard protocols are the way forward. The electronic musical instrument industry has proven this thanks to the amazing success of MIDI which binds most instruments, yet each instrument is based on it's own unique software/hardware. OSX will become a server OS and Apple will eventually tailor software to suite the client device - as per the iPod which communicates with it's host using standard protocols (USB, MP3, Firewire etc). And if Apple don't (continue) to do this, an as yet unheard of (unformed?) company will, and they will sell products in the sort of quantities Nokia do, which dwarf even sales of the iPod and Mac. Ironically, Nokia could become the all powerful mega entity that networks our world. After all, the future is all based on communication and sharing.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
... running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass.
Every time I've read your OS X on x86 post that's the line that always makes me laugh; because that's the whole point.
this is my sig
And, unknown to most, Powerbooks are actually mint flavored. Yummy!
Very nice and concise summary of the story.
Thank you.
True. Not to mention the binaries for OS X software is built for PowerPC, not x86. Let's take Photoshop for example...
Say, for argument's sake, that Mac OS X 10.5 came out for Pentium/Athlon PC. You buy it, install it, presto. Now, you want to run Photoshop. OOH, which do you install? Photoshop for Mac OS X? No, it's compiled for PowerPC. Photoshop for Windows? No, it's compiled for Windows. You would need to buy a special Photoshop for OSX/x86, a third option.
Basically, when you put aside the software pirates (99% of Slashdot users who use Photoshop) and the rich artist/musician types (who would buy the Mac hardware anyway), OS X for x86 would be a software nightmare. For corporations, it would be a software investment crash. You can't use your legally owned Windows software on it. You also can't use your legally owned OSX PowerPC software. It just would be a failure.
The only reason Linux works on multiple platforms is because 99% of its software is open-source and can therefor be compiled for the installed architecture when needed. When you get to the prorpietary stuff, like Photoshop, it becomes a nightmare.
If you need a Linux example, look at Macromedia Flash (player) and VMware Workstatioin. Heck, even look at official NVidia drivers. Try and get those for SPARC or PowerPC Linux (or any non-x86 Linux). You can't. Now, imagine all the software for your operating system in the Flash/VMware situation. You go to buy Photoshop for OSX only to realize it's coimpiled only for PowerPC.
The only way it could work is if Adobe, Macromedia, Apple, even Microsoft (Office 2004 for Mac) needs to compile an x86 version of all its Mac OS X software and then recall all discs that only contain the PowerPC software. It would be a financial nightmare, for the consumer and the manufacturer. If you want a living example of the whole situation, look at the "64-bit" Windows XP for Itanium, or hell even Solaris.
Of course, 99% of Slashdotters who use Windows XP run a pirated copy, with a pirated version of Photoshop or whatever, so I'm sure this has all gone through one ear and out the other...
Used to like Apple, moved to PC for customizability/etc (in mid 90s). Never considered moving back because the more I learned, the more obviously out of date the Mac OS was. Then I learned Linux and fell in love with Unix. Add to that the hate and distrust I've gained in MS and I was ready to jump ship (and I knew it wouldn't be too hard for me, unlike some people). Linux didn't seem "there", I wanted something more mainstream. When OS X came around (and I got to try it on my brother's PB) I really liked it, and started following it. I got an iPod, which did serve to remind me of Apple's quality. Then when my current computer (a Dell laptop that served me well for 4+ years) became too slow for my needs I waited until new PowerBooks were announced and I bought one. The whole (longer) story is in the site linked to in my sig.
So as for "the halo effect", I'm not so sure. It might happen for some people. I used to love Apple so I was really just finding them again. And even without the iPod I would have switched because of OS X. I have three observations on all of this. First is that iTunes really showed me how nice Apple software was these days (iTunes on Windows was the first Apple program I'd used since leaving my old LC II in about 95). Second was if OS X was available on a PC (as some want it, and as some other companies have been asking Apple) I doubt I would have switched (why switch processor architectures when you don't have to?). And third, I had been wanting a Mac to try OS X on for the last few years, but even used Macs were expensive (for what you got). Had the Mini been available 2 years go (the equivelent kind of computer, at that price point, not neccessisarily that size) I would have bought one as fast as I could and I may have switched earlier.
I'm not the "typical" switcher (someone relativly new to computers and raised on Wintel that went to Apple) since I'm a power user (used the OS 7 back in the day, Linux, most flavors of Windows, etc); but I switched and I am VERY happy with my new little Mac. Next step: evangilizing when people ask me about what to buy for their first computer!
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Miss a TV show? Why DVR it when you can go to your computer, type "Battlestar" or "Babylon" to get the entire current archives, and for $3 (or $20 for the entire season), you can watch your movies *now*.
A column not too long ago (don't ask me to recall who or when or where) discussed this sort of thing in light of sites like "Homestar Runner". The case was that this is the future of video entertainment -- visit the show's web site and download and watch any episode you like, in any order, at any time, rather than wait for your favorite episode to reach syndication or buy the whole season on DVD.
The bandwidth, I think, is still the biggest problem, but that's just a matter of time and R&D. And the difference in quality from downloadable video vs. HDTV will, like the difference between MP3 and CD quality audio, keep the downloadable format from completely replacing TV broadcasts or DVD sales.
All we (and Apple) need is the device to do it, at a price point people can afford. That too is a matter of time -- iPods arrived costing, what, $400? $500? Now you can get a Mini for $200 and a Shuffle for even less.
