Slashdot Mirror
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
euphonaesthesia writes "In this article from Fortune, Dell CEO Michael Dell mentions that he would offer OS X to customers if Apple were so willing. The author speculates also that Apple would probably demand certain specifications. Having OS X would probably require a higher price point--this both Apple and Dell would probably like."
Hell is freezing over for the fourth time!!
... to offer GNU/Linux?
Chevy: "We'd love to sell Mercedes"
Apex: "We'd love to sell Marantz"
FP for that ass!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Offer OXS like how? On Dell x86 boxes, or Dell made apple branded hardware, or what?
The Digital Couture Collection
I just threw up on my shiny, formerly translucent keyboard. Thanks again, Michael Dell.
YESSSSSSs.s....sssss.sssss my precioussss.ssss...sssss.ss
Well, I saw this coming a mile away. Now just to see how apple will respond, no?
Step1: sell MacOSX
Step2: raise prices
Step3: profit!
Statesmen serve to better the country and help the people.
Politicians serve to better themselves and help friends.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What does the title mean?
Expanding the contraction, none of the three possibilites make sense
Dell we had Sell Mac OS X Dell we should Sell Mac OS X Dell we would Sell Mac OS X
What am I missing?
Unless or until Apple has an Office killer. The second MS gets wind of an Apple plan to compete with them directly using the same vendors Microsoft Office for Mac is as dead as a doornail.
It will reveal how much Microsoft is in bed with computer manufacturers.
Why does Apple not realize that they would be doing themselves a favor if they didn't act like their product is 'holier than thou'? I mean, if it were priced below M$ and ran on x86 machines, it would eventually win.
Seriously, don't they realize that selling cheaper sometimes means bigger profits?
Apple contracts Dell to build the new x86 Macs, and licenses Dell as a Mac reseller. Everything still has the Apple logo, but Dell gets a cut.
-mkb
Am I missing something here? I would have thought one of the key reasons that OSX is so popular is its stability (lets put features like Dashboard to one side for a sec).. And part of the stability comes from the fact that OSX only needs to be developed for a limited subset of microprocessors and hardware architectures currently then surely once it had to become generic for Dell boxen this would mean the OS *might* be more unstable as a result?
The question is who of the big PC manufactures would not offer OSX if givin the opportunity?
You are all a bunch of idots.
Too bad Apple isn't interested in such a deal.
Which isn't to say anything, really. They are already the #1 personal computer OEM. They only stand to lose if they allow others to horn in on their business. Isn't that right, Amelio?
Damn, Dell purchasing power and Apple technology. My fan boy pants just don't know which way to dance.
Could be a great opportunity for Steve, but after Michael Dell's comments on the iPod being less than impressive, does anyone see it really happening? I think Jobs' penchant for holding a grudge will kill this before it even gets past the discussion stage.
I'm assuming that Dell is doing this because of the falling margins on computers. What will they do when even Apple's are commodities?
For Dell to see MacOS, won't they have to give a make-over to their hardware? Hell, it would end up as much as buying an Apple. I'd rather have the Apple if it came to that :-)
Dude, there's no way in hell I'm gettin a Dell.
..."No it will never happen because Apple say so."
BWAHAHAHHAHAHA!
Great! Dell just drank the Kool-Aid! ..now die
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
If he would sell OS X why wouldnt he sell Linux? He could make his computers cheaper by giving users an easy Linux distro(Fedora, Mandrake, maybe even Linspire) and just charge for burning backup CDs and installing. He would be giving his customers a secure OS with a free Office Suite(MS Office costs extra now). The main reasonhe hasnt done this is because of threats from MS, but wouldnt MS do the same for selling OS X?
how many times have we heard about Dell and AMD?
Dell's just posturing to get better discounts from Microsoft.
"We want Microsoft to provide us with cheaper copies of Windows XP, so we will threaten to switch to OS X but not actually do it."
They've done this before with switching to AMD--they've announced many time that they were "considering" it, but as soon as Intel lowered their prices, Dell backed off.
Sorry, Mike, I think Apple will keep its hardware money to itself. Thanks for the offer, though.
This is a good indicator that Apple's plan -- to sell a superior computer for OS X and Windows -- is being taken seriously. It's a daring plan, but if it works, Dell has the most to lose.
Michael Dell is no longer CEO. He's chairman of the board. Kevin Rollins is CEO.
How long before Redmond calls up to explain why doing so would not be in Dell's best interest? Something along the lines of "Those Windows licenses you're including for retail? We're gonna start making you pay us retail for them."
Years ago, Michael Dell said he wanted to sell Apples... and it got misquoted as:
"I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Dell would probably have to change their entire production philosophy first. If I order a PC from them, even if I order a server from them, I get whatever random components they have in the bin that meet the specs. It makes it very hard to standardize an IT department on Dell equipment. People buy HPs and IBMs simply because they know they can get the same machine for the next few months rather than play around with yet another brand of component.
The reason why Mac OS works so well currently is because Apple can do QA on a small set of hardware they know the composition of. They know what components go into an iMac G5 versus a 17" PowerBook G4. Can the same be said for the Dell Dimension Build of the Week?
Like it or not, more time and success has been had with OS X in making it a user friendly and desktop orientated operating system, the same I fear cannot be said for SUSE or even Linspire for the most part.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Dell and Apple make their money selling pricey hardware, not the OS. (The last time Apple tried fooling around with clones, Umax took it in the shorts. )
So, it's not surprising Dell would offer to sell hardware. It would be surprising to see Apple take the offer.
P.S. The "text in image" thing still sucks donkey balls. (Maybe that should be my sig...)
Ah, could we finally see the start of *real* competition in the desktop OS market? It would interesting to have a unix-based OS as competition to windows.
One can argue that this might lessen the rate of adoption of linux, but I think the opposite will be true because when developers support two platforms, they'll have to use cross-platform toolkits or code so going to three platforms is not that big a step.
see a Text Widget
After his second coming, Steve Jobs quickly removed all clone licenses stopping Moto, Umax et al from producing Mac like PC's. I'd doubt he'd completely change direction on his deep seated hatred of clones, however Dell is a major player and we have seen stranger things in previous weeks... ...but saying that, if he does, I'm buying a typewriter. At least I'd have a solid cultural identity. :)
These next few months could be very interesting.
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
That said, I'd be surprised if Steve would ever allow Michael (or anyone else) to produce and sell Macs. But stranger things have happened, even in the last two weeks.
I've been pretty dismissive of the whole "OSX will run on PC boxen" arguements; I think Apple still wants to control the hardware. I seriously doubt you'll ever be able to buy a boxed version of OSX and plop it on just any PC hardware (at least without some serious hacking / bootstrapping), nor will Apple tolerate it.
However, I could see Apple possibly doing strategic partnerships with the likes of Dell and HP, allowing them to license (at a financially rewarding rate) some motherboard designs and allow them to sell to certain segments of the market. Maybe to existing Dell/HP customers who already have existing purchasing agreements, markets/locations Apple isn't already selling to, etc.
IF Dell started selling (or hinted at selling) the Mac OS that ran on x86, would MS just stand by? Even thought Dell offers Linux with some boxes IIRC, I suspect they [MS] would try to ink Dell to some exclusive deal and give them a major price break on Windows and related software. I suspect they must already have some deal...this may be Dell's way of getting MS to sweeten the deal even more.
I think it would be great if Dell provided MS, Apple, and Linux OSes as choises, but I just can't see MS allowing this to go on without some sort of "intervention". It wold be even better if they also sold AMD based systems.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Selling OS-X may gain them earlier insight into Apple's designs. This would help them in their "let's make PC's that look like Macs" process.
A common thread I see running through all these conversations about the upcoming switch to Intel processors is an assumption that having an Intel automatically equates to PC Compatibility.
Back in the 1980s, there was a period of time where Macintoshs, Amigas, Ataris, and other computers all used the Motorola 68000 processor. Just because they had the same processor did not immediately mean that they could all run each others hardware. Sure, there were some emulators available, but they usually required that the user have, say, a copy of the Macintosh ROMs to put into a physical card, or something similar.
The BIOS needs to know how to address the disk. The bootstrap code can be the same from machine to machine, but without someone finding and feeding it to the CPU, you got nothing.
Did Jobs say the Mac was switching to intel Processors? Yes. Did he say Macintoshes would now boot on ye olde' compaq in the basement? Nope.
What does this mean for Microsoft? Are they going to take their move and switch over to the PowerPC platform? ;)
In the last few weeks we have witnessed the following:
-Macs moving to Intel microprocessors.
-Roger Waters reuniting with Pink Floyd.
-Michael Dell's desire to sell OS X.
Icicles are forming in hell, pigs are flying, etc. Pick your favorite trite cliche. Personally, I'm scared. I think it's time to stock the basement with canned foods.
The question is, would Dell be able to manufacture something to Jobs' standards of design and taste? Judging from their previous efforts, not unless Apple did most of the design and vetted the parts suppliers - in which case, why involve Dell at all?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
"Seriously, don't they realize that selling cheaper sometimes means bigger profits?"
Wal-Mart agrees with you.
What if Gates says Dell cannot sell Windows... There is still a much larger market for Windows than OSX.
This sounds like a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, it would severely cut into Apple's hardware sales, which, believe it or not, is fairly profitable.
It's a great idea, but it won't happen -- unless their hardware business became unprofitable. I think Apple is wise to the fact that they need to be able to drop their hardware business as a last resort, and quickly, if that happens.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
Dell said "offer to our customers", in that in the option box for some PC's you could select OSX instead of Windows.
The result would be lower winXP pricing, to price OSX out of the market and lower bundling prices of office, and of course no more Office for Mac. This would help kill OSX on Dells for PC buyers.
But Mac buyers would still shop Dells against Macs, killing Mac HW sales or profit margins.
Yep, I am sure Steve J. is just waiting to get into a price war on two fronts...
I'm sure the zealots will mark me a troll but what will happen in reality if they do that is they will have to start writing support on their OS for more than just their own hardware. This means they cannot control quality anymore. When you start introducing the third party hardware and accompanying drivers, the stability of Mac OSX will get shaky and it will start to act more like Windows. Comparing Windows to OS X is apples and oranges right now, because Macs are more akin to video game consoles as far as the software/hardware mix is concerned. Seriously, if OS X came out for x86 what you'd have is basically yet another Linux/Unix distro. You'd have to wait around for the companies to decide they need to support their hardware on OS X with drivers and all of that. It would be the same kind of issues Linux has now for the most part, except for the decentralization problem.
"Dell should just liquidate the company and return the money to the shareholders..." - Jobs
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
So instead of selling Office for PC they sell Office:Mac - they make their money either way.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
like Dells current PC line, check the box markings when you see one
funny how so many USA companies are prepared to sell out their countrymen for that new SUV or beach condo, if there was a profit in selling ZyklonB gas you can bet a USA company would be selling it
n/t
hopefully the poster keeps up with the news, cuz Michael Dell isn't the CEO of Dell. There's a bunch of things Dell (the person) has said he'd love to do but we know Dell (the company) probably wouldn't do.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
I used to be one of the mac heads who said "Apple will never do that because hardware makes them their money." This is true... at the moment. However, if a huge company like IBM can get out of the desktop PC market, why can't Apple? See just because clones nearly killed Apple doesn't mean someone else can't figure out the right way to change their business model.
