Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Colossal Disappointment?
Mudzy writes "Michael Roberson, founder of Linspire, has an article at The TechZone talking about Apple's 'Colossal Disappointment' for not porting Mac OS X to PC after they announced the move to Intel processors. He discuss why this could be a mistake." From the article: "Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops."
there is nothing at all stopping apple from doing exactly what this guy says...
When the conditions are most ripe...
when Apple is ready to face that challenge from a support perspective...
when Microsoft becomes more loathed with the release of Vista which will have 8,000 viruses out for it BEFORE its released...
you don't walk into a saloon and just start shooting up the place even if you're packing a big-ass gun. You wait to size up the situation, you make sure that you're transition to Intel is complete and solid, and you make your move when you want to.
Hell, just that very THREAT should be enough to keep Microsoft awake, pissing their pants at night. That's what the US military did to the Iraqi's the first Gulf War... we kept them awake for a whole 36 hours waiting for them to be so tired of staying awake, anticipating the strike that we did far more damage than if we had attacked at zero hour.
Don't be stupid and confuse shrewd business timing tactics for making bad decisions. This linspire guy has his head shoved up his ass if he thinks Jobs isn't interested in beating the stuffing out of Microsoft.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I believe the above poster has it right. Apple has proven they can sell 99c songs, but the media companies want to feel a little more secure about movies they could sell for $10, $15, $20 (or whatever they decide to charge). Being a Mac user, I'm not so happy about it, but oh well...
The Mothership
This is actually old news, as documented in Michael's Minute.
I'm sure Michael is bluffing. He knows that if Apple allowed OS X to run on commodity hardware Linspire's potential market would be marginalized even further... it could be devastating to the Linux desktop push. Why would he want such competition from Apple?
It's rather curious that a week after that, Michael stepped down from CEO of Linspire (check the Michael's Minute entitled "What's Our Purpose in Life") Cause-and-effect? Maybe. Correlation? Definitely.
Michael's not dumb. He feigned disappointment at the Apple on Intel announcement, but my guess is that it was a carefully orchestrated bluff to allow him to distance himself from Linspire in the weeks after.
Any company investing in LOTD with the hopes of profitability had better hope to god that Apple does not allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It's just common sense.
Okay, let's look at this:
:)
;-)
1) Robertson criticizes Apple for not porting OS X to work on stock PCs.
2) Robertson happens to be the head of a company competing for those very desktops.
Why would he really want Apple to step into the market he himself is trying to gain market share in? Maybe, just maybe, he's riding on Apple's popularity as an opportunity to promote his own solutions?
Nah. That's just crazy.
(On a side note, I saw him give a presentation once, and before he started the presentation he asked how many people owned/used iPods. Only a few hands went up. Then, during his presentation where he spoke about their "LTunes" and their iTMS clone, he criticized iPod for being hard to use, saying thigns like "how do you turn this thing off? This thing is hard to use. We practiced turning it on, but we didn't practice turning it off..." I'm sorry, he's either so brain-dead he can't use a consumer electronics device with clearly labeled play and stop buttons on it, or he's playing to the ignorance of the crowd. The former makes him stupid, the latter makes him dishonest. And I don't think he's THAT stupid.
Hilarious! Perhaps when he can make his own products work in a successful way, he and Steve can talk over these issues.
He doesn't even understand the reasons Apple made this decision.
Nothing to see here, move along...
It's not even like this is a purely hypothetical question. Apple has already been through a CPU arch change, and while they nearly made a huge mess of it on the developer side (and had their asses saved by Code Warrior), from the user's point of view the change was seamless. On this round, they have the developer-side problems much more firmly in hand, so I really don't understand what all the FUD is about.
Given that Michael Robertson's only real talent is turning lawsuits into publicity, I wouldn't put him at the top of the list of people Apple should take advice from.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I'm still waiting for Sony to make a similar decision: are they a consumer electronics manufacturer or a media company?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If they did they most certainly would no longer be a hardware company.
You know, I often wonder if this wouldn't be a good thing for Apple. I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I'll be the first to admit they make some pretty *cool* hardware. I'll also admit they make a pretty nice OS. Sometimes I think thier forcing those two nice products as a bundle is what causes them to only have a sliver of the market.
I mean how many people do you think would like to run OSX on a cheap Dell pc? How many people do you think would like to run Windows or Linux on a cool looking mac? Of course the Apple fanboys would still run OSX on the mac, but could they be getting more market by offering choices?