I think Apple would like to sell just what it described in the article: a program that lets you download and view video on your computer, but supplemented by a small remote-controlled set-top device that streams it wirelessly to your television set, a la Airport Express. Video on an iPod-sized device is impractical by any measure, but video on your television set is a given -- but it has to be as easy to use as a DVD player. Fortunately, that sort of ease of use is Apple's specialty.
I perceive this as a certainty, not a possibility -- it's just a matter of when.
So wait, OSX for x86 comes out, and suddenly every x86 hardware company (see: one million) comes out with new drivers for OSX, and hey look they're just as bug free as the ones for the ppc osx. Anyway the idea of plugging in code to the HAL willy nilly is a scary idea, for stability and security. The problem I can see on linux is hey - not all hardware works, and a large amount of it is still experimental (not bashing it or anything, its better than windows which could be considered 100% experimental, and OSX which has it easy, with the lack of diverse hardware on ppc)
I can confirm that anecdotally. Last night I got a call from my uncle and my cousin the college student. She has yet another broken Windows laptop (it'll cost several hundred bucks to fix it), and they wanted the family geek's advice on what kind of computer to get to replace it. Without me even having to suggest it, she (an iPod owner) had already been looking at Apples. So I just steered them toward the 12" iBook with AppleCare. Talking to her, I added that it'd match her iPod; to him, I explained that it was the best bang for the buck of the Apple line, and AppleCare would be cheaper than any repairs that might be needed.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
What about a video-out port so a consumer could play movies on a TV? There would even be no need for a color screen, and it would only increase the size very little....
And the article even mentioned Battlestar.
e .html
Well, great minds think alike - and since you're a Coward, here's the link to the article that talks about the same kind of thing I did:
http://www.shapeofdays.com/2005/01/the_movie_stor
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
OS X could run on the wider variety of PC hardware without too much trouble (starting to include every odd little thing would be a problem to a degree). That said Apple could go x86 (say to AMD's Hammers) and lock down the OS and such so that it only runs on Apple motherboards. Apple would stay a "little" computer company, but they would be using x86s. They could change things in every update that would make all non-Apple hardware die. So while it would work, you couldn't just buy a motherboard from your local computer store and run OS X on it. Basically a trusted computing scheme. I'd see no problem with that.
But OS X being the next Windows that you just buy at a store and will run on anything you assemble? Pipe dream. If they did do it, it wouldn't be OS X anymore because it wouldn't run quite as well.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
You all know the difference between an application and the files it creates. She doesn't get that. She doesn't understand the concept of the drives having a top level and sub directories. When she saves an email attachment, she has to go into the file search function to find out where it wound up becuase she can't grasp the save file browser. And she uses AOL
Apple needs to come out with "Mac OS Lite". There's quite a number of people like my friend's mom. The basic computer concepts we take for granted are inaccessible abstractions to them. For example, if they get a ".doc" attachment, this computer would tell them it's an Office Word file, and what they need to do to open it, and so on.
I mean front page? Come on. Anyone who trades tech stocks knows that companies are constantly participating in various financial conferences where these sorts of presentations are given.
True. Frontpage sucks so bad the Microsoft even dropped it from the standard Office suite. I think they replaced it with Publisher.
You know a product sucks really bad when it loses market share to Notepad.exe
There's a large chunk of the vocal PC userbase who use the thing as glorified nintendo- it's really (imo) the ONLY area where the PC has any kind of advantage over the Mac.
The Mac mini is just the right size to fit a GameCube on top of it. The only thing keeping Macs from having a lot of games running "on" it :) is that very few consumer 17" monitors can display both Mac mini's 768p DVI/VGA output and the GameCube's 480i S-video output (the component cable is nearly unavailable, and newer Cubes don't even have the jack for it).
I want to play Pirates!, HL2, and Doom 3. That's basically it. Pirates! will get ported (I'm guessing, but it's not that important)
Pirates! is already ported, provided that you run the game in an emulator for one of the systems that the original version ran on. If you still want to play pirate, I'm pretty sure that eDonkey and BitTorrent clients are available for Mac OS X.
Forget it. The only way you are going to get OSX is to buy a Mac. Wishful thinking won't get you there. Apple don't need the PC market, they are growing market share regardless.
Thought there were going to be some big plans for a digital hub. Seems that a unit capable of displaying digital pictures (iPhoto), digital tunes (Tunes), digital movies (DVD player, Quicktime), and digital TV shows (through their own means or if they acquired TiVo) would be at the top of the digital hubs. I thought the Mac Mini would've been a great digital hub item, but it's missing a digital audio out.
There's never enough when you have too little
I've got not only a one hour train commute, but also an Archos AV400.
I'm an American finance geek living in London, so every morning my handheld PVR records the overnite BBC Business News at 3:45AM. I watch the 45 news broadcast while I'm headed to work at 5:51AM damn early in the morning!
I get a lot of utility out of time shifting the BBC, and would dump my iPod(s) (3G 20GB, 1GB Shuffle) in a heartbeat if my Archos (it also plays MP3's with cover art) matched half my iPods battery life. At present I get three hours tops.
I own ten Mac's (two G3 iMacs, a ClamShell iBook, two SEs, a MacTV, a PowerMac 5500/275, a G4 TiBook, a 15" G4 PowerBook, a G4 Cube) and still use the OS X capable machines daily. Even though I grok Apple deeply, they'd better put together a PVR solution ASAP.
It's their market to lose. I only own two iPaqs because my Newtons were getting long in the tooth.
A message from our sponsor
There's no need to buy it, you can download BSD for free. Which does run on almost any x86 machine.
Quite likely the rest of the OSX code could be made to run on most modern graphic adapters but as it is not free code it would have to be rewritten.