Perhaps Steve has the vision to actually pull it off.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Apple would be way more likely to go with HP or Sony. As long as Steve is in charge, Apple will have high standards on what will run OS X. It won't be some DULL box with no style.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
I think you need to take the fork out of yours, grammar boy.
If I'm reading this right, and Apple would allow Mac OSX to run on a standard Dell or any x86 machine, Apple would be dead. Apple makes about 95% of their profits on their hardware and if they'd allow Mac OSX to run on a standard x86 machine, no one would buy Powermacs, Powerbooks, iBooks, iMacs, or any kind of Mac which would kill Apple. Teh end.
Anyone see HP+iPod?
Dell *might* still make the case. Apple would require them to use reference designs for the internals, and Apple would require them to sell at a certain price.
Dell *might* be permitted to bundle extras with the computer, similar to the way you can get a ram upgrade or free printer from Mac Mall.
At Apple's prices, there's still quite a bit of room for profit for a manufacturer. Basically, Dell would manufacture Apples, and be permitted to sell it through their existing channels.
For example, many businesses have Dell accounts. They may not have Apple accounts. Of course Dell would love to sell Apples. Even if they pay a large premium to Apple, there is still a lot greater margin than with Windows PC products.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I love X, but my ibook is waiting for its forth logicboard. It has been out of service for 5 months of its three year life. Completely unacceptable. Another hardware vendor would put some pressure on Apple to smarten up.
Chrysler Crossfire / Mercedes SLK So maybe that scenario isn't so far-fetched.
Putting moderation advice in your
If HP can make iPods why can't Dell make Macs?
The two rules for success are:
1) Never tell them everything you know.
...black Apple with a Dell logo on it?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Unfortunately, there is no way I am going to buy a ThinkPad even with OS X anytime soon: I'm still not convinced that the people at Lenovo (or whatever their name is) will keep the quality up.
So, PowerBooks it stays...
This Michael Dell? ("...the best thing that could be done with Apple would be to shut it down, liquidate its assets, and return the money to its shareholders")
It should be observed that Michael Dell has taken pot-shots at, belittle, and marginalize Apple at every turn, in every market, using every bit of FUD he and the top brass at Dell could muster. The rivalry is legendary. At first I thought he was just trying (bitterly) to tout his machines at the expense of another company.
Then Apple makes a significant hit with OS X, talks about running on Intel hardware, and now he's more than willing to swallow a little of his pride and share in Apple's good fortune. This reversal of his stance has opened my eyes. He's not actually bitterly opposed to Apple, he's just bitterly opposed to poverty and obscurity. He's a techno-whore.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Lets see, order the best computer/OS combo, from the company that treats anyone without a commercial service contract like complete shit.
Not gonna happen!
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I cringe ever time the Dell TV ads push some insanely cheap package, then up blinks and chimes the "Intel Inside" animation with "Celeron" across the bottom of it. "Dell products feature Intel Celeron processors!" says the cheery voice. "Get away with" is more like it.
I doubt Apple would want to see their OSXi running on them, so they'll have to push the processor line up a notch. Though there is a good joke commercial in there - like the one where Lance Armstrong comes back to his room on the Teutels - Dad, Paulie and Mikey - turning his gazillion dollar road bike into a chopper... Steve walks in to see Paulie (Otellini) & Mikey (Dell) with pretty much the same speechless look on his face...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
While this is a noble jesture, I don't see it happening. I'm fairly sure Apple wants their OS on their hardware. Not because they have some sort of ego, but because of the already existent perception of Apple's quality. Can you imagine the iPod software running on Creative's mp3 player? If OSX were to be able to run on x86s other than Apple's, I can only see Microsoft pulling all of its software from Apple in fear of some excellent competition. What boggles my mind is that Dell is not open to the idea of using AMD, but does want to use OSX. I think it's odd, but then again Dell may just be being picky.
SYS 64738
Dell is associated as MARGINALLY one-step ahead of Walmart PCs.
Apple, esp with PowerMac and PowerBook, is associated with one of the best personal computer experience.
A merger would create...? The virus-incompatability of MacOSX with the instability of Dell hardware while diminishing neither =)
- sell OS X users Office and make money
- don't sell OS X users Office and don't make money
*OBVIOUSLY* they would prefer to sell the end user Windows XP and Office, but having a customer who "only" purchases one of your products is better than not having that customer at all.I don't know about you, but I'd rather have $50 than $0, but maybe that's just me...
Yea? Really? On who's hardware?
Did Dell sell NeXTStep for Intel?
Keep dreaming...
Maybe Apple can negotiate an anti-competitive exclusive OS provider contract with Dell... I guess, since they're not a convicted monopolist, they could actually do that... but why don't we just talk about Microsoft going bankrupt and Bill Gates living in a van down by the river, as long as we're talking about things that just aren't going to happen ?
I mean, really, it's about as likely as Apple using Intel chips for its... oh, wait...
of this osx-mac thing, i really wish that this topic stops just as SC0 trial stopped or google stories vanished.
after alll.. should we expect 3 or 4 mac stories every day until they releases their shit, and then over again... please stop this.
Has anyone seen this? (quoted from theregister.co.uk) "The only 'benefit' will be that if you don't like Mac OS X, you'll be able to wipe it and install Windows on your Mac. Apple has said it won't stop users doing that, though it will prevent PC owners installing Mac OS X on their machines. For a minority, the ability to run Windows alongside Mac OS X will be advantageous, just as plenty of Linux users do the same, primarily to play the latest games." Would you be persuaded to Switch to a Mac from Windows if you could easily change back again? Given Apple's excellent and coveted product design amongst consumers this could be a wise move.
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
If Apple were to even consider clones this time, they would probably insist on manufacturing everything but the case, and they'd probably have some pretty stringent requirements on what those have to look like.
The beauty of Apple computers, other than whatever Jonathan Ive comes up with, is that the hardware and software are perfectly matched, and the result is a very comfy, harmonious system. Apple's gone to a lot of trouble to make sure that Macs work beautifully with OS X and vice-versa. And the only way they can maintain that level of integration is to control the hardware.
Dell would never agree to the kind of contract Apple would offer if they were going to discuss clone-making. So that's why it's never going to happen.
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
This could be really fascinating to see. Ultimately Dell and the like don't want to be selling commodity hardware. It takes a lot of resources for very little margin. They'd much rather focus on selling fashionable high end machines like their XPS systems.
So, OS X, could be sort of the bridge to getting the PC makers away from the commodity market. If you want a cheap bare bones PC, you get your wintel XP box. If you want something that's going to be high quality and last you a few years, you get yourself a macintel box.
The question that remains is whether Apple is willing to sacrifice some hardware sales to broaden the base of their OS support. I kinda doubt they will because their bread and butter really is making nice hardware. It's beneficial to them to have an exclusive lock on the apple faithful as far as that goes.
In the end, what I really hope for is being able to buy an Apple computer with OS X and be able to run my Windows games under that environment rather seamlessly. Then I can run OS X all the time, play my windows games when I want to, and then down the road hopefully mac games will come out and I can drop Windows all together.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
mind you, I'm typing this on a Dell keyboard while reading what I typed on a Dell monitor for my Dell Win XP machine ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I will only buy one if they bring back the "dude its a dell guy". "Dude its an OS-X Dell, now pass me that joint."
SO Dell would sell their Intel machines with a PPC native OS, but not actually upgrade their processors to AMD64?
Is their marketing strategy to make slow computers or something....?
~You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because I'm insane~
Is anyone surprised that Dell would want to extend their product line?
"Yeah I'd do it." is what every reseller says. They all want one more thing to sell. Especially when it's something that not every pc reseller has and goes for a higher price with better profit margin.
Apple would want to remain in total control of the deal. I'm sure the people working at Dell are used to being the -only- 900lb gorilla in the room, so that would rub the Dell people the wrong way the minute the meeting started.
I just don't see Dell bending over backwards to accomodate Apple. I find it equally hard to believe Apple would accomodate Dell.
It -would- be interesting to see if Microsoft would actually let Apple into Dell's channel in any meaningful way. There would likely be some interesting changes from Microsoft on the next pricing agreement sent to Dell. (e.g. an Apple penalty)
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
the average dell home purchaser is so clueless that click-and-drool windoze is a support challenge. can you imagine the nightmare in handholding joe sixpack through even simple stuff like mounting drives, setting UDEV rules, or figuring out what all those crazy rwx permission thingys mean?
Dear mr. Dell,
No fucking way. Go sell Windows XP Starter Edition, dumbass!
Respectfully,
--- Steve
Dell could probably use some overpriced x86 Macs in the lineup as a foil for their pricing--it would let Dell raise prices some while still looking inexpensive alongside Apple's offerings.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Microsoft will not pull officeX. By providing office for the mac, they instantly put a stake through the heart of those who would be willing to offer competition, like OpenOffice. Do you really think Apple couldn't whip something up of equal caliber?
Second, have you seen the price for OfficeX? It makes MS a very pretty penny.
If OSX gains widespread acceptance, then M$ will tie office into that and laugh all the way to the bank. Switching the OS you work on is one thing, moving millions of dollars in customized excel spreadsheets and related training quite another.
..don't panic
You're missing something which is what I was originally alluding to.
If OS X becomes popular in the general PC marketplace, Microsoft stands to lose Windows sales from those who buy OS X instead.
If they kill Office for OS X, a lot of businesses would write off OS X as an option and stay with Windows.
They would lose money from killing it, but in the long run if OS X becomes popular enough they could make more from the people that would be forced to stay on Windows without Mac Office.
http://www.neooffice.org/
This is a nice little play by Dell. They surely know that Apple wouldn't do this, so them saying they would be open to the option is a freebie.
At the same time, they can use this statement to muscle around Microsoft too, keeping the option available (we could always "switch" to OSX).
Plus, since Apple's been the talk of the town, Dell just associated themselves with a winner, which will probably bump their stock a bit.
Well played indeed.
It's plain as day that these companies have to move away from HW. The 90's was the golden age of hardware because of software pushing it from behind. Now, we're in the exact opposite situation, too much processing power that's not being challenged. And besides, Dell and HP have the hardware game locked for the most part. Hardware is hardware is hardware.
The next big battle is in the software market. It's a game of who can make the better software products now that processing power is so abundant
"It's not rocket science, Smithers! It's only brain surgery!" --Mr. Burns
Remember how much crap MS was given for including a web browser in their OS? The only reason anybody cared was because MS had such a large market share. If Apple ever gains a significant market share, they'll be accused of being monopolistic with their hardware.
MS has repeatedly stated that Office for the Mac is profitable.
Killing it off to promote their monopoly in operating systems would be interesting to say the least.
The G5 wasn't good enough, and too hot for a Powerbook. AMD has supply issues. This is why Apple switched to Intel. They don't want to be in the commodity PC market, have never said they would. But any jackass who insists this is some brilliant move by Apple to get into the commodity business gets front news headlines. Stop it already. OS X will only run on macs, or hacked PCs.