Now I'm not an analyst and I cannot sit here and say they would make tons more money doing this, but it seems they VERY well could. What would happen if they broke up and let the hardware division live on its own and the OS division live on its own? Certainly it would be a risk, but it sure would be interesting.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
if they could produce enough stable drivers to support a wide range of hardware, i think it would be very good for them in terms of profit. in fact i don't see why they aren't going for this option... maybe they're afraid that their hardware will cease to have a following if people can run os x on cheaper but still capable machines. maybe they're afraid of what direct competition with microsoft could do to them. whatever it is i hope they get over it and release os x for non apple hardware. windows is begging for more competition
Is why everybody starts with assuming that "The Switch" will happen, and then starts to look for reasons.
.. on one hand, porting effort, buying hardware.. on the other a new platform that might have 5% of the install base (that's 5% of the 5% Apple has, that is) in 2 years. Errrm, no. Later perhaps.
/. still asking for more, they badly needed to).
...
Because Steve Jobs said so?
Guys (and girls): this is PR. SJ was sending a message first and foremost to developpers: port your apps. You think they'd have if Apple had said "we're gonna support Intel as well?" Lessee
This is just like Otellini taking the stand and saying that there will not be a 4GHz P4. Of course Intel could release that - there's enough overclocking success stories on the web. But they needed to hammer home the message that the MHz race was over. So no next round number GHz proc. (and given the amount of clueless people even here on
Back to my point.
So in 2 years Apple has released MacTels, people buy them because the software has been ported, and every app ships as fat binaries because nobody can ship for mac and dismiss 95% of the install base.
Say IBM (or Moto) comes up with a great proc, what's to prevent Apple from releasing a new PPC mac?
Nothing.
It's a win-win situation for them:
- they edge against IBM not putting out good procs (and put some pressure on them to do so);
- they edge against Intel fucking up (it's not like they never have *cough* Itanium) - and may get some marketing money;
- they got access to the two existing hi perf proc lines;
- they get better deals on pricing.
AS LONG AS
Developers port their apps.
Hence "The Switch".
Most copies of Windows come with a brand new computer. Dell probably pays less than $25 a pop for these, which is not a ton of revenue. When you factor in the costs of R&D, it's a shitty profit margin. They make their big bucks from applications like Office.
No, it really wouldn't. Microsoft only works because they're a monopoly. If Apple were to start behaving like a monopoly with 15% market share, they would die.
After all, Apple have significantly less resources to test OS X with the wide range of x86 hardware out there than Microsoft does, and even Microsoft can't get it right half the time. If they were to dedicate the required time and energy to making sure it worked on as many configurations as reasonable, OS X for x86 would put Longhorn to shame in the "RSN" department with all the delays it'd experience.
This is why geeks aren't in charge of companies. If I were to speculate, I'd say this is Apple's strategy.
No offense but Apple of all company can be pretty stupid sometimes... They introduced/created/managed some of the greatest innovation this industry has ever seen in ways that never got them where they should be.
They are exceptionnal engineers and very lousy businessman, let's hope they try to change in the near future...
So, the Intel switch may not create a big advantage for Apple, and i don't think it will. But what is happening is MS is still promoting IE as the browser for the internet, but increasingly integrating it with the OS to the point that the latest browser is only going to exist on the latest OS. Therefore if developers continue to design for IE, which is easier to design for becuase IE is actually a rather specilized application front end, and only incidently a web browser, then we are all going to be forced to use windows.
And this may be where the wisdom of Apple's switch emerges. We must migrate web designers from the IE state of mind to the more open standards state of mind. This is going to require some education and experience as IE design is trivial compared to what google and the others do. One safe way to do this may be for Apple to supply machines in which designers can run Windows and Mac OS and Linux and whatever. A kind of crutch.
There a still a number of IE sites out there, and they may continue to use latest features. All these people who want to stick with 2000 or XP are going to be disappointed when the content won't run becuase everyone is designing for vista.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Apple tried that. For a short period Apple allowed other manufactures to clone Macs but Apple lost more in Mac sales than they made in licensing MacOS.
This time they dont open up for competition on their field, they can compete on the 90%+ platform.
If they just have the balls, they can have it all.
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
"Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world."
I think we're all well beyond that
Us, on Slashdot, sure. Just an hour ago I was talking to a well-educated guy (college student working at NASA) and he was astonished to hear that there wasn't a huge difference between 2 GHz and 3 GHz, and that clock speeds weren't really being focused on these days, and has plateaued in the last few years and isn't expected to climb much in the near future.