I think the main reason why OSX will not run on x86 is because not many people care about it, not because it is hard to port. Windows and Linux are sufficient for almost everybody.
Not to mention the binaries for OS X software is built for PowerPC, not x86.
NeXT solved the multi-architecture binary problem many years ago. If Apple ever offered the OS on x86 again, you can bet that every software vendor would recompile their apps and have them available within a month. Most of them could do it in a week.
The only way it could work is if Adobe, Macromedia, Apple, even Microsoft (Office 2004 for Mac) needs to compile an x86 version of all its Mac OS X software and then recall all discs that only contain the PowerPC software.
No, you don't need to recall anything. Just make the x86-specific parts of the app (about 1/3 of the package) available to download.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Fat Binaries don't solve the QA and Marketing problems. How many major commercial apps shipped on all 4 OpenStep platforms? 1 or 2?
Apple: Hey Adobe -- We want you to release a OS X/x86 version of Photoshop.
Adobe: What? OS X is only around 30% of our sales. You want us to split that in half? Forget it.
Apple: Pretty Please
Adobe: OK, we'll ship either on x86 or on PowerPC. you decide.
Apple: OK forget we even brought it up.
I expect that OS X is running on generic pc hardware right now somewhere at apple. Their technical docs seem to show that someone with resources inside apple is playing with the intel platform in a serious way and odd bugs get fixed that aren't ppc bugs but are a work around for the odd way intel processors do things. There seems to be hooks for x86 support in xcode as well. I expect that that they test recent builds of OS X on a PC platform for quality control and to make sure the code stays up to a high standard. That doesn't mean it would be good for apple for it ever to get out of the testing lab. NeXT started out on controlled PC hardware so i don't think it would be much of a stretch to get os x running on a PC with the same video and other controllers as something in the current mac line.
so does that mean that anyone can have a tv station -- all you need is an ip address and the new Airport will stream to the little box that's hooked up to the TV - video content from the web? everyone will be v. happy to watch their "tv" on their tv like they all seem so die hard about.
with enough viewers (advertisers will love the registered hits stats) we might see advertising dollars going to some nice startups of whatever kind -- a nice departure from what the networks and cable companies have set up now. iptv would be nice.
too bad the portable video device is a no go impossibility (is it?). iptv would work great on an ipod with a wireless card - you could watch CNN at Starbucks on your ipod! weee, that would be fun.
Interesting bit, but it's interesting to see where it will lead too. Bill Gates said that hardware is eventually going to be so cheap, people would only buy the software (in this case: Microsoft Windows). Which would mean that software would eventually be more important then the hardware, and far less expensive or even free.
Apple is running the opposite filosophy, hardware and software thightly intergrated. With a large emphasis on controlling the supported hardware.
But considering the "pay for software, not for hardware" philisophy, you would expect Apple to be on a good position on the long run (if the hardware becomes cheap enough).
But i don't think that will be the case, i suspect an increasingly large marketshare for companies like google, who have created in essence an consistent operating system like UI for all their web applications. The computer running those web applications don't need Windows Longhorn or anything, a lightweight OS will do.
So, if Apple is smart, it would be wise to get on the webapplications bandwagon, and try to sell the OSX filosophy experience through webapplications.
The mini is the repository of everything and it gets beamed to the Airport Express. It already works nicely with music. Apple is going to skip the whole DVR in the living room which will always be a commodity and keep it all coming off the PC wherever and however you want. Brilliantly efficient, simple, and they control the front end of the media delivery. No one is ever going to make money with something like TIVO.
OS X's built in 'Simple Finder' mode lets you set a user account (or heck, a thousand user accounts) to run in simple mode. and yes, I believe the default save location is '~/documents.' Simple Finder really doesn't let you browse the hard drive, and the only applications that the user can access are ones that the system administrator(s) have allowed access to. Even a friend of mine, who is an artist (not the deisnger kind, the painty kind, no need for a computer and no interest in learning) was able to use my computer for six weeks this summer when I loaned it to her. she had big fat buttons for AIM, Safari, DVD Player and Word on the dock, and that was it. She was fine. I didn't have to explain a thing.
Dude, welcome to Slashdot!
;-)
*pulls out Logic And Reason Remover(TM)*
This will only hurt for a second...
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Almost all the post OS X switchers I know, are 'power users'. All the other power users I know want to try OS X at some point.
Most of the new to computers folks I know still use Windows.
Considering Linux and all, OS X is the only real desktop alternative.
Considering that Apple has had inexpensive OS X machines on the market for several years now, has been marketing the hell out of their product line, and that there hasn't been a huge rush to switch to Macintosh, I think real world users have indicated their views: most of them obviously do not consider OS X sufficiently better to be worth switching to. In fact, according to IDC, Linux is now on more desktops than OS X, and that is despite the fact that you can hardly buy a machine with Linux preinstalled.
ASSUMPTIONS THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc
Er... no. This argument was invented years ago before microsoft got direct X or PNP working and there might have been some truth in it then, but there just isn't now. Take a look at knoppix for instance. Notice that it just works (tm) with virtually all of those thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Now, I'll agree its support isn't perfect, it doesn't work with one of my wireless adaptors for instance.
However it is damn close to perfect, and it would be trivial for Apple to restrict it with simple statements like any video card from ATI or NVIDIA (which is 99% of the market anyway).
OSX on x86 won't happen because Apple doesn't want it to happen. Perhaps they've noticed that windows is actually stable now if you have good hardware but like the image OSX is more stable because they enforce good hardware. Perhaps they like their profit margins on hardware. Perhaps they like how stylish hardware pushes OSX's stylish image. To be honest, I don't really care why -- but the lack of availability isn't for technical reasons.