I wrote about a week or so on the idea of HP selling Macs. I've pasted it below (with edits), much of it would apply to Dell as well.
Steve killed the clones, but why? Because they undercut Apple. But he is allowing iPod "clones." Why?
The difference is between "clone" and clone. The Mac clones were different hardware (asthetically, possibly physically) based on the platform. The HP iPod is nothing more than a Apple iPod with a different brand on it. Otherwise it is EXACTLY the same.
If Apple were to let Dell sell Macs (in the same way they let HP sell iPods) what would that do for them? It would give them another HUGE company saying "Macs are good!" (not to mention taking some of the tech support burden). Add onto this the economy of scale they could get on Intel processors if they put their weight in with Dell (Intel's #1 customer). They sell the same thing, maybe in a different color. But the guts, software, everything else is the same (except for the word "Dell" everywhere and maybe a bundled printer).
So Apple takes a small hit on revenue per box if Dell sells some. Big deal. In exchange they get all that marketing muscle, all that brand loyalty, and the economy of scale of making machines for Dell too (which would probably cover Dell's share of the machine's proffit). The Dell Macs could become their premium computers for power home users, and they could sell Windows machines for the low end. I think having Dell backing machines could really help Apple in the enterprise and server space.
I'm not saying it will happen, I doubt it. But the possibility is there. Benefits exist for both companies. As for the idea of just putting OS X on standard Dell boxes (true clones), I doubt it. Steve wouldn't let that happen.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
It's been reported here and elsewhere just about a hojillion times, but since you seem to be the last person on earth to get the message you do not need X11 to run OpenOffice on the Mac.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Having OS X would probably require a higher price point--this both Apple and Dell would probably like."
So the monopoly OS, Windows, which is supposed to cause price gouging, is actually cheaper than MacOS with identical hardware.
Vote for Pedro
Microsoft is one of many competitors and it would be -really- good for Dell to have an OSX server OS option.
Microsoft gets to keep their desktop monopoly with their #1 American buddy Dell. Dell can put the screws into Microsoft on a better server OS deal. And Apple gets a new channel!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Long-term reality intrudes on your economic short-term fantasy. The choice is really between (1) sell Mac Office at the expense of Windows sales, or (2) sell tons and tons of Windows licenses. If the need arises, it's not hard to envision Microsoft picking door number 2.
Umm, the fact that Jobs said you could install windows on a new Intel mac leads up to believe it will be PC compatible.
Are you trolling or just not keeping up.
yes i remember now, about a year ago, M. Dell pronouced apple dead in the water and said they should just sell it and give the money to shareholders?
Looks like michael dell should have gotten a college education afterall ^^
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Because Bill didn't say it was OK.
Mike has been playing by Bills rules for a long time. If he's making a public statement like this, it is because Bill told him it was OK.
It's an obvious step for a convicted monopolist, use your influence to bring another player into the market that won't compete on price and destroy your bottom line.
Anyone with half a brain can see that having expensive OSX fill the *nix niche in the marketplace that Linux is shooting for would be a tremendous win for Microsoft, and say whatever you like about Bill, but he ain't stupid.
And at the end of the day, it's good for Dell too. If they get everyone who might have gone for Linux interested in OSX instead, they can leverage their volume to get better deals on OSX licenses than their competitors and either undercut them or pocket some extra profit. If they're selling the boxes with Linux, there is no room for markup and no capacity to leverage their size to get better pricing than their competition.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but it seems as obvious as a slap in the face from where I sit...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Michael dell was threatening a hostile takeover of Apple, so he could shut everything down, liquidate the assets, and refund the value to the shareholders.
But... whoopsie... now Steve Jobs is back at Apple's helm, and now mikey wants to be his bitch the say way he's been billy's bitch.
My, how times have changed.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Look at how many times he's hinted at shipping AMD only to follow up with "ha ha ha, trick you..."
"Good would be Dell selling OS X."
- I like pudding.
There is a semi/nativer version, NeoOffice/J.
I actually own Office X but have using NeoOffice/J instead on my primary computer - for day-to-day use NeoOffice/J is fine. Have not tried beta 2 yet though, which I am thinking will be a lot better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Frankly not too bad. OS X is what Microsoft wanted Longhorn to be. Stability? Check. Security? Check. Gorgeous Eye Candy? Check. Plug something in and it just works? Check. Easy for granny to use? Check. Powerful enuf for your average Unix hack? Check. Apple is sitting on a ball breaker of an OS and they know it. I think Steve Jobs senses MS for all its recent Longhorn misfires is at its weakest (OS wise) in probably a good two decades. He may swear up and down he will never let OS X run on just any PC and that may be true but notice that still doesn't rule out an OS X rollout on specially branded PCs built by hand picked suppliers (like Dell). Provided Apple gets a reasonable cut of the profits it sounds feasible. They make up in volume what they lose in direct sales and still get to uphold the Sterling Apple Brand and reputation that goes with it.
Oooh, that actually makes sense. A plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.
As somebody who's at this very moment on hold with Dell's support contractor, BancTec, I think this would be a horrible idea. This company, like so many others, has thrown all it's customer support offshore, and is using sub-standard components in their systems. Apple, please don't do this.
/. kind.
By the way if any of you have a direct number to a Dell or BancTec executive, you'll get lots of karma if you post it here. The real kind, not the
wow, awesome point that I haven't seen brought up yet...
Not to mention Microsoft can still sell MS software on the OS X PCs.
The "X11 sucks" thing is sort of a red herring. The real problem is that these things just don't look, feel or behave like Mac programs. Microsoft learned this lesson about 10 years ago with Word 6, and it's incredible to me that other big projects (e.g. Firefox) are treading the same doomed path today.
Even so, neooffice is a java application and while better than running the x11 version is way behind the regular openoffice in terms of features and codebase and still does not properly integrate into osx. It does not work properly with services, does not use native UI elements, and performs very poorly. I don't think Apple will ship such a monstrosity. More likely they would stick with Pages and add a spreadsheet.
Did Jobs say the Mac was switching to intel Processors? Yes. Did he say Macintoshes would now boot on ye olde' compaq in the basement? Nope.
Is the article talking about ye old compaq in the basement? No. It is talkng about ye new Intel powered Mac.
Where is that "field of strawmen" mod tag when you need it?
A common thread I see running through all these conversations about the upcoming switch to Intel processors is an assumption that having an Intel automatically equates to PC Compatibility.
What's left, really? USB devices? Guess who has been doing USB longer, Intel or Mac? Hard drives? Well you don't go buy a "mac only" HD now do you? How about video cards? Maybe, but doubtful. Sound cards? Same. Parallel port, serial port? (who cares
The only major difference is motherboard and processor. That's one down.
BTW, the bios is only used for bootup. Once the OS is bootstrapped, it's pretty well ignored/bypassed.
There is no magic needed. Input devices, multimedia devices, storage devices, networking. It isn't that difficult. Could Dell realistically offer Mactel machines w/differing ram/hd/mediadrive/input device/accessories/cpu speed options if given the opportunity? Absolutely.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
But you do need Java. NeoOffice/J is nice if you want something for free, but its performance is absolutely terrible.
Open-source applications like Firefox and NeoOffice/J are not Mac OS X native, so they will always be slow, inaccessible, and not compliant with whatever whizbang features Apple comes out with. (In Tiger, hit CMD+F5 to turn on VoiceOver and see how much of the Firefox or NeoOffice/J interface is actually Mac OS X native.)
For more information, click here.
However... and this is a big point... at this point I will admit that Apple needs to take advantage of the low end consumer market -- the grandparents that buy a computer to e-mail their grandkids and do other minor things. I quite adamently feel that nobody should ever use a windows OS unless they are truely proficent with computers (and even then, most people truely proficent with computers don't use windows... though there is still occasionally a need).
I think the case is quite strong that OS X is the better OS, especially for those who aren't computer guru's. The interface is intuitive, attractive, and easy to use. Applications don't requre an un-install program, programs don't spew crap across the file system, and you don't have to worry about the decay rate of the OS (like you do with windows)... security, of course being the constant debate, is still better then win32 by the fact that *NIXs are more secure.
I think Apple has really seen, with the advent of the Mac Mini, that there is a big market for people who just want something cheap, nice looking, and easy to use. The iMac started it all for apple and they have been moving in that direction ever since. Dell could really help materialize Apple as a prominent platform contender.
So... while I might think Dell desktops are crap... who knows, there might still be some value in such a partnership -- as long as the high-end Apple desktops still stick around.
Reminds me of the news a few weeks ago that Nike is no longer selling shoes to Sears. Why not? Because Sears bought Kmart, and Nike doesn't want to be sold at Kmart.
In this day and age where brand is king and marketing is above all else - that Apple, the BMW of computers, would be sold at Dell? Sorry Dell dude, you're not getting a Mac.
This from Dell, who's CEO was quoted in the Wired Top 40 Companies talking about Apple, saying "Is it innovation if nobody buys it?" I guess now that it's getting some mind/marketshare, Dell's interested.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
could petition to become an Apple Certified Reseller if they are serious about offering OS X machines.
You can tell the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
CNET
Second paragraph from bottom.
OTOH, my very first dedicated CD player ever, a Sony DiscMan is still going strong; as is my MiniDisc player, which served for many years as my primary portable music player (Until eing replaced by an iPod I got for last xmas.). Both of these, however, were legitimately made in Japan, not the third-world shitholes you mention.
Probably, the best bet for quality thesedays is Samsaung. "Made in South Korea" isn't quite so good as "Made in Japan". But it's a damn sight better than anything made most anywhere else except Germany.
My roommate is actually going through similar difficulties in shopping for a new car right now. He's considering mostly Hondas and Subarus,. But dealers are fairly loathe to tell you wether a car was actually built in Japan and shipped over; or if it's just some POS built by the monkeys in detroit and rebadged with a Japanese logo.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Today Apple is a $31Bn company. What can it do to make it a $60Bn company?
Someone else mentioned that the public is unlikely to buy a 3.8GHz Pentium system from Apple for $2K when Dell is selling the same system, with Windows, for $1K. Apples are cool, and all, but come on.
I think Apple needs the volume Taiwanese motherboard makers to get on board, and that means comodity hardware a-la Dell-a-likes.
Apple arguably has the best user interface available, and I think most regular people would prefer the Apple experience to anything else.
Given comodity pricing, Apple OS X could shoot through the roof, and the graphics, game and software companies would follow. The unit licensing may not pay as much as hardware margins, but as the volumes would be way higher, I think it would pay big big bucks for Apple.
Jobs is all about the "experience" though, and it's unlikely he'll trust the Apple brand to anyone else... not this week.
It's called "Numbers"
Yes, but if OS X becomes more popular, more people would buy Office for OS X, because you can't run the Windows version of Office on a Mac without emulation, not to mention that there aren't really any choices in the OS X office program market (MS Office, NeoJOffice, or iWork suite + a spreadsheet). All of those extra copies of Office bought will mean extra revenue for Microsoft, even if they aren't using Windows.