And if he doesn't know, your Joe Sizpack1 sure doesn't. People love having any kind of number to use for comparisons, so they're gonna keep thinking GHz are really really important until it's beaten into them.
I know you're talking about the people involved in the debate. But the OP wasn't wrong to suggest that Apple hates looking worse in GHz comparisons, because though you and he may know to look past that, the aforementioned Mr. Sixpack doesn't.
1What a weird last name.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Maybe you haven't heard of the Turion.
I do agree that Intel is pretty much the safe bet. Development on the Pentium M chips shows great promise down the line. They are already very speedy chips and aren't yet coupled with the latest motherboard technology.
I think one of the big wins for Apple by going with Intel is the fact that Intel is a very well recognized brand. Intel did a fantastic job branding the Pentium processor.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I think their "one-stop shop" approach to computing makes a lot of sense in today's world of shite PCs running a shite OS...
Actually, this is what keeps the Apple choice more expensive and much more limited than the PC choice every time. Apple decides who can make what for it by their decisions on who to release what technical information to. They've been this way since the Apple ][ days and have not practically changed yet. All else that gets past Lord Jobs and the rest of the Apple Fanatics is done through sheer bloody mindedness.
Meanwhile on Windows, or Linux, there's ZERO problem getting LOADS of technical info for the PC platform and those OS varieties, and writing your own code. Are we to believe that "shite PCs running a shite OS" is caused by accessibility to the hardware and software specifics? Well then for Linux to finally take on Windows, that means the same open access to info and Linux is supposed to be all about open. The more that it spreads and the more that is written for it, the greater the "shite" will be.
Therefore only the top-down dictatorial arrogance of Apple makes it not "shite". Who here confuses Apple with an OSS friendly company? Well obviously way too many. Let me correct that impression. Anyone not romantically or religiously involved with Apple as a techie and coder knows that they are about as warm and fuzzy as Steve Ballmer aroused to anger. Pure and simple, Apple is Microsoft with its own in-house hardware platform to go with the OS.
I'll take Microsoft and Linux being written to a hardware platform pushed more by the various hardware working groups and industry associations over one company supplying everything from soup to nuts and having to put up with anything they do no matter how outrageous just because one or two things are cool even though the rest is crap. The IT industry has already been there and gotten the t-shirt with IBM, Sun, and Silicon Graphics. Time for real change at Apple and it is the ONLY way we will see a *nixish OS truly take on Windows on the desktop in the near future.
Certainly won't be Linspire.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Sony is the classic example of my point. Apple was able to own Sony's sorry asses in the consumer electronics space of all places, just because Sony's management forces their products to serve two diametrically-opposed business cases.
This might have been an argument 5 or 10 years ago, but not today.
Apple can maintain the same level of control, whilst supporting what probably amounts to 80% of configurations currently already on the desktop. The diversity in systems in recent years has crystalised to a point where 'standard' hardware configurations are the norm.
Video : intel/nvidia/ati
Network : intel/nvidia/via
SATA/ATA : intel/via/promise/sis
Audio : intel/nvidia/ice
USB : intel/nvidia/via
The stability of 2k or XP has nothing to do with microsoft, but to the reduction of diversity in the marketplace. Support the above configs and you've nailed it. There are more actual Apple configs than there are 'standard' current pc configs - this is a myth.
The open co-operation from established 3rd party vendors as compared to rediculous overheads from 'controlling' the hardware is a no-brainer.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
How many drivers does Microsoft write? When was the last time Microsoft wrote a driver for your nvidia or ATI video card? How about for your Soundblaster?
Not trying to be a smart-ass here, I really don't know. Does Microsoft write driver software for every piece of hardware out in the world right now that runs on a PC? Or does the burden of providing drivers fall on the manufacturers of the hardware piece itself?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
IBM went from hardware to enterprise support. They have huge contracts with huge businesses, and generally couldn't give a shit about a home user or an individual desktop. The home user and the single desktops are Apple's bread and butter.
The thing we need to be watching is not if Apple ports OSX to work on non-Apple hardware. We need to be watching how well the intel macs run Windows. If Apple does this - they win. Seriously, they win. Why? Every single person I know who has a mac and a windows machine ends up using OS X at every turn except when they have to use a Windows box. I have a PC and a Mac and I only use the mac for games and 3dsmax. If you can run windows dual booting on a powerbook you will see a corporate invasion of macs like nothing you've ever seen. Then, over time, you'll slowly see more and more native support of OS X apps while people look for any excuse to stop booting into windows.
-_-
The problem is that OS X would be in direct competition with Microsoft at that point. Selling OS X to run only on Apple Intel powered PCs is one thing, but full scale OEM licensing to any x86 manufacturer is a totally different ball-game.
While MS has been having a bit of trouble executing in the last couple of years, I wouldn't want to be Apple in a direct OS competition war. MS has massive (un-ending?) resources, and many of the smartest people in the world working for them.
I believe that for the next couple of years, Apple is going to carve small pieces of MS customers base away, moving them to Apple built Intel hardware. Once Longhorn and its predecessors finally ship, the situation will change somewhat.
Any way you look at it, Apple has a very wide road ahead of them for the next few years, and they are going to grow the platform. Will that make them strong enough to compete head to head with MS by 2010? Who knows.
Apple discovered that dealing with IBM eventually ends in failure. There simply isn't enough time nor enough conference rooms to sufficiently capture all of the billions of passive-agressive do nothing opinions the naysayers at IBM have to throw at you. Ultimtately the basic truth of dealing with IBM is that success doesn't matter, sales don't matter, nothing matters except slavish compliance with the PROCESS.
Hmmm... I don't think Linspire does this at all. Originally Linspire aspired to bring us an OS that could run Windows and Linux software side-by-side. I feel Linspire is just a year old branch of Red Hat Linux...
It runs wine for windows apps, but the ability of this to run all windows apps is dependent on its configuration.. and it certainly does not provide all security flaws of windows (the dlls that provide these flaws exist.. but they aren't sitting there listening to your ports waiting to be exploited.. a hacker has to hack your linux flaws first.. and this would probably lead this theoretical hacker down a very different path than that travelled by a windows hacker... unless you have sql server open for inspection - but does that even run in wine?).
In the topic of the article... it's damn smart of Apple to keep its OS running on MAC. If they let their OS be run on anything, well I'd get one for my PC today... If they don't, I'll wait until the MAC comes in x86 style and I buy one of those.. and run windows, linux and OSX on the same machine... one way they sell an OS for a few hundred $$ the other way they sell a complete hardware package for a few thousand.
http://www.michaelrobertson.com/Michael Robertson's thoughts on Apple's stance is probably fueled from his own endeavour... which is largely his OS versus the MS OS... this is not the case for Apple... Appple is the MAC versus the PC, Apple and MS already have a relationship (with Office, Virtual PC, etc) and the move to intel-MACs will give MACs an advantage in the PC battle.
Already many Unix and Linux users have switched to Mac... this is going to give those that haven't the opportunity to experience MACs without dropping linux from their machine altogether.
Can't do that. They need the hardware to lock you into their software. They need their software to lock you into their hardware. So whichever market fluctuates, they still have a backup.
If they really wanted innovation they would be with AMD. If they risk IBM then they should certainly risk AMD which is doing well on the tech if not the volume. And Apple is not high volume.
It will be very interesting to see if Apple wears the 'intel inside' logo or not.
It comes from amazon.com, actually it's $246.99 or so, look for windows XP full version (not the upgrade version).0 22PTI4/qid=1122430512/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_2/102- 6928813-6372133?v=glance&s=software&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
What you got might not be 100% legal (my guess, or it was some special rebate). If I look a little bit I can find Windows XP for 10 bucks, but that doens't mean anything.
Anyway, Microsoft did start to cut prices.... I wonder why... hmmm... maybe because of their kind heart.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
They should not decide, they should divide. One high class PC/iPod/etc company, and one software company to develop and publish OS X ++ That would leave the hardware part to blossom if it is worth it, or die if its not.
Been there, done that. They tried allowing Mac clones and it hurt them badly. And that was when they had some control and a royalty. Shipping Mac OS X on generic PC hardware would kill their Mac hardware sales. It would be suicidal.
One of the various facts that you are ignoring is that MacOS X's stability is in part due to limited hardware options, drivers generally come from Apple or other relatively reliable sources. Part of the instability of Windows is the various pieces of cheap-a** low-budget hardware and their questionable drivers.
I don't think that IBM's lagging in the almighty speed department had much to do with Apple's decision. I think it had much more to do with IBM telling Apple that it would have to play 2nd. fiddle to both of the upcoming game consoles (in terms of fabrication share).
That, coupled with an already "checkered" relationship, pushed Apple to look elsewhere.
Cheers,
- slacker
"...The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders." - Erwin Rommel
I think you hit the nail on the head.
What makes people buy Apple is not their software. It's not their hardware (with the exception of the iPod, perhaps). It's certainly not their price or perceived value.
What Apple survives on is two things: 1) the semi-mythical and nearly impossible to quantify 'coolness' factor, and 2) the user experience. People buy Macs because they're easy to use (or at least they have a wide perception as being easy to use, which in marketing is virtually the same thing) and powerful. It's the whole "it just works" philosophy, as cliched as that might sound.
Apple can maintain it's edge in user experience because they have very tight hardware/software integration. By monopolizing the hardware which their OS will run on, they can limit the number of possible system configurations and then test the hell out of them, build drivers into the OS, etc. A lot of Mac users don't even know what a device driver is! (I'm pretty sure actually if I asked for a device driver to some friends of mine they'd ask whether I wanted the flat kind or the Philips-head kind.)
If Apple sold the Mac OS for distribution on commodity x86 hardware, suddenly a lot of their advantage would disappear. You'd instantly go from a few dozen out-of-the-box configurations to thousands or millions, and have loads of incompatible hardware that people would expect to be able to use.
Also, they'd have to start playing hardball about software licensing, which they've never done and would probably alienate a lot of users, and do a lot of damage to their "nice guy" image. A lot of PC users are surprised to know that there is no serialization during the Mac OS install process. None at all. If you have an Apple computer and an install CD, you can put the system on it. There's obviously quite a bit of piracy that goes on (and always has) but I assume Apple just doesn't bother because they realize even the pirates have paid them some money for the hardware they're installing the stolen system on. And the progress of operating systems requires you to buy new hardware periodically anyway, so you're always going to cough up every few years. They can afford to be nice.
If Apple started selling the software by itself, I have no doubt (given their performance with iTMS) that they would come out with some pretty robust 'activation' scheme. This to me would be obnoxious: it's one of the things I've always enjoyed feeling above, as a Mac and Free Software user.
Apple had their experiment with commodity hardware back in the clone days (anyone remember CHRP?), and Jobs pulled the plug. I don't think they'll go back there again. The question which interests me most today is, when Apple releases their first x86 version of Mac OS X for actual Apple/Intel boxes, how hard will they try to keep hackers from moving it to commodity hardware just for hobby and experimental purposes.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Ah... so beautiful. Ive never met a single Windows user whos computer wasn't plagued with tons of spy/malware. I've never met a single mac user who's ever had any. Obviously the result of some more slapdash hacks. How many times has my G5 crashed in the year Ive had it (think its been a year, close anyway)? ZERO. My Windows box? Let's just say the it would probably be easier to count the weeks in which it didnt lock up/crash. Nevermind, you're right, BEAUTIFUL architecture will always defeat slapdash hacks.
Really, people are in love with their Mac because of OS X, not because of the silicon and components that make up the hardware.
Hardly. If anything the original iMac should of taught you is that Apple above else is a fashion company.
They sell computers that look (objective, yes, but still) and function "great."
PowerBooks sell incredibly well because among other things compared to many PC Laptops they are made very well. Where many PC Laptops feel like they're made out of cheap plastic the Mac Laptops are made out of Bulletproof plastic (iBooks) and Aluminum (PowerBooks)
They're designed in a way that its practically impossible to accidently hit any buttons from the outside. No eject button that keeps getting pushed while you're trying on your lap. No Play/Stop buttons that get tapped at inconvient moments. And more over all of the ports are on the side of the laptops, nothing hidden on the back of the machine so no having to reach around and guess where the cable goes in or having to close the lid or rotate the laptop to get to it.
Lots of thought went into the actual case design of the PowerBook and iBook that in the case of many PC Laptops simply isn't there.
I had a PC Laptop (still do) that the CD-Rom drive try broke because as I was putting the laptop down the overly sensitive eject button on the drive got tapped and within a split second popped out while it was being put down and snapped off. That sort of thing doesn't happen with a PowerBook or iBook.
I already know people that are planning on buying Intel-based PowerBooks when they come out just to stick Windows on them because on average a 12" PowerBook holds up much better then the equivalent PC Laptop.
That's not to say that they are entirely without flaw, but stepping into a Apple Store it should be noticable that the design of the machines themselves is very significant to Apple and to many people that buy their products.
Moreover. Mac OS X simply isn't made to run on non-Apple hardware. The testing bluntly put isn't there. Its made to run on hardware that has been approved and shipped by Apple with its drivers tested to make sure it doesn't conflict with anything, hopefully. The amount of extra work that would have to be done developing and QA to ensure that Mac OS X works on all the hardware available for the PC right now just isn't done at Apple right now, nor has Apple shown the desire to do it.
Shortly after that last argument was generally accepted (internally) they went broke.
Most of the arguments about freeing X are in this category. The most striking example is people who claim that Apple is not competing with Dell or Microsoft, because it is offering tightly coupled hardware and software in a controlled experience for the user.
What is wrong with this argument is that it confuses a strategy with a market segment. Consider the argument on e-world. e-world was in a different market segment from the ISPs, because it offered a tightly controlled environment of bundled content and commications. Wrong. That was the strategy it was pursuing. Similarly, Apple is pursuing a strategy of competing with MS, Dell and the other hardware vendors by offering its tightly controlled whatever. But it is in the same market. Its just that its offerings and this strategy appeal to a very small proportion of the market, which explains why share has falled from 10% or so 10 years ago to 2% last year.
The problem it has is not justifying the strategy that produced this decline, but changing that strategy to one that will allow them to compete better. If something fails for 10 years in a row, it is probably not going to turn around with more of the same.
Now, there will be those who will say that market share doesn't matter, our strategy is to be a niche player. Yes, this is another argument which failing management teams commonly use. It is the tactic of claiming that the undesired outcome of a strategy is the new purpose of it.
The capacity for self deception among people in charge of a failing business is enormous, and their inertia is probably the greatest threat. What you have to do is not accept and justify what the market does to your strategy, but plan, act and change it. Otherwise, what are you paid for? Administration?
Funny, isn't it?
(I am a Windows user.)
Clever signature text goes here.
I think it would be more of a mistake to release a generic x86 install of OSX. Its not ready to compete against MS yet. The only reason OSX has stayed as efficient as it has been is because of the closed hardware environment of macs. The main reason Windows is so sluggish effeciency wise is because of its years and years of backwards support. Not to mention that most of the problems that users encounter with XP are hardware related (yeay for bad drivers). Forcing OSX to run generic x86 hardware would cripple Apple's support and give OSX a black eye it doesn't deserve. I think this will change though. As OSX-86 gets through some more revisions, I could see Apple releasing it as a standalone install, but probably limiting it to certain hardware to begin with and building from there.
Apple uses the MHz issue as an excuse, they want the Intel DRM feature!!!
And yes, I do some Windows stuff but gradually making a transition to Apache-based development. To have one box that could run a Unix-based environment easily and a Windows-based environment to allow for transition would be wonderful.
The author seems to assume that Mac hardware is proprietary still. Yes, in yesteryear Apple was very proprietary, but they had to be to be the performance king of the time (NuBus far outshined 8-bit ISA, ADB was better than serial keyboard/mouse, etc) but with the maturation of the consumer PC market, Apple has embraced openness in its hardware.
.) but the average consumer doesn't care what their computer is as long as it runs their software. And, as anyone who's installed Windows on hardware OTHER than what a PC it was shipped with will attest, driver/hardware compatability can be quite a pain. And even with the hardware Windows ships on, Blue Screens are often the result of drivers being updated, something outside Microsoft's control.
No longer to Apple computers require specialized ROM code to run. No longer are there custom backplanes or peripheral cards. If you look at the Macintosh motherboard now and compare it to a PC's, you'll see it uses the same industry standards: PCI, SATA (or SCSI), ZIF sockets, DIMMs, etc. Apple isn't stupid, it costs more to develop hardware in house and to maintain their profit margins it makes sense to use standard parts these days.
The only remaining differences between the platforms is mostly CPU and BIOS/Firmware implementations. Change those and you HAVE "ported OS X to the PC". In fact, Apple's developer Intel boxes do boot Windows XP.
It sounds like his major beef is that OS X won't be supported on GENERIC PCs . . . I.e. you can't buy a Dell with OS X on it.
I don't think that's a dissapointment, it's good business sense. The geeks who want OS X on Dell's will of course find a way to boot strap the OS (intercept the DRM calls and make OS X think it has the right DRM chip . .
Apple sticking to their hardware platform will ensure they can have 100% compatability and avoid being derided for lockups the same as Windows has.
The real key is if they can offer Macs at the same price points as vendors like Dell. If they can, I doubt anyone other than geeks will care. If they can't, they'll likely continue to lose market share as the end consumer cares more about price and compatability than the look of the machine.