I meant the brand new "Sid Meier's Pirates!" that just came out on the PC.
The original version of Pirates! (1987) and Pirates! Gold (1993) were designed by Sid Meier as well. I've played the original Pirates! on the Apple IIGS, but I'm unfamiliar with the new iteration. So that I can understand the strength of the demand for a Mac port, what was added to Pirates! (2004) other than the obligatory 3D facelift?
Apple could integrate WINE into Mac OS X, to let it run like the bluebox (Mac OS Classic) does on Mac OS X/ppc. That way, you could use all of your Windows apps right there in Mac OS X!
Except for the OS X application code that makes assumptions that it is running on 32bit big endian processors (PowerPC) and fails when ported to 32bit little endian x86. And we all know the kwality of closed source vendor code, don't we? </ob/.troll> :)
Remember all the UNIX code written over a decade ago for SunOS 4 [on] SPARC that didn't work on x86 boxen, due to lack of correct use of htons(3) (et al)? Nowadays the opposite problem exists; so much [open source] code does #include <linux.h> and assumes it is running on 32bit x86 CPUs.
At least the trickiest endian-bugs won't occur when porting OS X apps to 64bit PowerPC. The tricky bugs are in 32bit little endian (x86) code ported to 64bit big endian (Sparc64, PPC64); they're harder to track down than 32LE->64LE (alpha) because the latter often didn't barf when accessing 32bit entities with a 64bit fetch due to the word layout in memory.
Back to the topic; I'm fairly certain OS X still supports "fat" binaries which can ship with both PowerPC and x86 code in the same binary (package).
A while back I got irritated by some troll on slashdot trotting out the standard 'apple computers are slower and more expensive' line -- mainly because they were low-id rather than an AC, but I digress.
Anyway, I compared two machines, a 20" iMac and a dual 2.5GHz G5. The iMac was there because they wanted to see a budget range computer, and the dual G5 because they claimed AMD was faster.
The rules were pretty simple, configure a roughly similar machine at newegg and compare the price to apple's. Components had to be of acceptable quality (it isn't like apple uses $50 cases), and the same spec (speed, size, whatever) but within that I chose the cheapest I could at newegg and took advantage of any on-the-day deals.
The end result was apple came out cheaper for both machines (though it would've been slightly more if I'd done a 17" imac). The dual G5 was a lot cheaper since dual proc PCs are considered workstation-class and therefore have a huge markup, especially when you want a processor the same speed as the 2.5GHz G5 (I used an athlon FX-55 IIRC).
There are still price points where apple gets beaten by newegg -- e.g. without comparing properly, the powerbooks look lousy value to me -- but you can be sure that anybody claiming Apple is more expensive has had their head buried in the sand for years now.
Absolutely. The first 20 years of their existence, the only thing that kept them afloat was licensing their OS to other manufacturers. This new no-licensing policy is really a death knell, there's no way they can stay in business like that.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I see what you are saying but calling my lovingly crafted machine a shitbox doesn't endear me to the argument.
The milk rushed out of my nostrils, far too quickly!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Apple could make an x86 version that supports a limited set of x86 hardware. They choose not to because hardware profit margins are huge but software profit margins are marginal. It comes down to dollars, and nothing else.
Vote for Pedro
But here's the key part that most fanbois don't get:
Just because it uses an X86 doesn't mean it would run on a whitebox PC, or Dell, or Gateway.
Apple should still use proprietary hardware, but the PPC line has never lived up to the potential. I'd rather see Apple switch their stuff to X86.
Trust me, buddy, I get it.
In your scenario:
Everyone who wanted to switch to the Mac would still have to purchase Apple hardware.The people screaming for OS X on x86 want it to run on off-the-shelf, commodity hardware that they already have. So they wouldn't be happy.
All the Mac software vendors would have to rewrite their applications for a new architecture, again (remember, they already did it once about 10 years ago when Apple shifted from 68k to PPC). This would cost them money-- if you think they could get by doing quickie ports of the Windows versions of those apps, just ask Microsoft how well-received Word 6.0 for the Mac was. So they wouldn't be happy.
This time it would likely be a much less graceful transition, since emulating the PPC on x86 and getting respectable performance is apparently pretty tough. That would probably mean that even existing Mac users would have to replace all their software in one fell swoop when they bought their first x86-based Mac. So they wouldn't be happy.
Please, explain to this poor, unimaginative fanboi how all that expense and effort would be worth it, just to switch to a CPU that offers a little more speed than we have now.
~Philly
Except for the OS X application code that makes assumptions that it is running on 32bit big endian processors (PowerPC) and fails when ported to 32bit little endian x86.
Those cases are very rare. Like I said, NeXT solved this problem a long time ago. It was possible to write NeXTSTEP code that had byte-order dependencies, but you have to go out of your way to do so.
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
We want you to release a OS X/x86 version of Photoshop.
Actually, that would be: "we want you to ship a fat binary version of photoshop". Same package runs on all supported architectures.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I can't decide if this is a lame troll, or if this poster is in sort-of a reverse Jobsian reality-distortion-field.
./configure then make. Despite the ease-of-use and pretty front end, though, it has all the command-line goodness and power that Linux zealots take pride in (not that this matters to the hardcore it-sucks-if-it-ain't-a-(sorta)-monolithic-kernel, or the hardcore it-sucks-if-I-didn't-compile-it-myself crowd)
OS X is obsolete? In what way? As a workstation and end user PC, it's an infinitely more polished (read, "your grandma can use it") than any Linux distro with any desktop environment, and there is much more software available for it than Linux, including about 99% of what exists for Linux, if you don't mind typing
Yeah, there are more applications out there for Windows, but most of what's out there for Windows is crap. And there are relatively few kinds of applications that there isn't at least one really good package for the Mac, plus we've got a lot of the big names from the Windows world. On top of that, there are some best-of-breed applications that only exist for the Mac now - Final Cut Pro, Motion, Shake. There are features that have been standard since OS X first came out that won't appear in Windows till Longhorn rolls out in 2014 or whenever. The next release os OS X (Tiger) will widen that gap even more.