Microsoft might lose its monopoly on operating systems (Windows), but I feel that it has much to gain by maintaining its dominance with office suites. Imagine if Microsoft did a *nix port of Office. Even though it might cannibalize sales of Windows, Microsoft would be rolling in a lot of dough from *nix users who need MS Office. Heck, if its really good, I might buy a copy. Remember what happened to Internet Explorer on the Mac when Microsoft dropped it. Now Microsoft losts its browser dominance on the Mac (because they no longer have an up-to-date browser). I don't think its in Microsoft's best interest to drop Office for OS X.
Besides, if they do that, they might face legal issues again for using their office suite monopoly to try to force an operating system monopoly (or is it the other way around?).
One thing Microsoft have nailed, arguably, is software updates - the day-to-day Windows Update. I've never had a problem with it, and even though Windows is quite popular out there, Windows Update has never failed for me. That means they have both a technical infrastructure capable of servicing millions and millions of requests, and an organizational infrastructure to manage and QA updates that could have disasterous results if they screw up 10M computers.
My question is: Does Apple have a similar scalable hands-off software update mechanism, that mom and pop would use without even knowing it?
Well, now that you've posted it to /. it's not very private, is it?
Thanks a lot...
Lies about crimes
Anybody remember BeOS?
MS charged vendors something like full retail price for the OS if they offered any other OS.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
he got fired
If you do a bit of research, you'll know that Apple's "workstations" are relatively inexpensive when compared to their PC counterparts. Now knowing that, a P4 is "not" a workstation, so Apple will not charge $2K for one, since it is a consumer proc, nor use is in their $2k boxes.
Here are a couple of key areas that seperate a workstation from a consumer computer PC:
PCI-X (This is not PCI-E, Express.)
More memory slots (Most consumber boards only have 2 or 3, a G5 has 8 as an example.)
Multi Processor support.
On average, you'll spend about $500 just for the motherboard to get similar specs, and this is on the PC side.
For a bit of comparative shopping, these peeps also sell workstations:
http://www.boxxtek.com/
For the most part, pricing will remain the same, Apple will just fill the slots with similiar priced components. Workstations cost more, no buts about it.
The point is, Microsoft wants to sell Windows.
If someone buys a Dell with Mac OS X, that's a lost sale for Windows. If Office:Mac runs on Intel, then, yes, they still get a sale for Office.
HOWEVER, if they remove Office:Mac from the equation, there's a greater chance that the buyer would opt for Windows instead of Mac OS X. Thus, two sales for Microsoft, none for Apple.
How many sales of Office:Mac would Microsoft lose? Compare that to how many more Windows licenses they could sell.
Gabriel Ricard
While some people are thinking the change to Intel means that OS X will run on PCs, it actually means a totally different thing, too: It means that MS Windows will run on Macs.
So what are Apple's long-term plans? Licensing OS X to PC makers like Dell? No. While it might seem as if OS X is Apple, it's not. With the iPod Apple has learned what can be done by targeting the mainstream market instead of the Mac fanboys. And the mainstream does not want OS X. It wants Windows. If Apple is sane, they will offer machines with Intel CPU, MS Windows and ported iLife applications, targeted at the mainstream computer user, helped with a massive marketing campaign. It will not be called "Mac" (and it won't be a Mac in any technical way) but it will do to the PC market what the iPod did to the mp3 player market.
Apple would be silly to confront MS. Apple is after the mainstream and when the mainstream wants Windows, hey, they will get it. This is the main motivation of switching to Intel CPU's.
First off, I like quality components so price is not that far different Before this announcement I was thinking about getting this Case for my next PC:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article249-page1.ht
Now that is a $160 just for the case, No power supply. Now build a PC up like this, choosing quality components for each system and I think you will discover that Apple pricing won't be that far off the mark.
Apple will get some economies of scale benefits from working with Intel and these will be passed on. In an effort to boost volume, I expect apple will also relax margins a bit. So prices will be closer.
Personally I am waiting for the dust to settle to see if my next "PC" will come from Apple for the first time in 20+ years of owning computers.
Apple is totally niche, and here's why:
If they switched to selling OSX, they may become competitive with M$. They may even keep getting relevant updates to M$ Office for Mac. But M$ and Apple would get into a price war that the hardware manufacturers would love, and M$ can simply wait Apple out, since M$ has a huge cash pile and ALSO makes money on every version of Mac Office.
If they ever wanted to compete on hardware alone (ha, ha), they'd run into a similar problem, in that Dell has made it a commodity business, and Dell, etc. have more money and current customers.
I think what will help is that Intel has access to mobile, integrated chipsets, and is motivated to push design forward. Also, I'm thinking they could return to a slate design, following M$ and copying them instead of vice versa. This is the sort of thing Apple should be good at, and Apple knows they can't coast on Ipods forever. And as we've seen with the Ipod, they can have success building accessories for PCs, which worked reasonably well for palmpilot, etc.
Hurray for them. Makes it sound like both of them can't wait to screw over the consumer (with more expensive machines than necessary), which is hardly the "friendly" pro-consumer image they like to project.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And Apple would not take any risks by setting up manufacturing and supply channels but only take the mooney
Moreover, we've seen in Apple's history how successful model could not make big bucks because of shortage of manufacturing capacity.
Furthermore, they only might licence production to Dell overseas where Dell's supply chain and manufacturing capacity would complement theirs.
A vendor cannot dictate the resale price of goods sold to other middlemen. That's called price fixing; it's illegal; you can go to jail for it.
So Apple cannot license OSX to Dell and dictate the end price to the consumer unless Jobs wants to do a little time in the joint.
OS X has a "Software Update" system that works great. It checks periodically and pops a box up listing all the updates it has, the problems each addresses, and whether a restart is needed. You check the ones you want and hit "install" and it installs them. This GUI front end is available from the Apple menu no matter where you are on the system, and works quickly and responsively (unlike Windows Update which is an often sluggish and cumbersome website).
The GUI is a front end to a command line tool, for all the geeks/remote system admins out there that prefer that sort of interface. You can clicky on the nice pictures and checkboxes, or you can type "sudo softwareupdate -i -a" at a shell prompt. Either way, it's going to get updated!
As to whether it can handle volumes, why wouldn't it? It's a website with fairly static content (once a patch is pushed out). "Add more servers." As far as QA goes, well, Apple may not have the market share that it has to QA but it's definitely starting off on a better foot with a closed environment and fewer distractions (third party $5 video and network cards etc)
I've used Keynote for a while now and it's basically superior to Powerpoint in just about everything. A very nice app.
Pages isn't really a Word replacement yet, but for a 1.0 product I don't really think it was expected to be. I would say it's more along the lines of Textedit + MS Publisher. A good simple word processor with some good publishing templates and tools built in. As it improves though it certainly has the potential to replace Word.
And then obviously a spreadsheet is the only major missing component. If they come up with a good one and all of these apps maintain file compatibility with MS Office, iWork could be a good alternative.
No, most people will *not* be able to run it. Unless you've got this wierd notion that just because the Apple hardware has Intel processors now that is going to compel the masses to go out and buy Apple hardware. Somehow, I'm guessing the processor is not what is holding back people from buying Apple hardware.
Ah but will Dell offer a multi-button mouse? :P
Oh, this should work well. Didn't Sony keep prices high on Betamax boxes after VHS appeared on the theory that the American consumer would pay more for quality just like the Japanses consumer?
Of course, Apple hasn't seemed to learn from any other history lessons (e.g. Osborne) either.
Locking people into hardware from only one manufacturer. How 1984 of them. Kind of forgot about that famous Superbowl commercial I guess.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Mac/x86 story: I'm not dead!
Dead story collector: What?
Readers: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
Mac/x86 story: I'm not dead!
Dead story collector: He says he's not dead!
Readers: Yes he is.
Mac/x86 story: I am not!
Dead story collector: He isn't?
Readers: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
Mac/x86 story: I'm getting better!
Readers: No you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
Dead story collector: I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Mac/x86 story: I don't want to go on the cart!
Readers: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Dead story collector: I can't take him.
Mac/x86 story: I feel fine!
Readers: Well do us a favor.
Dead story collector: I can't.
Readers: Well, can you hang around for a moment? He won't be long.
Dead story collector: No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Readers: Well, when's your next round?
Dead story collector: Thursday.
Mac/x86 story: I think I'll go for a walk.
Readers: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look, isn't there something you can do?
Mac/x86 story: I feel happy!
With a little algebra, Apple can decide at what price point selling OS X for Dell-boxen is a good idea.
Since Apple has switched to generic PC hardware like AGP graphics cards and ATA drives, the processor change will leave only two significant differences betweena PC and a Mac:
(A) Industrial hardware design
(B) OS X
So if (C) is Components like ATA hard drives and AGP graphics that go in every PC or Mac, as well as overhead for sales, support, etc, the total cost of the Apple box is:
Mac Cost = A + B + C
Now currently, an OS X upgrade is $129 for an existing Mac user, so we can assume that B is somewhere north of $130. But if Apple priced OS X on a Dell as a $130 option, then the price of the Dell would be C + B (Components + OS X) which means the Apple would be overpriced by $A for its Industrial Design.
So Apple needs to price OS X for Dell at $E = A + B
I figure if a high end Dell cna be configured for about $400 less than a similar Mac, then $399 is a great price for an OS X + iLife + Xcode option for the Dell.
At $400 a pop, Apple will make a tidy profit on the notoriously love overhead software and really won't be canibalizing the Mac sales because they have effectively balanced the price so you have:
Cost of Mac = A + B + C Cost of Dell OS X = C + E where E = A + B = $399
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Easy!
Apple bundles iCal, Mail, Pages, Keynote, and their upcoming spreadsheet program for business for free. Slap in some more collaboration software to tie the entire mess together and business have more to gain than loose trying to maintain their Windows crap.
Sounds like shwag to me.
Having worked in sales, I know all about Apple's price fixing. They set the price of their products, not the retailers. It's why you never see their stuff on sale. Apple will just take the product off the market. Unless, of course, it goes on clearance. That's where I would step in and set my own price. B)
Notice how _every_ Dell web page reminds you that Dell recommends Windows XP. Like even if you want to just buy some flash or KVM cables or a monitor or something you feel like they are asking "would you like some XP with that?" Can't imagine that this behavior is voluntary on their part.
I know and Apple stock has done so poorly over the last few years, it is amazing they stick with that same old tired plan!
Nobody's proposing that Dell resell OS X. Rather, Dell manufactures Apple-branded hardware.
Think about it. When someone decides to buy a computer, what's the first thing they think? Dell. Who sells more computers than anyone else? Dell.
Aveage non IT person calls Dell and it goes like this:
"I'd like a computer so I can edit my home movies".
"Well, we have some Windows based PCs that do that. And we also have something new you might be interested in from Apple. Tell me more about what you want to do....."
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
If the intMac is capable of running *some* choice software directly via emulation, then $MS would gain nothing from canning the Mac version of Office -- they'd have zero control over which OS was running Office. In fact, I'd imagine that every MS hating Mac fanatic (and there's a few of them around!) would then simply scrounge up a pirated copy of office from the web somewhere...