Oh, yeah, also... unlike Linux, we can play DVDs without violating the DMCA. =-)
Now, don't get me wrong. I've got a Linux box under my desk and a FreeBSD box next to it. I've got machines in the house that run Windows XP, 2000, NT, and (though I loathe to admit it) one running ME. I can use them all comfortably. They all have their merits (well, except the ME box). But when I sit down on my own time, or when I really need to get something done in a hurry, I invariably sit down at my 17" Powerbook. If stability and efficiency are obsolete, then I'll have to agree with you.
Oy. I don't know why I get sucked into these things, though. People have been claiming Apple was going to die at least since the late eighties. Since they didn't die in the mid-nineties (when they damn well should have), forgive me for scoffing at your pathetic belief that the polished OS X is going to be exitinct in a few years, while the amalgamation of distros and desktop environments that makes up the Linux "world" will somehow skyrocket to the top of the heap and become a tour de force in end user computing.
To add to your statement
If you buy No name Ram for your Mac you have a 50 50 chance it wont work
Use Name brand Ram you have a 99% chance it will work(and if it doesnt work its a bad stick)
This is one of the reasons MS has such a hard time to get there SW to work with all the possible configurations
Apple doesnt want to give their customers the same qualitity that MS gives their's (Poor)
My 2 cents
Remember Steve Jobs saying why would anyone want a Flash Based MP3 player?
9 months later Apple Prefects the flash based MP3 player with the shuffle and now they cant get enough to the customers hands
Now Apples says No to the Media center
wait 6 -9 months and Maybe we will see a Media Player that the World will Kill for
just my thoughts of the day
"97% of the market is not, and will continue to advise people to get what THEY know."
A lady at work wanted to buy a graduation gift for her daughter, I suggested she get a Mac if she did not want to do tech support or hear her daughter could not get her paper done because a virus at school. At that time I was a 90% Windows user and 10% Linux user, what did she buy? 12" iBook for her daughter.
A few weeks later the Mac Mini was introduced. What did I buy the same day it was announced? A Mac Mini!
I know a few other employees at work that are fed up with Windows and have already purchased Mac computers in the last 30 days...
Mac OS X, the ONLY version of UNIX your garandma can use!
Your Average Joe
I think it was a wise decision for the regularly tight lipped CFO to give some insight from the company. Here's why:
(1) Usually it is Jobs that announces any sort of strategy or "feelings" Apple may have on a technology. This helps investors feel like someoen other than the CEO is running the ship.
(2) With iPod obviously so huge, it is important to know if Apple is seeing itself as a music playrer company or what. Also, with TIVO rumors abounding, it is important for Apple to stake out their position on the DVR battle field.
(3) Stating the intent of the Mac mini. Obviously people are seeing cool applications for the Mac mini and as the CFO said, some people will try to use it as a home media PC, but he clearly states that it isn't that which helps to determine what the thing IS - a Windows Switcher PC.
(4) A glimp into Apple's crystal ball. It is interesting how he proclaimed the death of the personal video players. Jobs has said this before but with people trying to make the iPod Photo into a video player, it is interesting to hear another cheif reiterate the position.
(5) Points 3 (Mac mini not a PVR) and 4 (iPod Video not in the future) help us to see Apple's implementation of the Digital Hub more clearly. At home, the Mac becomes a dual purposed iLife Workstation as well as a media server. Using products like AirTunes to stream audio around the house and one day perhaps AirFlicks (FireFlicks?) to deliver a 21st century family slideshow, streaming video from DVD, or even PVR style recordings.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Basically, when you put aside the software pirates (99% of Slashdot users who use Photoshop) and the rich artist/musician types (who would buy the Mac hardware anyway), OS X for x86 would be a software nightmare. For corporations, it would be a software investment crash. You can't use your legally owned Windows software on it. You also can't use your legally owned OSX PowerPC software. It just would be a failure.
Wine runs Photoshop and MS Office on Linux just fine, and works on any *NIX running on x86. My guess is Photoshop would officially support or work with a company such as Codeweavers to get an OSX version of Wine out there.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
The PC is NOT sitting by the TV.
The PC is in the PC room. The Airport Express 2 is sitting by the TV. (And Airport Express is about as big as any standard Apple power plugin.)
That's the whole beauty of it -- the PC is wirelessly streaming audio and video to the TV through the proposed Airport Express 2.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
or as low as $99 for OEM Home XP.
I wanted to try Mac OS X, so I had to pay $500 in tax and it included the hardware to run it. Not bad. Now I do not have to worry about all the viruses, security issues, back doors, malware, spyware, adware and trojans that cannot be detected.
If you can't figure out how to admin your winXP box I suggest you buy a Mac. Now when I make that suggestion I just say that the Mini will plug into your monitor, keyboard and mouse. The user just needs to buy the Mini.
I no longer work for free, I suggest that the user buy from a company that has a better quality product, buy an Apple...
Your Average Joe
(or is it hear hear? Anyway...)
I agree that using industry standards to interconnect is the wave of the futuere. As long as software interconnect standards like XML (and XHTML) are used, who gives two bits whether the server is OS X, Linux or XP as long as the content is delivered in a common format.
Already I can copy a MP3 from a Mac to XP and then over to Linux so who cares about the platform? I can't "share" my software but in the end, wouldn't the software companies prefer that?
I love my Mac. I have MS Office, I have Firefox and I have iTunes. I can play any music I want while I connect to my POP3 or IMAP mail server and browse as many HTML documents as I want with whatever Javascript, Java, Flash, Shockwave, what-have-you and it all just works (without spyware and viruses too!)
Yeah Apple.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Home users do not need a LOT of software. They surf the internet and read email. Why do they need to run 3D games that run perfectly fine on a PS2? Why do they need to run executables in email, to be 100% virus compatible?
That is it. Grandma needs a 100% virus compatible computer! We need Windows XX for everyone!
Your Average Joe
Uh, you don't just recompile your apps for another platform and think it's going to work normal. Hell, it probably wouldn't even work at all without modification.
The article states that Apple "hasn't seen much customer demand" for satellite radio + iPod integration. I wonder what metric they use? The term "demand" is usually used in a market sense to indicate consumer preference, measured by their willingness to buy (units sold relative to price). Since there are no such units available, I wonder what "demand" means to Apple. Not enough people have written asking for it? Focus groups not interested? Just curious...
Currently hooked on AMP
The article mentions that portable media players have "failed in the marketplace." It cites the reasons of a small screen coupled with a largish unit relative to the very portable iPod. It occurs to me that the small screen problem could be fixed with high-resolution glasses/goggles, but I don't know if high enough resolution is available in such units, and even if they are, they are probably very pricey. The portability issue is the remaining real problem, technologically speaking. But imagine a device the size of an iPod with such goggles... hmm. Cool!
Currently hooked on AMP
What would be the advantage to that? Presumably what people are hoping for when they ask Apple to port to x86 is cheaper hardware. I'm not sure that Apple could do any better/cheaper on such a "locked down" x86 architecture. The mini is a good case in point that their current choice does not preclude inexpensive machines.
Currently hooked on AMP
The only thing the modern world could do to get me back is announce support for the abacus. Until then, I will stick with my abacus on be more productive than doing the same thing on that newfangled computer with bad support for beads. For my personal work I switched to a TI-32 Plus - it's faster (by a wide margin) at the tasks I do daily, but still not as nice as my abacus.
The abacus was killed prematurely.
Apple isn't stupid. They know they have a hot one in the iPod right now. Why would Apple dilute the value of the iPod and this whole new market segment at a time when the music industry and consumers are still being converted to the Apple way of doing business? Why would Apple introduce a radio-enabled iPod that would distract consumers from buying product at the iTMS (iTunes Music Store)? I don't believe Apple has a clear idea right now of how to distinguish itself (ie, compete and dominate) in the portable media player market, because the content isn't available. When you see a broad selection of video content available to consumers as readily as music content has been, then there will be an opening for iTMS-like video services. Why should Apple fragment its expertise now, though, and jeopardize the success of the one and only market it currently dominates?
So I don't think we'll be seeing a media center PC from Apple any time soon. But I'm sure we'll see many things that make it easier for 3rd parties to add such stuff.
But yes, It would have been nice of them to have included digital audio out. I'm guessing the only reason they didn't was because the mini is supposed to be a low-end Mac, and many people still don't use digital audio yet.
Actually, the trend I've observed via news articles on Mac-centric web sites and so forth is, the schools are currently most interested in using iBook laptops - rather than buying up more eMacs.
Apple even offers a whole package with a rolling cart full of iBooks and power strips to recharge their batteries as they sit in the cart, etc. It's sort of a "mobile computer lab".
The iBooks are fairly inexpensive, and can be doled out as-needed to students to use right at their desks - instead of requiring an actual dedicated computer lab.
I also question the accuracy of Apple's marketing research if they really believe fewer than 1% of non-business Mac owners own more than 1 Macintosh! I've been to the local Mac users' groups and practically everyone who shows up there owns several Macs. When I go to the local Mac stores and talk with people, I get the same feedback from their sales staff. "Yep - I think just about everybody that comes in here has a spare, older Mac around the house someplace!"
In fact, until the fairly recent "switcher" phenomenon, most individual Mac users were pretty fanatical about the machines, and kept buying new models every so often, while hanging onto their previous models. That's one big reason you see better resale value on older Macs than older PCs. The older Macs tend to still see regular use up until the time they're finally resold, so their owners believe they should fetch a higher price. (If your old Windows PC just sat in the closet collecting dust for 2 years and you finally went to sell it, you're probably just letting it go for peanuts because you want the space back and just want to see it go "to a good home".)
Lastly - asking customers if "they're interested in purchasing additional computers" is pointless, no matter which company you are. If Dell or HP or anyone asked this in a survey, they'd get a resounding "No!" from the public. Typically, they ask this in some type of survey taken right after you make a purchase, so it's the time you're LEAST likely to be in the market for another computer. But also, you typically don't think you have any use for ANOTHER computer at home until you discover a need/use for it all of a sudden. Then and only then would you answer "Yes" to this type of question. (EG. Kid suddenly starts becoming a heavy computer user due to school assignments, so you decide it's time to buy a new one and just turn the old one over to him/her completely.)
NeXT solved this problem with "fat binaries". They can package both x86 and PPC binaries into the same Mach binary file. The user just drags the binary into the applications folder and it works. Back in the day I saw some fat binaries with three architectures: x86, moto 68K, and HP-PA. I think there were some four-architecture binaries around, the above plus Sun SPARC. Building the fat binaries was dead simple--click a few checkboxes in Project Builder, hit the compile button. The only glitches I came across in the process was when reading some external data files we had that were saved in a binary format. Of course, the suits at the software vendors might not approve of this capability. They might want to limit users to only a single architecture, so they can sell multiple copies.