People can already compare Apples to apples. The ones buying based on specs are already buying generic PCs running Windows. The ones buying Macs know perfectly well they're paying a "Mac Tax" to get a machine that runs Mac OS X... they're not naive, they're not going to wake up and go "Oh my god, I can get a Windows box cheaper, why didn't I notice that before?".
A vendor cannot dictate the resale price of goods sold to other middlemen.
A vendor can charge a license fee, though. This is called franchising. It's legal. You can make a lot of money at it.
Ah, as the industry joke tells it: Daimler-Benz and the Chrysler Corporation merged, to form a new company called Daimler-Chrysler... but when pronounced, the "Chrysler" is silent.
Disclaimer: I am a Mac OS X OpenOffice.org contributor and a founder of the NeoOffice project.
While this is a troll, I'll bite. Neither NeoOffice/J nor OpenOffice.org Mac OS X (X11) has reimplemented the interface...yet. The reason is perfectly logical. It took over three years just to get the core application to work as expected, that is, it can print using native print drivers, use native fonts, automatically translate itself, and do so without crashing. As I learned from previous hack attempts, the hard part is getting this large application to work properly at all.
When it comes down to it, having pretty buttons is really not as important as having an application that is rock-solid stable and can be used in a production environment.
Now that we have one, we can start adding in the pretty buttons. Instead of flaming, perhaps you should read up on our 2005 NeoOffice/J development plans and you'd see that native widgets are near the top of the list. Even better, why not help find some volunteer developers to help spread the load?
ed
Thanks. I'll pass the information along.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Dell + Linux = ease of use? That doesn't seem right...
and Apple scared of Linux? I'd like to see some numbers to back that up.
Dell: We'd hit it.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
I've been saying since the announcement that if Apple does anything with Dell, they might try offering OS X Server on Dell Xeon servers way before they do desktops (if ever). Apple has a nice, but limited server strategy. Dell sells all sorts of servers of all sizes and price points except the big 32 processor boxes that Unisys makes.
Apple could offer OS X Server to Dell server customers at a price point below Windows but still get lucrative maintenance and service agreements. OS X customers will get a choice of server hardware outside of the Xserves. Since Xserves aren't for everyone and many companies have existing hardware contracts with Dell, the procument process could be a lot easier for them going through Dell.
Food for thought...
they can sell Windows for dual booting on the OSX PCs as well. Or VirtualPC + Windows. Even better! (for them)
And this is exactly the reason I stopped buying Apple and migrated the entire company where I worked to Windows NT.
You migrated away from Apple and to Microsoft because you disliked Apple's business practices?
"95% of all Slashdot
The "mac experience" which includes both software and hardware is gone.
Not a moment too soon. The flat panel iMacs (G4 and G5) are nice, but the G3 iMacs stank and the eMac is no better. The laptops have lousy keyboards, low resolution screens, and only one mouse button. The G5 tower is the size of a server and has less expansion capacity than a mini-tower or desktop. Speaking of which, the Mac mini is basically a half-price laptop with no screen, and it'd be a MUCH better computer if it was a slab like the Performa 4xx or the NeXTstation.
Though there's better options than Dell. I'd rather they work with Lenovo on an OSX-based Thinkpad. Their last laptop collaboration with then-IBM was quite well-received.
And it will continue to work as long as you have customers dumber than you are. All you've got to remember is what Job's says today, and take out your wallet again.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Nothing, Nada, zip
They can already produce computers at / near Dell's price point, so why give Dell a part of that action, that would be stupid.
Building an OS that had higher requirements for the hardware it ran on is not an example of price fixing.
.MP4 sales, even when that might (MIGHT) have appeared to help build their iPod hardware market, and 4) Apple's only partnership in iPod hardware involves HP selling Apple iPods, not HP built iPod clones, it appears possible that Apple might, at some future point, consider reselling Macs through other companies.
Price fixing is agreeing with your competitors to sell all your products at the same artificially higher price.
None of this matters, since we already know that:
a) Apple will obviously not just be selling a standard 2005 PC
b) Apple is clearly not interested in sharing their hardware sales with third parties
The only people licensing their IP to run on other's hardware are either not in the hardware business (as Microsoft never made PCs) or are making desperate moves to shore up market share on a failing platform (NeXT, Be, Palm, Apple in 1995, etc).
Since 1) Apple now sells all the Macs running OS X, and 2) Apple faces brighter prospects (not risky uncertainty) with Intel Macs, and 3) Apple demonstrated no interest in licensing away their control of
However it is highly unlikely that Apple would chose to give away hardware sales to competing manufacturers, because this would 1) dillute their brand and standard for quality as the 1995 Mac clones did, 2) erode their own hardware sales as the 1995 Mac clones did, 3) complicate their OS software development efforts as the 1995 Mac clones did, and possibly 4) derail their control of the Mac OS X hardware platform, as happened to IBM when their PC was cloned, or 5) create confusion between what the difference in Mac hardware and software was, as happened with PalmOne/PalmSource and licensees.
1. OS X is more secure than Linux
2. OS X is faster than Linux
3. OS X is not open sores so it just works
4. OS X has already killed the idea of Linux as a desktop OS and will shortly begin to erode its shaky server base too.
5. OS X is done by Apple, a capitalist American company that employs professional American programmers who know what the fuck they are doing, unlike Linux which is written by unemployable high school dropouts from socialist-paradise europe.
First, remember that Microsoft makes something like four times more from sales of Office than from Windows (it's true -- look it up).
Second, you need to know the value of the "a lot of" people that would switch if Office were not available in order to conclude one way or another.
Based on Office's higher profitability, if only 1/4 of the market decides to stay with the Mac even if MS stops selling Office for it, then MS would be losing money.
You're quite insane if you think Microsoft will sacrifice their operating system monopoly in order to possibly dominate the Office apps business. Just thought you'd like to know.
Moof.
You know that OS X has Java built in by default, right?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Wow you are so smart. Could you please tell me the secret of getting computers for free. Apprently you hever have to open up your wallet to get your computers.
evil is as evil does
...and in follow-on comments, Dell also announced that in addition to being willing to sell Apple operating system software on his computers, he'd also be willing to sell Krispy Kreme donuts. Provided, of course, that he can reach an agreement with Krispy Kreme that allows him to meet his revenue goals. Starbucks coffee, McDonald's cheeseburgers, and Ford trucks are also being considered for distribution by Dell if profitable contracts can be negotiated.
Sure. You know that NeoOffice/J looks and works nothing like a Mac OS X application, and takes up hundreds of MB of RAM while running, right? I can load Microsoft Word in about 20 MB of RAM while NeoOffice/J is still bootstrapping another copy of the JVM.
(Oh, don't worry. The next version will be great and will do everything you want. Just don't buy Microsoft Office. Blah blah FUD blah.)
For more information, click here.
NeoOffice/J is fairly integrated with the Mac OS X environment and isn't a Java application. While we don't use services and we don't use native UI elements other than menus yet, there are a number of points on which you are mistaken:
I'm sure I'm missing a few others as well.
Citing things that the integration is lacking is not a sufficient way of proving NeoOffice/J isnt' integrated. By an equivalent argument, Photoshop doesn't offer Spotlight integration for searching layers of its files, so it can't obviously be an integrated Mac OS X application. Before saying that NeoOffice/J isn't integrated perhaps you should do a little homework instead :)
ed
Sort of. The retail boxed OS X isn't really what they sell it for, that's their upgrade price for existing customers.
For $499 you get OS X and they throw in a cheap little computer to run it on. I would guess the Mac mini has about $200 worth of parts in it, so $300 is about the minimum you could expect them to sell a retail OS X Generic for.
Were you really thinking that a free application should be as good or better then something you pay $400.00 for?
By All means go ahead and pay for office if those extra megs and seconds are that important to you. I won't waste my money but hey that's just me.
evil is as evil does
What if instead, Microsoft charged an extra 129 dollars or whatever for Office for OS X. Then there wouldn't be any lost money from people using OS X, because the price of Windows is built into Office.
...what will happen in reality if they do that is they will have to start writing support on their OS for more than just their own hardware. This means they cannot control quality anymore. When you start introducing the third party hardware and accompanying drivers, the stability of Mac OSX will get shaky and it will start to act more like Windows.
Not necessarily. Dell could make OSX-specific computers just like Apple does, but cheaper, because Dell has the buying power. There's no reason OSX has to be made compatible with everything, like Windows, Linux, etc.
it's incredible to me that other big projects (e.g. Firefox) are treading the same doomed path today.
That's why Camino exists.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Thanks for the informative reply.
I haven't looked at the code, and having read your link to the forum, I can see why you'd discount this possibility. It is a shame as it'd be nice to see OpenOffice on OS X running as a native app. I had no idea they had assembly code in there. Is there a plan to remove that? If it's byzantine compared to Mozilla I wish you luck : )
Wish Apple would step up and at least offer an x86 development machine to you lot and a free ADC account.
I see the OO.o and iWorks suites as aimed at very different markets, as you say. I'd imagine Apple wouldn't mind at all having a business friendly suite of apps (iWorks just isn't going to convince for that use) which was x-platform. It would be in their interests going forward to promote OO.o. All depends whether they're going for World domination (TM) and selling through OEMs or just after the consumer market.
Sorry for suggesting that free software should be good. I should just stay with my $400 copy of Office then. Thank you for your sarcastic comment.
For more information, click here.
Wouldn't it be great to have a choice of Linux/Windows/OS X when you bought your hardware from any mainstream computer vendor?
I truly believe Michael Dell was trying to get MS to lower it's licensing costs by his statement about OSX. From another perspective, being a tech support person at a MAJOR computer manufacturer (not HP or DELL) I deal with all the spyware and befuddled customers and all of the tech issues everyone here laughs at with windows. I can say whole heartedly that there are legions of normal computer users willing to switch from MS the second Apple licenses OSX to the computer companies. These people really do understand that MS Windows gets spyware and OSX does not. Technically they have no idea why but they do see the difference. I take 40+ (painful) calls a day and I can assure everyone here that OSX on normal intel boxes is a good thing. The companies could seel tons of higher end systems with the assurance of less dollars paid to spyware and virus removal companies by the customers. Mostly all we do all day long here is sell antivirus and spyware removal programs and troubleshoot silly problems. The only barrier I see to having OSX on a Dell or other x86 pc is that apple would get killed with the hardware sales lost since that is their main revenue.
(Yes I am at work and yes I should be on the phones.....)
Wow, it's been a while since I tried Camino... it's looking really good now. I'll have to give it another go, thanks.
Everyone needs to buy a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Why would Dell and Apple be happy about a higher price point? Do you think this translates into more profit for them? If you do, you're foolish. Prices go up because costs go up. If Apple requires Dell to sell more expensive hardware, do you expect that they should charge you the same as cheaper hardware? When a company does that, its called "stupid."
Repeat after me: things are expensive because they have high costs.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
Umm yeah... I have learned nothing in the 18 years of working in IT! My same old tired four year old Mac is still doing day to day video business. I NEVER got 4 quality working years out of a PC. I am so stupid. Never had a virus or worm problem and don't even run virus software. What an idiot I am! All my programs run seamlessly together and I don't need a new security patch every week. What a dumb-ass I am!
I will be GLADLY getting out my wallet for Steve next round of PPC hardware.
Go play with your home built PC, boy. I gave that up years ago (not that I have not upgrades the drives/memory/etc in the Mac)
I'm looking to build a system for my computer illiterate girl friend. After meeting her minimum requirements (It runs, has a floppy drive, and can play DVDs and burn CDs) Dell's $300 system costs more than the custom system I'm building her.
DELL upgrades:
256 MB -> 512 MB RAM == $60
CD drive -> DVD drive + CDRW drive == $99
none -> 3.5 floppy drive == $30
Then shipping, handling, and tax adds about $150 for me.
It comes with Corel Word Perfect, but if I'm going to make her learn a new word processor I could just get her Open Office.
Almost anything you buy off of ZipZoomFly has free shipping, and you have more control picking out the parts yourself. Shop by brand if you want. In the end you can build a cheaper, better system with a little time (80GB SATA instead of 40GB ATA, Cheap ATI card instead of onboard graphics, bigger monitor, and a personal preference for AMD instead of Intel).
I did not mean to demean your accomplishments. I think NeoOffice/J is a great free office application on the mac. I make use of it upon occasion (although my version is a bit dated). What I meant to say is that when a user is accustomed to MS Office, using NeoOffice gives the user a pretty poor impression. First, it loads very slowly (as does the X11 version). Next the UI elements don't look quite right because they are not native and nothing behaves exactly the way programs with the native UI do. This left me with the initial impression that it was a port trying to fit in. things don't scroll as smoothly or redraw as well. It just seems sort of choppy compared to most other applications. Finally, although I may be the exception rather than the rule, I make heavy use of system services and not having them available for manipulating text in particular is enough of a reason for me to avoid it as a production application.
Most of the items you list as ways NeoOffice integrates with OS X are great, but they are what is expected of an application on OS X and are notable more by their lack than their presence. I know it seems unfair and I'm sure it is a lot of work, but making an application behave normally is not a feature in the minds of most end users, especially mac users.
That said, I do make use of your spotlight plug-in regularly to search for OpenOffice documentation created by my Linux using peers. I use Pages or Word to view .doc files, but have used NeoOffice in the past to deal with corrupted .doc files, which it has a knack for opening. I've recommended your product to a number of people some of whom use it regularly. Good luck and thanks.
I've never paid more then $129 for a single user "full" version. I just bought the Family pack of Tiger and it only cost me $199 for the "full" version.
I'm curious about where you got that $300 price? I've never paid even remotlely that much for a "full" version of an Apple OS.
And by a full version, I can boot off my Tiger disc as an example, and install Tiger on a wiped drive. No previous version required. An upgrade requires that a previous version must be installed.
Dude You're Getting a Mac
Steve Jobs knows about competing in the PC OS market.
NeXT did exactly what analysts thought Apple should do: stop making hardware and move to selling their OS as a retail product.
It didn't work out well for NeXT then, nor Be, nor OS/2, nor Solaris/x86, and Apple had earlier given up on System7/x86. Perhaps this is difficult more to pull off than to simply suggest?
If Apple thought it was a ripe time to jump from hardware sales (which are currently selling very well) to broadly offering Mac OS X as PC OS software, why didn't they announce at WWDC that Mac OS X was going mainstream, and would be available in a few months on PCs (perhaps with some missing functionality that still made Apple hardware a compelling reason for existing Mac users, such is the case with OS 9/Classic)?
Instead, Apple made a point to remark that Mac OS X would not be sold for other hardware than Apple's own Intel Macs.
Maybe competing with Microsoft isn't the point. Maybe Jobs has his sights on being something better than Microsoft's entrenched stranglehold on the PC OS market, and intends on leaving the PC world behind. That was the original vision of the Mac, and certainly of the NeXT. Both tried licensing only as a last ditch effort.
For the last 20 years, Apple has been the only viable alternative platform. Back in the 80s there were Atari, Commodore, and others who had their own platform, but they didn't last long. Apple has been the only company able to keep their own platform going.
The Wintel market is only mostly under the control of Microsoft on the software side, and various PC makers (who occasionally come and go, but are always collectively compared to Apple, which is a bit unfair) on the hardware side.
Dell can't innovate in hardware more than Windows allows them to, and Microsoft can't innovate in software more than all the PC makers will allow (or implement). That's why PCs are still running BIOS and have legacy ports from 20 years ago.
Does Apple want to join Microsoft in this hampered and stunted market, and then fight them for sales? No fucking way.
Apple has clearly stated they are simply making new Macs with different processors, and have the technology (from NeXT) to allow developers to compile their apps to run on both Mac hardware platforms.
Apple had the ability to ship OpenStep cross platform in 1997. They even took a stab at it before realizing that a better option would be moving back a step and merging Mac technologies with NeXT's, effectively ending up where the world might have been in 1989 if Steve Jobs had been able to pull off NeXT within Apple.
Of course, all that struggling and pain and the near death experiences at both NeXT and Apple between 1990-1999 really paid off in making Mac OS X something innovative, competitive and focused.
I want one. Where do I sign?
Your implicit assumption here is that MS makes more off of Windows than Office. Lookinhg at the respective selling prices, I can't see how that's true. More long term control of the computing environment, yes, profits, hmmm.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
You have a good point. I myself am a G5 mac owner, but I don't expect the majority of the US to pay a premium for a Mac like I do. The truth is, for for most things, a Wintel box is "good enough", especially with today's CPU speeds. I paid a premium for my Mac because I like their hardware design and I like their OS. However, if I was really pinching pennies I would have built an intel system and ran Linux on it for my desktop PC at home.
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
Sure. You know that NeoOffice/J looks and works nothing like a Mac OS X application, and takes up hundreds of MB of RAM while running, right? I can load Microsoft Word in about 20 MB of RAM while NeoOffice/J is still bootstrapping another copy of the JVM.
The last sentance is plain wrong - on OS X there is ONE VM. Java apps share this WM when running, the way god intented Java to work in the first place.
I have not checked recently but I highly doubt your claim of NeoOffice/J taking up "Hundreds of MB of RAM". I'll check later.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Personally I stick to EMacs, TextEdit, and Pages when creating documents. It warms the heart of an Emacs user to see you list VI second after TextEdit... :-)
However I do get documents from time to time from others that I have to open, OO is very useful for that.
Also, I sometimes need to create diagrams for work and PowerPoint (or OO equal) is the way to go.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There's a big difference in here: Software.
With other systems, porting the software to ix86 was not NEARLY as easy, and the developers didn't give themselves time.
Now, you have a zillion apps ported to OS-X/PPC under a compiler system that makes it as easy to report as changing the arch flag and running it through the compiler again.
I mean, the developer guidelines even made a point to write software for OS-X without assuming you're always going to be on a big-endian machine. I'm sure some developers ignored that at times, but the number of missed htonl and ntohl calls are at least minimized.
I theorize that Jobs has a plan. He's attempting to move OS-X to the general mainstream OS market without letting his users know. In fact, I think that he's going to try and blame the hacker community for the move.
What I'm saying is that the man is putting up a target, and doing the hacker community version of saying "Come and get it, boys!" by claiming that OS-X won't run on arbitrary hardware. In a week, it'll be running on any old junker PC, and Jobs will wait for the ports of NetBSD's hardware support to generate a template. one or two months later, arbitrary OS-X hits the markets, Jobs makes a fat profit, and Microsoft stops getting hit with monopoly suits.
Is it just me, or are the "I'm not a script" confirmation images getting harder and harder to read?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Maybe they can get Steve the DELL DUDE to advertise it!
h tml
http://www.macboy.com/cartoons/switch/dude/index.
AppleInsider is reporting that Apple is working on a spreadsheet app called "Numbers""...take it for what it's worth.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
But then again, if OS X becomes popular enough, MS will be losing a large portion of revenue by killing off Office X. Looking at the cost of Office vs. the cost of Windows (something like what, $150 for Windows Pro vs. $500 for Office Pro?), I bet they'd lose more money by NOT supplying Office X.
Blake
Apple makes a lot of money from boxes of OS X. if you look at the quarterly earnings, especially right after they release a new copy of OS X, you will see the money is pretty significant. they also make cash from iLife, iWork etc and of course the higher priced software.
Umax kicked ass because they were the first people to be able to manufacture a sub $1000 Macintosh. that was what really got people to pay attention to their hardware. when the clones were ceased a bunch of the Umax people got hired by Apple. they may have worked on making the iMac a reality too (IIRC).
if Apple ever got into clones again (in this x86 future) they would have to require a lot of specs. motherboards that will support their security, specific components (driver issues) etc etc etc..... and we would end up with a bunch of ugly ass boxes.
there is seriously NO reason for Apple to do it. they will be able to get manufacturing up to speed, their R&D people are up to snuff, they can make cheap machines (Mac Mini) as well as decent servers and everything in between. what would anyone else bring to the table except risk of poorly made ugly computers?
Apple would still have control over the hardware. I'm sure Dell could produce MacTel boxes that would satisfy Cupertino's equipment requirements.
Expanding OS X's install base would be a GOOD thing for existing Mac users: more drivers, more software, more everything (including, perhaps, viruses).
Expanding OS X's install base would improve Apple's research and development ROI. Good for stockholders, and eventually for consumers.
Expanding OS X's install base would be a very good thing for Windows users, who would have more opportunities to purchase increasingly price-competitive MacTels.
Michael Dell's out-loud thinking is entirely consistent with his signal last week that Dell is ready to launch a premium line of computer hardware.
I think Apple ought to do it. They've traditionally been a computer hardware vendor, with software used to sell the pretty boxes. But these times, they are a-changin'.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The vitriol between Apple and Dell is legendary at this point. Michael Dull has talked more smack about Apple than possibly any other single executive in history. He most DEFINITELY is merely trying to whore a lower licensing from Microsoft. Sorry, mr. beige-box king, I hope you will live to eat your words.
Goddamn, I'll take your Intel Macs, Steve, but I'll REALLY get angry if you even THINK of licensing to Dull. Let him continue to get force-fed that other famous geek's package. You know, the one who is stifling innovation in my industry with its convicted monopoly practices... Argh, you sheep, you lemmings, are infuriating.
Osbourne effect anyone?
I think Michael Dell has done alright for himself without a college degree---much more so than Steve Jobs. You have have a link to his supposed pronouncement? It would be very unlike him to say such a thing. About as likely as him concerning himself with Apple at all. Apple is not a competitor of Dell's.
some great scheme by Jobs to re-enter the general PC OS market?
RE-enter? Oh, right, NeXT OS for beige-box x86's.
That didn't go to well for him, did it?
I've heard they're also wanting to sell Longhorn if M$ will let them... http://www.dellrumors.com/
There is no sig...
I think it would be a pretty smart move to offer Mac OSX as an alternative to Windows on a Dell Box....but the real question. Why not also offer a linux distro like Mandriva right out of the box?
If it wasn't for C, we would be stuck using BASI, PASAL and OBOL.
When are you Leeches going to realise that OpenOffice.org is not ever going to be better than MS Office. Gnumeric, AbiWord, KWord and KCalc have fallen by the wayside while Hundreds of Geek Coders have jumped ship to build on an ex-commercial Product, with it's ex-commercial product design.
If just one quarter of the Open Source Community's Effort went on true OpenSource Projects, There may already be an Open Source Office Suite comparable to MS Office, rather than just a re-hash of MS Works 3.0.
Imagine if Microsoft did a *nix port of Office. Even though it might cannibalize sales of Windows, Microsoft would be rolling in a lot of dough from *nix users who need MS Office. Heck, if its really good, I might buy a copy.
First of all, there is no business unix desktop market worth speaking of (OS X excepted, which doesn't count, because it doesn't use X11 for native apps). Make no mistake, it's business use that matters. Few people need a full copy of office at home. How many people do you know personally who have a legal recent copy of MS Office for home use?
Secondly, what little market there is has very little interest in office. Most people running unix on the desktop have computing uses that do not involve office, or if they do, involve it so tangentially it makes more sense to use emulation, a separate machine, or a free competitor.
Add to that the fact that *nix is spelled with a *, meaning there are literally hundreds of different platforms, and at least a few dozen you would have to support (various versions of the major linux distros, freebsd and solaris), and doing binary distributions that work on all of them is a support nightmare, and it is not very hard to conclude office on *nix could not be profitable.
Remember what happened to Internet Explorer on the Mac when Microsoft dropped it. Now Microsoft losts its browser dominance on the Mac (because they no longer have an up-to-date browser). I don't think its in Microsoft's best interest to drop Office for OS X.
IE for Mac was a free product. It cost microsoft money to make it, and they got pretty much nothing in return. The reason they made it was primarily to ensure no competitor snuck in through the backdoor to create a cross-os platform that could be used to develop real software, making windows irrelevant. They dropped IE because Safari is mac-only, and therefore no threat to windows.
Saying "with the other systems" you neglect to realize that my primary example was NeXTSTEP.
Mac OS X is a newer version of NeXTSTEP, and Cocoa's ease of deployment cross platform comes directly from NeXT's frameworks.
NeXTSTEP 1
NeXTSTEP 2
NeXTSTEP 3
NeXTSTEP 4 - Rhapsody - Mac OS X beta - 10.0
Mac OS X 10.1 = Darwin 5
Mac OS X Jaguar 10.2 = Darwin 6
Mac OS X Panther 10.3 = Darwin 7
Mac OS X Tiger 10.4 = Darwin 8
Being technically able to do something is not the same as having a business case, nor having a market.
Apple had OpenStep cross platform in 1997. But the REASON NeXT had gone cross-platform from the beginning was that NeXT couldn't sell black hardware approaching the level needed to maintain a viable platform, as Apple was doing.
They later found it was just as difficult to sell NeXTSTEP for Intel, and nearly as difficult to sell the NeXT frameworks (OpenStep = YellowBox = Cocoa) to run on Windows (and Solaris).
Apple is returing to sell the 'new NeXTStep' on what is essentially the 'new NeXT hardware'. Actually they've been doing this for some time now.
Moving to Intel simply leverages NeXT's portability. Intel does not suddenly make the Windows PC market attractive, attainable or preferable to Apple selling far more modern, innovative and profitable hardware of their own, in a ecosystem where they control the whole platform.
All the people clammoring for Mac OS X on regular PCs are basically the same set of people who thought Mac cloning would be a great idea.
It turned out to be fun for Mac users who wanted to save $100 by getting a cheap PC with a Mac logic board, but it was not a sustainable plan for Apple or the Mac OS. Nor has it been for any other hardware platform that I can think of - again: Be, Palm, Amiga (I think they tried near the end), who else?
As for relying on "l33t haxxors" to port Mac OS X across the spectrum of PC trash hardware, look at Linux hardware support. Pretty fair for an enormous array of hardware after 15 years, but OSS can't write drivers for closed, unpublished hardware, and many vendors are slow to even release binaries. OSS is limited in what they can do because they don't control 'the platform' either.
I don't think that the OSS community will drop their work on Linux and *BSDs to write drivers for Mac OS X, partly because writing drivers for Darwin is significantly different.
http://developer.apple.com/devicedrivers/
While the IO Kit easier to develop for, it is not a simple port from existing driver code. Servers (like apache) and higer level libraries (khtml in Safari's WebKit) are getting ported to Mac OS X rather painlessly, but drivers are a different story.
Please also explain how members the Linux commnity, who are working to replace Windows with a non commercial OS and free software, will suddenly want to invest huge efforts into shoreing up support for Mac OS X, a commercial product.
Linux users who buy Mac hardware today either end up switching to Mac OS X to have a non-experimental machine to work on, or erase the OS to install Linux to run on nice hardware (PowerBooks). Are they going to suddenly drop Linux to have an experimental, but not free, Mac OS X experience on crap hardware?
Being able to run Mac OS X on 2005 PCs is not unlikely (hey they have Linux working on the iPod), but the phrase Apple used was "we won't allow it," which sounds like Microsoft's stance on running Linux on their XBox.
By your line of reasoning, Microsoft "could sell a lot of XBoxes to Linux enthusiasts!" Instead, MS is currently losing money on XBox hardware in order to create and control a hardware platform of their own, so they can make money selling software.
If software is 'where it's at,' why is Microsoft is trying to break into gaming console hardware? Surely they have experience in developing software for other's hardware, no? But they are tired of writing s
...iPods, so this isn't that far fetched.
I think bigger news might be if sometime some motherboard company makes a breakthrough and produces their own mobos that will run osx natively, even beating intels lock in hardware feature that Apple is supposed to be using for their next gen mactels.
aaak, still can't quite get used to thinking of that -> "mactel". Just seems icky to me.
The "HP iPod" is an Apple iPod that HP sells. HP didn't get a "reference design," which is what Dell would want. You might ahve noticed that Dell isn't reselling the iPod, they are using a WMA reference design from Microsoft to design their own Dell DJ product. Apple's last experience in handing out "reference specs" to the Mac platform was pretty traumatic. I find it equally unlikely that Dell would be excited to resell Apple's Intel Mac with their own name stuck on it, and "innovate" (like HP) in the area of "tatoo" case stickers Oooh, maybe Dell could invent "piercings" for Macs the resell. Unlikely.
Your implicit assumption here is that MS makes more off of Windows than Office.
No, it's that they make more off Windows than the Mac version of Office. That's an important distinction because Mac sales of Office are only a fraction of the total.
I don't want "speculations" on your part. Show me real evidence that a full version of OSX costs $300, even though Apples sells it for $129.
As stated, when you pay $129, you can install it on any supported Mac, with or without an OS. This is not the case for an upgrade, which requires a previous OS be present for installation. Apple does offer an OSX upgrade. My friend has a Panther version, and I was sent a Tiger Upgrade DVD, along with a full version through my Select ADC membership. Not sure where to buy these though, unless they're selling them through school campuses.
What if mac went dell and HP and this gave mac a bit of monitary succes selling and spreading osX around. What if then that money was used to drive there prices down on there hardware or focused the money innovating their hardware that makes spending a couple thousand on a real mac more appealing then buying the dell equivalent with lesser hardware for 1800. You might want to spend the extra 2 to 5 hundred or so more dollors for the best machine to be running OSX. If mac can truely brag that their chip is at least as good as the compitition and the hardware better but only slightly more expensive, opening the market up could help their boxes. Just so long as they stay ahead of the curve in innovation. As other companies reach their peaks mac will have head room as they scury to figure out what to do next. Microsoft reached its peak saturation. Mac has a lot of head room and if they could pull it off anyone with some money to put into Mac could be filthy rich. Maybe I'm over confidant about mac. Steve Jobs could kick the bucket. : (
I think you missed the point, mr. obviously-a-heterosexually-insecure-Dull-owner, because by "beige" I didn't necessarily refer to the color, just that they were all the fucking same inside except for the packaging and support. Maybe you missed the memo. You know, the "pc compatibles are essentially all the fucking same, a.k.a. Beige Boxen" memo.
I happen to own one of these auto-part-cooled G5's, and it was a damn good purchase so far. And yeah, I guess I generally root for the underdog, and don't like supporting the prevailing hegemony/hubris. Yes, I take pride in this.
At least Apple (gayMac period and all, you ignorant small-penised fartknocker) had the balls to differ from the status quo, inside-out. And yeah, we had to lay out a bit more dough to support them- So fucking what. I think your sheepherder is looking for you, sheep. Get a move on.
Higher price point? Than what? Windows?
Idiot.
...Anyone with half a brain can see that having expensive OSX...
Where did you get the peculiar notion that OS X is expensive compared to Windows XP? Go to your local retailer, look at the prices and then figure out which way the greater than sign points. Don't look at a crippled version of XP and keep in mind the actually useful apps that come with OS X.
I'm not certain about the following speculation but I think we have to consider the possibility that Dell is big enough (and possibly pissed enough about competition from XBox 360) to make decisions that are independent of Microsoft and its wishes.
Microsoft won't kill Office for OS X. It's well known that it's very profitable for them; killing it would be seen as a move to protect their OS monopoly, and I can just about guarantee that they'd find themselves in a world of hurt. If the government didn't act, Apple could -- and would.
There's more than enough evidence that would support legal action; I'd bet a pretty hefty sum that, in such a situation, there would be some pretty damages claimed and granted.
I worked as a tech at C***USA for about 3 years and trust me I saw plenty of broken Macs in there. Sure this is only anecdotal and I don't have any hard numbers to go on, but Macs have their share of problems just like Sonys, Toshibas, HPs etc. How much of this fabled "Mac Stability" is just hype? Why not start selling OSX on different hardware? Sure Macs look pretty but wouldn't it be nice to have another OS out there to compete with M$?
Plus the question is moot to a certain point because as soon as OSXi is released someone will get it running on a non-Mac x86 box. Apple should just go all the way and license it. They may lose some of their "mystique" but IMHO a lot of that is just smoke and mirrors anyway. There is nothing so different about PC and Mac architecture anyway so the "easy to use" thing really only applies to the OS not the hardware.
Also I see posters complaining that then OSX would be running on any old boring beige box. When was the last time you saw even a discount computer in a boring beige box? I'm not sure the aesthetic argument holds up as well anymore.
I think if Apple allowed OSXi to run on any box people would eat it up. Do it Jobs!
"And I vanna toilet made of solid gold but it's just not in the cards, now is it?"
I wasn't comparing it to Windows XP. I was comparing it to Linux.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I remember when Macs were sold at Circuit City 10 years ago. Every time I went, they were maliciously set up to be unimpressive. The salesmen were completely unprofessional - dressed in suits, mind you - they made snide comments right to my face that I was even considering the purchase of a Mac. It was outright juvenile behavior on their part, I even wrote to Apple to complain.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Maybe other Dell laptop owners can confirm or deny?
The true words of an idiot trying to justify wasting money on stereo snake-oil.
at least to the New York City department of Education. See the online catalog and notice the vendor.
But suppose Apple has OSX/Intel on Apple-branded hardware going a year from now, and all the software vendors have their apps ported over. What would it take at that point to start selling OSX for beige? Apple could get several big vendors to sell it pre-loaded. Apple could arguably retain their hardware as a branded, upscale market niche. They've got about 2% of the market now. How much would they gain if they sold for beige? It's not at all unreasonable to think that they could triple their market share, particularly if MS fumbles Longhorn. This is pretty fudamentally different from the Power computing clones--since OSX could run on almost any existing hardware Apple's potential to grab a lot of market share fast is very real.
Once Apple has the transition to Intel complete and OSX running on Apple-branded intel hardware the move to beige boxes can happen very quickly--in the space of a few months. MS could easily be Pearl Harbored.
Microsoft would obviously cut off the cheap OS contracts to them. Dell offers a rival OS for the desktop. MS claims they have breached the "Thou shalt have no other God but Me" clause, and withdraws supply. Or insists on getting paid for a copy of Windows on every PC, whether it actually has Windows on it or not. Dell is buggered, and surrenders.
Indeed I definately agree with that
The post-Carly HP may be a good target here.
Imagine an HP which actually tries to get its geek-cred back, making high quality pro-nerd machines.
OSX would work here---if Apple licensed HP to sell OSX to *businesses* with their service and consulting agreements, to universities, and to engineering companies.
Apple computers come with an iPod dock, and HP/OSX come with Intel C++ and Fortran compilers, and a calculator dock.
RPN, of course.
Of course, that was five years ago. Things have changed:
* PCI-E is something like 10 times faster than PCI-X. If you're looking for PCI-X support, well that's gonna cost the same premium as every other legacy. I think most graphic artists (and that's who the PowerMac is really targeted to) can get away without it.
* Memory is getting so cheap that paying extra for eight memory slots is more expensive than the savings of multiple smaller sticks of RAM, unless you were really looking for something to support like 12 gigabytes, which I would classify as server, not workstation.
* Multicore processing isn't multiprocessing, but I don't expect them to start shipping Xeon workstations either. But I expect that the first x86 powerbooks will be multicore.
Workstations cost more, but the difference between a workstation and a simple desktop computer is quickly becoming marginalized.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
It is good. Sorry it does not meet your lofty requirements. I will whip and humiliate the developers till they make it better for you OK? How dare these people not spend all their time bowing down to you and bending over bavckwards to make you happy!
evil is as evil does
Woah...freaky man
It is insightful now to post a question that can be answered with a 2 minute trip to dell.com?
I have a dell precision 370 that came shipped with Redhat enterprise WS, with support. You can get both workstations and servers shipped with linux, no problem.
I can put together a computer from Newegg for less than 299 (Dell's rock bottom price). The system would use AMD (which I personally prefer), and would not include any keylogging devices. Though It would have similar specs to the Dell system and is only marginally cheaper, the upgrade path would be far cheaper (Dell screws you on the upgrades), and would also include "goodies" like an AGP slot which Dells are often missing.
If anybody is too lazy to go to newegg and try yourself, respond and I'll post a summary.
One last thing. I suspect that their 300 PC barely makes them a profit. That line probably exists largely for mindshare and marketability. They're profit margins probably increase substantially with the model price. Run newegg against one of their $2000 gaming PCs, and you'll really see how Dells sticks it to you.
Anyone with half a brain can see that having expensive OSX fill...
I thought you meant that OS X wouldn't compete on price with XP. My observation is that OS X is priced less than XP when purchased at a store so I was trying to correct the impression your comments left (from my reading). I have tried desktop Linux on both Macs and PCs and have found the experience less than compelling. I have better things to do with my time than trying to clean up and correct other people's mistakes and deal with their variety of ideas how basic interaction should be handled.
Along with all those cloners you mentioned, there was a smaller player actually named Mactel. I believe they were a division of APS or something. With the rumors of Apple trademarking the name, I wonder how that works out, since it was already used for a line of Mac (PowerPC) clones.
I'm surprised no one's brought it up as people throw around all these names for the Intel Macs.
-- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
That should have been only time not old time.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
The fact that Microsoft has announced that the Office file formats will be converted to XML raises all sorts of intriguing possibilities. This could well encourage Apple to act more boldly vis a vis an Apple productivity suite. I've been hearing rumors for quite a while that Apple has a spreadsheet app for the iWorks suite tentatively called "Cells", that will replicate the functionality of Improv, the NeXT's killer app, and what I've heard described as the finest spreadsheet ever created.
Apple has had to tread very carefully so as not to enrage Microsoft, hence the step-by-step release of the modules of an Office competitor (iCal, Safari, Mail, Keynote, Pages). The only things missing are a spreadsheet (the purported "Cells" app) and a database competitor for Access. i would be willing to bet that Apple has "Cells" running internally. They were so successful keeping the fact that OS X was being kept concurrent for Intel and PowerPC, that I would be surprised if they didn't. More than anything, the Mac-on-intel bombshell announced that Apple has more cards up their sleeve than anyone realizes. Plus the fact that Improv was created for NeXT (with Steve Jobs driving its development at Lotus); how difficult would it be for them to replicate it on OS X? As for a database module, remember that Apple owns FileMaker, which has legions of Mac and Windows enthusiasts. I envision them releasing a "lite" version, which would perfectly complement their two-tier consumer-pro strategy, whereby users who need more functionality than "Filemaker Lite" offers could upgrade to FileMaker Pro, a la iMovie->Final Cut Pro, Garageband->Logic, iDVD->iDVD Studio Pro.
google search on: "Michael dell apple" will bring it up for you.
"Michael Dell once said that the best thing that could be done with Apple would be to shut it down, liquidate its assets, and return the money to its shareholders"
thats from macobserver, odds are its a rehash. Btw its very much like michael dell (or any business leader) to make his "inciteful" comments on others businesses and the superiority of his own (right or wrong). Id add that yeah, the guy is rich, but he does so by selling garbage, he sells computers that overheat, have frequent hardware failures all while claiming good support when its more common to find the support doesnt exist (i speak from vast experience here through work). So please spare me of michael dell is amazing chatter, he knows how to market. He also knows how to sell cheap junk to people who couldnt tell you the difference between a computer that costs 500 and one thats 1500 other than price.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
wouldn't happen. it would be as stupid as the HP iPod is - same thing, sold by somebody but same thing and same price even. Unless Mac opened themselves for anyone to buy OS X and run it on their own home built hardware then whatever they do is no different than before the cpu change.
Yes Sir, he was no S.J. or PR guy ...he was just a dumb ass.
I I had such people in the company, he would be more than fired....
Running WINE would be a lot like running X11 on the Mac now: something you could do in a pinch, but the funkiness reminds you that it isn't Cocoa/Carbon. Little niggling things that grate when compared to true Mac programs.
I do not doubt that some clever programmers will port WINE to the Intel Mac, but the first releases will be without Apple's approval or (official) help. Besides, it's not the games that Apple is really interested in, but getting the enterprise/business market to transition. If that means giving them a clean, virus-free environment to handle their internet needs out of the box and a chance to migrate their other programs at a gradual pace, it may work (especially when they compare MS Office to MS Office:mac).
Yeah things have changed, and obviously you don't know what has changed.
:rolleyes:
PCI-X is a completely different beast than PCI-E. Let me clear up your confusion;
-PCI-E is "specificially" for graphcis. It is "not" a PCI-X upgrade, nor a replacement.
-PCI-X is best suited for for cards like real-time video encoding, raytracing, or RAID just to name a few. The only thing better than PCI-X for what it does, is PCI-X 2.0, and as far as I know, that is not currently availble.
Now let me address your ignorance when it comes to RAM. I have 5 Gigs in my current system and when AfterEffects finally supports 64-bit mem, or a majority of my pro-apps finally support it, I'm maxing out my RAM to 16GB. For us peeps that "need" more then 2 or 3 gigs of RAM, 8 memory slots is well worth the cost. Stating that 12 is only for a sever only shows your ignorance. WOW, RAM is getting cheaper, really. WOW, I guess I hadn't noticed.
NO FUCKING SHIT about Multi-Core not being Multi Proccessing!!! Did you actually read my post, or just browse over it and then pull your reply out of your epic chasm of ignorance?
READ MY POST AGAIN!!! Here, I pasted in what I wrote; "Multi Processor support."
Now where the fuck did you see multi-core? Did I write too many words, because it wasn't in my post...
Never mind, someone that doens't know the difference between PCI-X and PCI-E, wouldn't know the different between multi-core and 2 seperate procs, nor have a need for more then one proc.
There will always be a clear division between consumer, workstations and servers. Someday you'll understand this, but the line will never be quite blurred, since some tech is simply not needed by the average consumer, and would only add unwanted cost. Apple knows that not every pro needs PCI-X and extra RAM slots, this is why their base systems only have 4 slots and do not include PCI-X. (And just so you know, 4 memory slots costs noticeably more then 3 slots on a mobo.) Don't be suprised when Apple starts shipping its higher end systems with Xeons and not P4s. And why would they do this, because they're workstaitons.
what, like .Mac?
syncs petty nicely really...
had it for 2 years...
iCal, Mail, AddressBook, etc. available anywhere... but no, I don't run the server, and they don't sell the service privately, but I'm sure they could...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
I was aware of the distinctions between PCI-X and PCIe. However, PCIe is not "just for graphics cards." If your ignorant inflammatory ass had spent any time researching today's technologies, you'd know by now that PCIe is slated to be the successor to PCI, and that the 2 gigabyte transfer rate of PCI-X 2.0 is about equivelent to an eight lane PCIe bus. PCIe currently goes up to 16 lanes, for a total of 4 gigabytes per second throughput. I fully expect to see RAID cards in the near future that use PCIe, and consumer video cards have already jumped on that bandwagon. That doesn't change the fact that your hardware isn't currently PCIe, naturally.
I brought up multicore simply because it was a similar technology based on the need for more CPU cycles, in parallel. Hell, for the most part, multicore is just a cost saving version of multi processing.
As for RAM, I suppose you're correct that video editing stations love the RAM. Maybe I'm just crazy, but with Dual Channel technology, you just plain can't get 3 slots anymore. Granted, that's mostly an AMD technology, and Intel chips are still far superiour for floating point operations like video compression and ray tracing. But as you correctly pointed out, most apps can't even use stuff above the four gig limit.
My simple point was that a lot of the technology in workstations is headed for the above average desktop. PCIe addresses the same problems as PCI-X and does a better job of it. RAM is facing the 64-bit problem, and in a year, the price of a 2 gig stick of ram should come down signficantly. Now maybe your professional needs will increase to compensate, but I still think that workstations and desktops are going to look more and more alike.
Finally, pull the stick out of your ass you condescending prick.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
You are a cunt.
Predatory pricing is not that uncommon in business. Heck, Wal-Mart has been found guilty in lower courts for it repeatedly. *sigh* The problem with capitalism is that it ensures that the goal of any business will be to make money, not to provide a service. It's one of the reasons I see red when people talk about how privitizing government functions will make sure people will get their services on time and at a low price. *shrug* If you want an interesting perspective on the idea of a truly privitized government, check out Jennifer Government by Max Barry.
And addressing the topic on hand, Linux has the advantage of being free, but only if you consider your time to be free. I know people who are quite happy with it. Me, I need my games and while there are a lot of options out there for running Windows games under Linux, it seems to take a lot of time and guesswork, and some programs just plain won't run.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.