It just worked. It was really amazing.
Bandwidth shouldnt even be that huge an issue
Didnt apple build Akamai?
I suspect that a lot of the problem with corporate acceptance of OS X is that there is no second source. The MS monopoly has conditioned buyers to ignore the fact that there is no second source for their OS, but PC users are used to being able to second source their hardware if their primary source puts prices up. Licensing the OS to someone like IBM would eliminate this, particularly since Apple have repeatedly stated that most of their market is home users. Let IBM bring to the market cheap, no frills, OS X boxes aimed at corporate users (similar price / spec to the Mini, but a more boring box), and pay Apple for every copy of OS X they ship, and they could make a significant impact on the corporate sector.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes, I am defintly a bottom-of-the-barrel as-far-from-bleeding-edge-as-you-can-get customer...but the nthing, is, in the PC world, I can do this. Until the Mini came out, Mac had nothing whatsoever that even came CLOSE to those kinds of prices.
I don't blame them, its not their market, they are selling quality, not quantity. But if you want to talk hard prices, the cheapest PC is usually half the cost of the cheapest Mac...including the mini.
once you go slack, you never go back
Spoken like someone who has never had to actually deliver a production-quality software product in their life.
That quip was spoken like someone who never built a multi-architecture binary under NeXTSTEP.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Uh, you don't just recompile your apps for another platform and think it's going to work normal.
Actually, on NeXTSTEP, CPU dependencies were the exception, not the norm. We're not talking about the differences between Solaris for SPARC and Solaris x86, here. NeXTSTEP really was the same on Intel, Motorola, HPPA, and SPARC.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
People who use Linux on the desktop are completely aware of the problems of exchanging files. If they didn't understand it before they installed Linux, they'll find out in the first five minutes after installing it (actually, they don't have to install it, they can just run it from a live CD).
In fact, one of the main reasons people even buy OS X is because it's a UNIX-like system that happens to run an official copy of Microsoft Office. If it weren't for MS Office on OS X, OS X desktop usage would be even lower than it already is.
But you reflect the typical Apple view: "most users are morons, and therefore if they don't buy our products, it's because they are morons".
It would be nice to hear how the enterprise portion of Apple Sales is doing. Our firm has been moving from Windows to OS X for the last 12 months.
I think there is a very real BSD halo effect that when it comes to updating the enterprise, many small businesses are opting for the effectiveness, ease of use and perceived security of OS X. Our low end servers utilize SuSE but even moving to xServes.
I think if Apple can market effectively to these business then they have a huge upside.
I suspect that a lot of the problem with corporate acceptance of OS X is that there is no second source.
You bet it is: any software issues aside, if a company goes with Macintosh, they are stuck with their rather limited range of hardware, and there is no price competition or room for negotiation.
Let IBM bring to the market cheap, no frills, OS X boxes aimed at corporate users (similar price / spec to the Mini, but a more boring box), and pay Apple for every copy of OS X they ship, and they could make a significant impact on the corporate sector.
If IBM put their name and reputation behind OS X, it might succeed more, or it might not. IBM does not have a good track record in pushing technologies.
But that's not going to happen. IBM has chosen Linux as their Windows alternative. I suspect that from their point of view, OS X offers no technical features to them that are worth the effort--it would be easier for them simply to invest the time and money into making Linux better.
Furthermore, given the way Apple has behaved towards licensees in the past, I seriously doubt anybody is going to partner with them again.
Unfortunately the vast majority of Applications on OS X are written in Carbon (Adobe, Macromedia, MS, Quark), and while they *may* port over with no problems they might not at all - they certainly weren't designed with that in mind, though they all have x86 versions too so some code will be shared.
It's very unlikely they would only require a trivial recompile, and with relationships already fragile between Apple and their partners, it might push Adobe etc to consider just why they are making and marketing a mac version of their software anyway when a windows one will run on the same hardware...
Wrong hotshot, hardware margins are marginal, hahaha.
Microsoft makes more off of a copy of Office than Apple does selling you a mini.
Ahem. That's just wrong. The only time that Mac OS was licensed to other manufacturers was for a very short period (maybe 2 years) in the mid-90's. And it almost killed Apple. Apples strength in the desktop market has been serving a niche market--a market that has grown (in terms of user base--not market share) over the years. It's comparable to the high end auto market. You don't need to have (or want) a significant market share if you are Lexis or BMW. But you might roll out a Mini (think BMW's Mini-Cooper vs. Mac Mini) once in a while for the masses that might want to take you for a spin.
What is wrong with people around here? I figured once it was modded up funny enough times people would get the idea. Maybe I should have gone with the "...or not." at the end as I'd originally intended, but I figured I didn't need to hit people over the head with it... Next time I'll be more careful.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Yes, I understand this. However, I for one, would love a radio enabled iPod. I ride a motorcycle. As such, I would like as few electro'gadgets as possible. it is just a space and control issue. As it is, I just don't bring a radio with me. Most people who do seem to use xM radio. A bit more battery life would be good. I can think of a lot of things that would make the iPod better for motorcycle use (like a secure bracket that can be screwed to something). If course motorcycle riding iPod users is probably a bit of a limited market group (You do see a lot of Ipods being carried by bikers though).
I just don't think the PC world is as chaotic as it was in the mid to late 90s if you decide to support modern hardware only.
A lot of the legacy in the PC world is gone. ISA is long gone. Most PCI cards sold have pretty mature plug-n-play features, something that never really happened properly with ISA. There are only 2 graphics card designers left. It was a free-for-all in the mid 90s in comparison.
Ironically, game console manufacturers understand that software makes more money than hardware.
As Apple gets more and more into closed consumer devices like the iPod, they are going to have to realize that there is a saturation point and that you can not sell the same hardware to the same person again and again and again.
What you can do, however, is sell more software for that hardware, or updated software.
Look at how many revisions of the IPOD there have been. 4 generations of classic ipod plus the ipod color, the mini, and the shuffle. The market is going to saturate and what will Apple be able to sell to these people? They already claim not to make much money on iTunes downloads.
I'm sure they make a good chunk of change selling OSX updates. If they had a larger installed base, that OS update money would multiply bigtime. This is the cash crop for Microsoft and it could be for Apple also.
I do think that Apple is living on borrowed time with its overpriced hardware. They suffer when their PPC chips fall behind the curve compared to x86 as they ALWAYS do. Not being able to put a G5 in the notebooks is really putting the squeeze to them. Right now they are charging two or three times as much as the Mac Mini for what is basically a Mac Mini with a screen in the iBook and PowerBook line. I don't think Apple can continually charge a premium for their hardware unless their CPUs are as fast as the current state of the art since Apple's core market is digital content creators who need that throughput.
They thought they'd get themselves out of trouble by moving from Motorola to IBM but IBM still doesn't have the chip R&D resources of an Intel or even an AMD, apparently.
iTunes was fast out of the starting gate with its service. There were only a couple failed experiments before.
If Apple waits for others to show them video works, they will be too late to the party. This is especially true if the competition uses their own DRM scheme which locks out Apple (just as Apple has done with its AAC files).
They have to decide whether they want to be a leader, a follower, or not bother at all. I think they are going to not bother at all, because Apple is a small company and they have to really pick their battles to avoid risk.
that does not make sense at all.. if OSX/x86 ever became reality, it is most likely to be a pointy-clicky to build the x86 and append it to the existing Photoshop binary making it a fat binary. There should be NO work involved in changing the source - only rebuilding.
And split 30% profit ? No, they would ADD to that profit.
I always wonder why PC compatibility cards don't come back. Even a lowly 1ghz x86 CPU would perform better than VirtualPC.
Probably b/c the card would be three times more expensive then a comparable regular PC.
If it were less than $300 I'd be willing to buy it. I'd rather have a card slot occupied than another noisy tower sitting next to me, along with all its wire clutter and cables, in addition to KVM.
Well, in addition don't forget that current Intel CPUs require about 150W and a cooling unit that's about the size of the Mac Mini. This was not the case when PCs on PCI-cards were popular.
There are some full-blown mini-PCs built for 5 1/4" slots, those should work fine, at least in the G4 units (since the G5 doesn't have the appropriate slot). You'd still need a KVM, though.
One could use a mobile processor on the card. Like I said earlier, even at 1ghz, it would perform better than VPC.
Actually the only G4s with two 5.25" bays were the MDDs.
You can't believe a word he says.
A couple months ago he said "Apple isn't interested in competing in the sub $800 computer market." A few months later Apple released the Mac mini.
You know what? You're absolutely right. I need to disregard everything I thought I knew about market research and change my opinion based on the words of one shitwit on Slashdot who can't even be bothered to log in.
What was I thinking? Thank you so much for setting me straight.
No need to recall anything OR make it available for download. Just tell people that they can pay for it, just like they would any other version.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
The main reason that this will never happen is that Apple actually enjoys selling their hardware. While they're competing with the PC market, why would they give the PC market their biggest advantage? (a far better OS) Ask any Mac user, if OS X was available on a P4 for 1/2 the price of your standard Power Mac config, which would you buy?
The idea that a thorough quality assurance cycle for such a project could be done in a week is nothing short of madness.
Tools -- even good tools -- are not an adequate substitute for process.
"If architects built buildings the way programmers built programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
That stubborn and insanely stubborn backward mentality is what's finally going to sink Apple. Apple needs to expand to the PC world and the PC world needs OS X.
Actually, the closest Apple ever came to dying was when they did license the Mac OS. From 1995 to 1998 Apple licensed the Mac OS to half a dozen other companies, including DayStar Digital, who made the only quad-processor Mac ever.
During that time period Apple went from a 10 billion USD company to a 2 billion USD company all because of the clones. Apple's business model is to sell hardware, and clone makers would directly compete with them for Mac sales. They wouldn't make enough off of Mac OS X sales to keep afloat when all the clone makers are undercutting them on price.
Licensing the OS works fine for Microsoft because they're primarily a software company. The more Windows manufacturers there are, there more Microsoft makes off of licenses, but the more Mac clone manufacturers there are, the more Apple would lose from lost CPU sales.
Being the company with the "only real desktop alternative" operating system is what keeps Apple afloat. People buy Apple's computers to get Mac OS X, so Apple gets money off of Mac OS X sales, and even more money off of Mac CPU sales. That's (officially) why they released the Mac mini in January: so that people that have had their eye on switching for a while, but can't afford to shell out several hundred USD for a new system just to switch or add a Mac OS X box can get that box for half the price, provided they have an old keyboard, mouse, and monitor lying around. Apple gets increased income from all the people that wouldn't/couldn't have bought a Mac because it was too expensive.
The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
Fat Binaries don't solve the QA and Marketing problems. How many major commercial apps shipped on all 4 OpenStep platforms? 1 or 2?
I believe all of Lighthouse Design's apps shipped on all 4.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA