Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X x86 Put To The Test
stivi writes "ZDNet has tested Mac OS X x86 on a Toshiba laptop. The article discusses installation process, performance and power consumption comparison and has a thorough photo gallery as well." From the article: "Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform. From the company's point of view, this is an understandable position, as the margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs. Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid."
I'm not sure I agree with the author's positions at all...
Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform. Right, Apple wants the fastest, smoothest and most gorgeous OS. It won't run on any old X86. You don't see V12 engines in Hyundais either. You don't see marble floors in Section 8 housing. You don't see big, soft seats in coach class.
From the company's point of view, this is an understandable position, as the margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs. Which allows them more money to develop the next OS, more money to pay employees and more money for risky R&D. If you sell $500 cost hardware for $500, you're left with nothing for the future. Yet profit isn't the only motive. By restricting the base hardware, Apple spends less on supporting what ends up being dumb users. My MS helpdesk team fixes 90% of problems that can be assessed as "sub par hardware" and "user is a moron and bought crap."
Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. And lose MS' favor? I highly doubt it. New techs needed, new marketing, a bifurcated customer base? Keep bullshiting, ye who know not business.
This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid Right. Every business wants to avoid competition. Even the one the editor (or his parents) works for.
I see intelligent thought behind Apple. Lexus makes a great car, with a ton of room for third party add-ons and third party service. But their smooth engine and user friendly console won't fit in a Hyundai. Are Hyundai drivers mad?
No producer of high quality goods should listen to cheapskate NewEgg buyers who don't care for quality and future development.
For instance, when setting the time zone in Windows, you must select it from a list; with Mac OS X you simply click your region on a map of the world. I shouldn't even comment on the quality of reviews like this.
Mac OS X x86 also runs on the AMD platform. ???
Final versions are generally considerably faster and less resource-hungry than beta versions. Or, "it'll run better on the required hardware, which is more than just a processor."
I'm actually excited for this move by Apple, but it changes nothing for me. I haven't seen a Mac in nearly 6,000 work orders.
Steve does not like it when you operate outside the bounds of the reality distortion field. Will Apple go after ZDNet like it does bloggers for "violating" the license agreement for OS X x86?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
"Put to the test?" = Installing pre-release software on hardware it wasn't developed for?
Can't we just wait until Apple ships a mac with intel inside? I love Apple and everything, but this barrage of useless Apple articles has got to stop.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
I think that if Apple allowed third parties to make Apple clones, or Apple-Approved machines to run the new OSX on, this could potentially be good for Apple. I'd rather spend $200 on OSX for my workstation, than $200 for Windows anything -- especially if it worked properly.
This might be useful if Apple embraces the FOSS community, and lets them fill in the gaps in device drivers, etc. Keeping things closed isn't good for anyone except the company that is doing the closing, and there are many many anecdotes of where that kind of practice isn't even good for them.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Aren't some people going to find it harder to pick out their state graphically than picking from a list. Not everyone knows what a world atlas looks like.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
I think Apple will put a toe in the x86 water by locking OSX to their own hardware, so they don't compete head to head with Microsoft. If it works well for them though, I suspect they'll start to sell the OS alone.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Sell OSX x86 only through the online Apple store. Put a big line of text in the EULA saying no resellers allowed. If someone named "M. Dell" attempts to put 50,000 copies in a shopping cart, deny the transaction. Is it really that difficult?
The reason that most people want to switch to Apple is the perceived quality that accompanies it. The reason people don't switch is because of cost and lack of software.
Keeping the prices high on what is essentially commodity hardware does nothing to alleviate the cost problem.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
"Steve Jobs might not approve, but Apple's latest operating system can be installed on any x86 hardware."
That will last as long as it takes Apple to DRM the hell out of it. Or worse, dispatch it's army of lawyers armed with cease and desist orders to anyone who dares to suggest a method to install on a non Apple box.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Its not really fair testing Beta software for performance. Apple may still have lots of debug clutter in there amongst other things. I know everyone is excited about x86 OSX, but honestly, its only a few months away, wait for the real deal.
So... Apple has a developer version that can install on any machine, but they'll restrict it to Apple-only at release.
Apple is playing with fire. Those developer releases will certainly get out in the world. I'm also certain someone will find a way to get around the Apple-only requirement once the x86 Macs start shipping, cutting into Apple's hardware revenue.
OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC
Good. This means that, like the hardware in my Powerbook, OS X should play well with the hardware of their x86 PC. Better than trying to support all odds and ends of hardware for all x86's. Things are much more stable in the Powerbook, than the Linux desktop with the Nvidia graphics card (on which X.org crashes and freezes up the screen after 5 minutes of use).
Hey, I'm a huge fan of Linux, but sometimes, you just want things to work the way they were meant to and not spend 3 hours setting something up. This is how OS X spoiled me I suppose....
" Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones " ... presumably without the rights from Apple this would be illegal and is not something your going to see happen. Even in a worst case scenario that it's possible to run it on generic x86 boxes people downloaded bastardized isos of p2p probably aren't Apple's target market and most people aren't going to want that kind of unsupported untested stuff.
"Were Microsoft to not put the internet explorer version of its browser on general release, Netscape would begin to sell people their browsers. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Microsoft's own browsers-- something the company is naturally keen to avoid."
;)
Of course I now expect several comments telling me why this analogy is wrong. They will range from "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist!!!" to "Apple needs to control the hardware to create the best user experience". Bottom line is, Apple wants to keep its hardware prices high and doesn't want Dell to undersell them.
To address the second issue MS would argue that they need IE on Windows to control the Windows experience. That it wouldn't be the same without it. (This is true, it would probably be much better without it). To address the monopoly issue...everyone's gotta start somewhere
So is Ballmer crapping in his pants now? Or is he trying to pick out a nice, new chair to throw at someone?
It would be really neat to see Apple take on MicroSoft in a big way, then have Gates come "out of retirement" to take over. That is, Gates would tell Ballmer, "step aside, big boy. I'm back!"
The gloves would come off and Bill would try to deliver the biggest asswhipping to Steve, ever. And we'd get to see who's Kung Fu is truly the best.
I can't help but think that if Bill really, really wanted to, he could take out either Google or Apple, but not both.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Everyone else seems to be harping over how Apple will lock out unapporved hardware. I'm interested in the opposite. Will Apple companies to make hardware that Apple has approved but also works for other x86 platforms? This is interesting because I can forsee "Apple Approved" being a quality standard for x86 hardware. That could potentially be a very good thing regardless of your OS or computer manufacturer.
Sure Apple gets it revenew from hardware sales, software sales AND gadget sales... Keeping Mac OSx86 out of mayority of x86, will cost money to Mac, shouldnt be more bussines to Apple if drops prices of MacOSx86 and let be on selected more machines? I know the quality assuranse of Apple Software, driver componentes, is much more harder than MS, and since there is a LOT less hardware, there a lot less cheap hardware... But, since Aplle likes so much licencing, they could license Ready for Apple logo to hardware vendors only support selected hardware, I belive this could get so much revenew to Apple... AND also, Apples hardware is being selling more and more due the iPod, iTunes, iThing gadgets, and that people 'feel' they work better at MacOSX... The market is waitting for a generic version of MacOSx, why not give it to them? Maybe that MS money at Apples is restrining to do that?
Â_Â
Apple?
who are they?
It will be interesting to see how apple attempts to maintain the reputation (accurate or otherwise) of OSX as being stable etc. when people start installing warezed versions on their cousin's compaq or other dodgy pc's. could this have a lowering effect of the overall outlook on apple in the long run? a lot of people won't look at the specifics: "well what do you expect when you install it on THAT" and will chalk it up to the fault of apple.
Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid.
While this is undoubtedly true, perhaps the bigger risk to Apple is that without maintaining their traditionally tight control over the hardware/software integration, the Mac OS X user experience would be likely to suffer, and thus so would Apple's reputation for quality.
What would piss Apple off even more in such a scenario would be when software vendors were slow to adopt new hardware characteristics specific to Apple models simply because those features were unavailable in the clone market.
So it's not necessarily so much about a loss of revenue for Apple (which they could, after all, potentially make up for with some appropriate licensing scheme) as it is about a loss of control, which is, after all, something Steve Jobs obviously values very highly.
Then every kid out there is wrong.
While it is true that Apple sells the hardware for more than the sum of the parts; Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things.
Regards to markup being your major opposition to buying Apple: what's wrong with the mini? Dirt cheap as far as computing goes and a very capable system to boot. It is actually your lust to possess the latest and greatest that prevents you from buying a cheap and good Mac? Perhaps you feel that you are something of a "top dog" with computing equipment and you don't want to loose that edge by going to the cheaper Macs and can't afford the uber-Tower G5's (which are really for professional work)?
While there are many reasons to skip Apple, price is no longer one of them!
I might as well get in on the tech punditry game and make some wild predictions (then feel smug is they happen to be true).
Clearly Apple want peoplke to install dodgy copies of this on generic PCs but they don't want to admit it. All the geeks in the world will get hold of a pirate copy of OSX, and the appropriate hacks to install it on a generic PC. Suddenly, OSX is a much more mainstream OS, and people see Apples as a viable alternative. A lot of people - especially home users - would buy apples but want the same as everyone else. If OSX is common then it becomes a truly viable alternative.
However, apple knows this is risky as an explicit strategy. MS would do aything is can think of to stop them, the shareholders may object, and it might actually not happen. However, tyhis way Apple will reap the rewards whichever happens either because they hold on to their hardware markup, or because they dratically increase software sales.
Installation from a bootable DVD takes about two hours, and the operating system requires 5.9GB of hard disk space.
Compared to a normal installation which takes less than 40 minutes and what, about 3 gigs of space?
Considering this article, I would also be very interested in what they think of the DNF physics engine performance.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
When I was looking up tutorials online for this, I always found "It is completely illegal to install Mac os X on any old x86 machine, take no responcibility for your actions"
Then obviously they installed it on their computers (and probably downloaded the dvd img from bittorrent), and they act like they never did it. I understand they are trying to protect themselves by giving you a warning, but they have photographic proof that they did something that they shouldn't have. Seems silly to me.
public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
Jobs and the Apple crew know how hard it would be to design an OS so it "Fits All". It literally becomes impossible to 'check everything' due to the limits to testing. The cost and complexity of designing the whole OS due to all the large numbers of Intel box hardware options would simply result in an almost infinite increase in the chances for glitches that would bring down the OS and that sounds a lot like... the 'Other' operating system I use when I must use it because I have no other choice. Bo
How can they benchmark the OS using a program requiring the use of Rosetta. If you want to compare you should use an app that is already native to x86. If you do, don't bother putting out data on it. My 4-year old could have told you that the PowerPC iTunes running through Rosetta would have been slower.
The rest of the review felt incomplete and lacked any sort of useful information. Not much of a review as far as a slashdot reader would be concerned.
You mean Linus, right? Created an OS kernel that wasn't as functional as other Unices, but released the source code. Then people could install it on the hardware of their choice, rather than only on the platform for which binaries had been published, which was the style at the time.
Certainly no closed-source OS can be installed on the hardware of your choice; only on hardware on which the publisher saw fit to compile the OS.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Everyone's hardware costs less than what they sell it for. That is called profit. It is the only way companies stay in business. Sure, Apple makes a little more than HP or Dell, but HP and Dell don't have to do R&D on their computers. Apple builds a platform. HP and Dell build crap in a pretty box and let someone else do the R&D. That is why Apple can build a better product.
I have to agree that, while protecting their hardware business is the most important reason for Apple to try to prevent the Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware, ensuring a smooth customer experience is nearly as important a reason.
A large percentage of the trouble I've had with PCs while running Microsoft's OSes stem from Microsoft having only vague ideas of what my hardware might be.
Even moreso, probably 80% or more of the troubles I've had with PCs while running Linux stem from the developers having only vague ideas of what my hardware might be.
I'm perfectly happy with that situation under Linux, though. Linux is a power tool; a bread-box; &c. But my Macs are as close to appliances as I've seen a general purpose PC come. That's exactly what I want from my Macs for my wife, my children, & even myself.
Now, personally, I might rather see Apple take an approach that encouraged people to use Apple hardware but allowed those who knowingly choose a worse user experience to use any hardware. Make the installer say, "Hey, this ain't our hardware, so we're making no promises. Go buy our hardware if you want the best-of-breed user experience we've been working hard to give you."
I bought a Mac Mini, just to give the Apple thing a try. And I have to say that the software is what impresses me. What comes for free on this machine is superior to many products under Windows I'd have to pay money for.
As long as people think software has no value, they are going to be unwilling to pay extra for what Apple is offering. I will not be one of those.
So the article is about testing and reviewing Mac OS X on the x86 processor? Why the hell is the summary about the reasons behind why Apple isn't allowing it on any computer other than an Apple branded one? And not even full treatment of that...
Yes the Apple hardware is cheaper than they sell it for, but the OS is worth more than they sell it for. The profit from hardware sales allows for thier huge R&D budget, without which OSX would suck. Plus you have to allow a little of the extra price for the innovative and usually high quality cases that Apple designs.
Is there middle ground in this?
The usual assumption is that Apple can't sell OS X x86 for generic x86 because they're a hardware company, and nobody will buy their hardware if they can buy x86.
I can think of several possible solutions. Right now Apple is making OS X x86 locked to their hardware. What if Apple was to license this locking technology to hardware vendors, allowing them to sell at a premium, a machine that could run X or Windows. This would allow them to collect part of the price.
The licensing agreement could also require that the licensing chip was only available to hi-tier machines priced at similar price points as Apple machines, as well as requiring certain hardware elements (ie, built-in BT, Firewire 800, USB2, display adapters, etc).
This would allow people interested in OS X but unwilling to buy an Apple machine to get into OS X, but still retain revenue from hardware sales and maintain the quality level associated with Apple hardware. Even if there were no restrictions on price points, the hardware licensing should make up for lost margin on Apple hardware.
What you don't seem to understand is that Apple is not driven culturally to be the biggest, they have a burning desire to be the best.
The positive changes in their market cap and bottom line are the rightful reward for their mission.
By monopolizing the hardware Apple is just as evil if not worse than Microsoft. The one great thing about the x86 platform was that we could put what operating system we wanted on it.
Apple is bringing to the x86 world that it is okay to lock consumers into your own brand of hardware. This is not the direction we need to go.
too many people excuse Apple's actions just because they are Apple. After what Apple did to the original Mac clone makers it makes one wonder how anyone can excuse them. Perhaps its just "correct" to continue to excuse their obviously monopolistic activities because a lot of geeks think they are cool (and all so not Microsoft)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Torvalds?
Don't hurt me
Pages currently show "planned downtime". Have we actually managed to bring down ZDnet? Color me impressed!
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
One of the less-touted aspects of the 10.4.3 update for both platforms was "enhanced compatibility with FAT16." Who the hell cares, you ask.
Better question: What still uses FAT16 specifically?
The Dell Restore partition you get when CTRL-F11-ing at startup.
Food for thought?
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
That's 50,000 Apple computers that Apple has to manufacture and ship. Let's say Apple profits $500 on each unit, that's $25 million.
Microsoft, meanwhile is making about $200 per each of the other 95%. That's 950,000 x $200 = $190 million just for software licenses -- no hardware manufacturing, no shipping.
If Apple licenses OS X to Dell, HP, and Sony to ship with clones, they have a realistic shot at 20% of the computer market in the short term.
That's 200,000 units times the $200 MS currently makes = $40 million.
So, Apple makes $40 licensing OS X instead of $25 million selling Macs per every 1 million units. That's a 160% increase in profits, and that's assuming clones completely canibalize Macs which is unlikely -- there's no reason why they couldn't still sell Macs anyway.
CONCLUSION: Apple WILL license OS X to Dell/HP/Sony. It's inevitable.
boxlight
This is one case where I would gladly pay more for a box, because the hardware has been certified by Apple. I'm sure Apple is concerned that their O/S work correctly, rather than hope that it will run on any old shitbox.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Apple are justifiably proud of their boast "It just works". If you start letting people run OSX on any platform, then that becomes much harder, if not impossible.
Personally I think Apple should continue producing quality hardware and software for those that want the best, and not cater for the cheapskates who want to run the OS on crappy cheap hardware.
I like mine.
Somewhat Unrelated: http://www.westcoastphreakers.eclipse-business.com /bandwithrape/Apple%20OS%20X%2010.4%20x86/
-Its time for some Agent Orange!-
Obviously iTunes MP3 encoding, and a lot of the other things they mention, are going to be optimized for the x86 -- it seems silly to complain about that today.
The article didn't complain, it was more of a "State of OSX" type article. The author conceded that these were early numbers and that things would probably get much better.
I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
honestly? the motherboard is all i can think of. both major platforms run EXTREMELY similar hardware now. for the most part, hardware in general use by the public is available for both, with little difference but a driver. the driver is just as third party on a current mac as it would be on a clone mac. this third party support argument is nonsense. the only real argument you can wage against Apple is on sales, and in doing so you must compare the Apple of today to the Apple of the late 80s. surely you understand the massive differences between the two, from ideological and marketing to technical?
Just wondering.
I would assume that apple only has drivers for their own hardware. How do they get OSX to run properly on an x86 that's not Apple if it does not supply proper video, network, mboard drivers, etc?
You gotta be kidding me. Apple hardware design is below average... waaaay below average. There's no way their custom motherboards can compete with quality brands like Abit, Asus and MSI and this is the reason I would never buy a computer from them to begin with.
The link won't open for me anymore... has ZDNet been hindered from being slashdotted? This is Slashdot's way of taking out the other tech news sources... pwn3d n00bs!!!!!
Has anyone tried it on a Tecra M4 Tablet convertible? I wonder if inkwell would work with the display. That would be schweeeeet!
I guess that is a nice, roundabout way of telling people, "We're douche bags."
Imagine someone has already hacked Mac OS X for regular Intel hardware.
And they will do it again.
Its the nature of the Intel platform to be widely available so no matter what Apple does you will see pirated hacked versions of Mac OS X and all Mac software available to the Warez kiddies very soon.
I see the day when any mac support forum will be populated primarily by ex-Windows l33tsters complaining about how Mac OS blows because it does not run well or recognize their hardware off their custom built square box put together from spare parts found in their basement and bought from Compuseless or new3gg.
Fans that bought their OS and machine from Apple will be laughed off of most forums immediately.
Yeah, maybe this was not such a great move by Jobs after all.
Am I the only one that sees this coming?
Is there any piece of hardware or software built for the Intel platform that has not been hacked or Warez'd to death?
ACK
This may/may not be on-topic, but reading this link made me really think about something:
Why is it that people hate macintoshes?
Now, I don't want to put you off with my conclusion, but lack of space prevents me from fully developing my argument. I'll cut to the chase: People don't necessarily hate macs because of what they (macs) are, but because of the people who use them.
No computer is, in and of itself, useless. I'm sure macs have a value of their own, independent of whether or not I choose to "like" the mac. There are very smart people who design mac hardware/software, and far be it from me to denegrate their work!
However, think for a minute about the mac user community. These folks are, almost universally, so completely arrogant and superficial that they really stand out as being the singular most irriating people in computing. What they lack in logic and reason, they make up for in hubris and inanity.
Most macusers can't see this, but the rest of us sure can
What I really, really want is a developer version of Mac OS X / x86 that can run under Xen (or VMWare). It doesn't need to include drivers for real hardware, the iApps, etc, just the main OS and the developer tools.
... with a spiked hammer. All these sorts of issues make it crucial to test on Mac OS X ... but yet, Mac OS X is one of the harder common platforms to test on due to the need for special hardware and the lack of developer / "lite" OS versions.
Why? Because it means I can test my application on a "Mac" without having to fork out for hardware I don't want. This benefits me (save some cash / easier to test the app on another platform) and Apple (more apps for Mac OS X).
If their "virtual Mac OS X for Developers" is sufficiently cut down, it'd probably be a real PITA to install on real hardware, largely eliminating fears they might have about undercutting their hardware sales. Sure, you could build a thin Xen system just to load the Mac OS X image, but I really doubt this would be attractive to many people. Certainly not to your average Mac user.
Currently, Mac OS X is just UNIX-like enough to lull you into a brief false sense of security before brutally stabbing you in the back and raping your corpse. Any developer of cross-platform apps or UNIX apps who needs more than core POSIX facilities MUST actively test on Mac OS X to have a hope of things actually working when it comes to someone trying to use the application. This is doubly true of GUI apps using portable toolkits - Mac OS X has quite a few special traps for GUI developers who work on Linux and target Mac OS X.
Don't believe me about Mac OS X's very much un-UNIX-like true heart? Try to add a static network mount. Just drop it in fstab, and it'll all be there, right? . Sorry yet?. Now look at the syntax in `ld' for linking "framework" libraries, and hell, the fact that "framework" libraries exist. If you haven't worked on build systems, you won't understand the horror of that one. If you haven't given up yet, try starting a GUI app from the console. Tip: You have to use the special "open" command, just executing it isn't enough. It goes on, and on. None of these things are all that bad (well, except for the retard who chose to ignore all compatibility and use "-framework name" instead of "-framework,name" in the linker options) but they're all very frustrating for someone developing for UNIX. They're also good reasons to inform any Mac user who claims that "Mac OS X is just UNIX on the inside" just how wrong they are
A virtualisation-friendly version of Mac OS X for developers would help address this, without cutting into Apple's pricey OS and hardware sales. Anybody able to suggest a downside?
I wonder how they will actually stop people from running OSX for X86 on any x86 PC. Before people flame me for not reading the artical, I know they will do hardware checks in the final version. I have been running a development version (10.4.1) on my dell for several weeks now, and although I can't install 10.4.3 (or any newer version) because of the new hardware checks, I can patch my 10.4.1 installation to match that of the 10.4.3 (and I assume any further versions). This circumvents apple's attempts to cause the development releases to be unable to run new universal binaries compiled with XCode 2.2
I'm curious to see if they will find a way to keep people from patching their already installed OSX installations in the future, or if they will just count on its inconveniance on keeping people away. In any case, I am VERY impressed with what I have seen of it so far -- it works almost as flawlessly as its PPC version, but is still only in the (final?) development stages.
You know Apple hardware is way less expensive because???
I'm sure it's because you've combed their financials and you've figured out what per unit profit is after removing cost/profit associated with R&D, retail, distribution, software sales....
Or did you simply decide this because you did the most obvious thing, you compared them to Dell? You figured a G5 is pretty much the same thing as a P4 even though Apple has to buy a relatively low volume processor from a different company, and they have to design and contractract the fab of their own system controller and motherboards, and they have smaller economies of scale, and they make a nicer box (there's about 10lb of Aluminum in just the G5 tower shell)...
That's how you know that Apple charges way too much, right?
Of course every kid knows this.. that's why the average ACT score is like 13.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
"He's doing pretty well these days."
Unfortunately, most of his product's users aren't doing so well. Windows was making my computing life miserable, until a year or so ago when I bought a computer from a company that charges a higher margin but makes a better product.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I'll preface this by saying I'm not an Apple pundit, and while my current machine is a Powerbook, my last dozen were all PCs (of the AMD kind).
Why do people get all worked up about OS X being hardware locked? If it were my OS, I'd do the same thing -- not just to secure my profits (though they are entitled, it is THEIR operating system), but to actually standardize on a reference platform that can be supported.
How much of any OS developer's time is wasted trying to account for instabilities in your cheap ass, five dollar, no name, Korean sweat shop motherboard? I don't care if Intel just botched a huge batch of boards, it happens, but trying to accomodate a hundred different chipsets and video cards and ram types and people messing with voltage...
We complain about how this industry has been around for so long, and how computers still aren't that stable? It's because there are N! possible combinations of hardware and software to try and get working together nicely, which is a lofty goal at best.
Call me crazy, but I'm at an age where I just want it to work, and my Powerbook at home always does, and my Powerbook at work always does. Part of that is the quality of the OS, and that's reflected in the (relative, not concrete) stability of the reference platform it's built on.
"All I ever wanted was to see Larry Wall give Bill Gates a Perl necklace."
http://www.eisenschmidt.org/jweisen
Everyone is talking about a shrink-wrapped version of x86 OS X eating into Apple's hardware margins... that may not necessarily be a bad thing. The question is, How many new users can Apple pick up by selling a shrink-wrapped version of OS X?
Software development is pretty much a sunk cost, and the only real cost per unit is the cost of the retail packaging. So, will Apple be able to sell enough CD's to offset the loss of hardware revenue? Maybe even exceed it? If so, then it may make more sense to just sell OS X and not the whole computer.
I could see a future where Apple produces only a few "exotic" hardware systems (like the Mini and the iMac), and leaves the mainstream hardware to guys like Dell and HP.
You'd better take a hard look after the Intel transition then, since their motherboards will be essentially standard and most likely manufactured by the third parties you mention.
I hope Apple will be willing to let a little profit margin go after the switch, in order to gain massive market share (say, 10%;).
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
What's all the fuss about? Apple have spent years laboriously building themselves up as a premium brand. Why should they throw that away now by selling their OS separately or licensing clones? They'd have almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. Besides, the clone route was tried a few years ago and it was a total disaster.
Apple doesn't have to become huge. Even a few more percentage points in the desktop market would still make them a very large and fabulously profitable company. Movies? No problem. Issue really good multiplatform iMovie software tied into Intel's hardware DRM. Ten times easier than faffling around with the whole OS.
Besides, there are many other things that Apple might want to do in the next few years as computing moves off the PC and into embedded devices, and, possibly, a client-server system using broadband emerges. Apple is far more than just a computer company these days. Joining the bargain-bin crowd in CompUSA is the last thing they need.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
He made an OS and even though it is an inferior product, gave the buyer the freedom to install it on the hardware of their choice. He's doing pretty well these days.
But the thing that really cemented his position was his attitude to anyone who wanted to sell a computer compatible with his operating system WITHOUT actually selling his operating system alongside it.
For me, Apple is already number one in terms of ease of use, security, style, functionality and robustness.
It says, "Steve Jobs might not approve, but Apple's latest operating system can be installed on any x86 hardware."
It only works on very specific chipsets. Driver support is incredibly sparse, for obvious reasons.
What the hell kind of statement is that?
I'm looking forward to the day I can buy an x86 powerbook and install *windows* on it.
*ducks against flying snapples*
It's lucky they provided screenshots, I was wondering how different it would look on x86.
Nothing costs nothing
If Dell really wants to sell OSX on their machines, why not let them? Charge them $120 per machine OEM, that's all margin, no work, free advertising, lots of machines. Apple-branded boxes would take a hit for sure, so the question is about ratios. Somehow I don't see this working out badly for Apple.
Let's be realistic: the worst loss of revenue for Apple will be from pirated versions of OSX "fixed" to run on stock hardware. But that's inevitable, and it will hurt Apple. The right way to ask the question is like this: "Does Apple also want to make some money from OSX running on stock hardware?"
You couldn't be more wrong. Every non-geek I've ever know who lusts after Apples toys does so because they are aesthetically pleasing.
Hell, I am a geek and I find the appearance of Apple prodcuts quite appealing.
actually i think mr jobs sees the value of apple as an "integrated appliance". look at the original mac. no expansion, a single plug. look at his first computer since he returned, the imac - no expansion, a single plug. look at the dock on osx - it's like a push button control panel (push this button to listen to the radio, this button for CDs - or push this button to chekc your email (Mail), this button for internet (Safari)). most people want apple stuff because you plug it in and it just works
plus, i have no idea what their margins are but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the markup on apple hardware is what pays for the r&d for apple software - and the software is pretty much sold at break even. so 50% market share on a couple of pennies a copy is nowt compared to 10% market share (which is what I imagine their target is) on several hundred dollars a go.
One of hundreds of web sites have demonstrated how to put together and install OSx86. In one case the author replicated the hardware that Apple used in the Developers Computer running OSx86. The total price for the complete computer was under $200. (not counting the monitor and keyboard). About 15 years ago MacWorld magazine went out and bought all the components than went into a Mac SE (including the monitor). The cost? A total of $350. At that time I paid $3000 for the Mac SE!!! Naturally there are a number of questions that Apple/Jobs will need to answer to consumers over the next couple of months. What's a Responsible Profit & Markup on any product/service? What's a Responsible Renumeration Ratio For Jobs Over The Lowest Paid Apple employee - or sales person in a non Apple retail store - selling Apple hardware? www.digitalpostproduction.com just ran a piece on their site which showed that 75% of all folks doing serious media stuff use Windows XP. Will 75% of the consumers who actually make money with their computers doing "media" switch to the new Intel/Apple computer new dual core - which runs at half the speed of a dual core AMD when it comes to heavy duty work when it comes to - for example, encoding H.264 (which will become a 3 trillion a year industry - once the development of H.264 encoding/decoding hardware/software? I doubt it. In my case, I am running a school to teach up and coming "web educational/corporate videographers/editors who will focus on H.264 live streaming and progressive downloads for Sony PSP, 3G and other devicess/ portable formats". We will be using AMD's quadra core hardware - which will make us at least 100% more productive than Apple/Intel users. One has to remember that Apple's implementation of H.264 is super bloated compared to Ateme's implementation. As well Apple's Quicktime H.264 has not passed the interoperability standards (more monopolizing?) So who will Apple sell it's overpriced hardware to? - "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."
If Apple were to release MacOS for the x86, and (wishful thinking) support Wine to the point where it runs most everything, would they then be able to compete with Microsoft by levelling the playing field as far as software availability goes?
Such a move would benefit both Apple and Linux.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Also, especially silly since iTunes is the one app installed with OS X on Intel that *isn't* compiled for Intel. It's the token Rosetta application, and everything else is built for Intel. This means that it doesn't use things like AltiVec (or, on Intel, SSE) for encoding/decoding; Rosetta emulates a G3 (PPC750 I think).
-Q
Or, to rephrase: This is exactly why BMW will never be number one. Every kid out there knows that BMW hardware is way less expensive than what they sell it for. That's what keeps me from buying BMW, anyways.
Except, in the luxury car market, BMW is number one, and in the high-end desktop market, Apple is number one. Sure, in the global market, they're getting outsold by Hyundai and Dell, respectively, but people don't lust for a Hyundai.
If Apple were to sell their OS to the market, it would be like BMW licensing their logo to Hyundai. Sure, you'd still get a car out of things, but it wouldn't be a BMW, with all the little touches that make the car so utterly...pleasurable. Likewise, with Apple hardware, there are so many little things that make the hardware a joy to work with, and a third party would hardly have impetus to mantain that level of detail in the face of cost-cutting measures.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
That's funny, here I was looking for an old apple case I could stick some intel hardware into tp run xandros on. I like the appearance of Apple way more than the OS. I don't think I'm alone in this.
The problem is choice..
Windows Vista.
Now in the back of my mind, I have a feeling it will be buggy and full of security holes. I think it might be real crap, have no real new features, still be bloated and insecure.
But... what if it's not? What if it's exactly what people want (or say they want)? What if the security on it is top notch? What if the user interface has gotten amazing -- to the point that even Apple says "Hey that's pretty nifty!"? What if the applications and device driver requirements that are written for Vista are top spec, and work flawlessly?
While it's not 100% likely, it's not improbably either. Microsoft has huge resources and aside from our 'preview' events of Vista, there's no telling what Vista may bring with it, and how it may challenge OS X on every front.
And that folks, is why Apple has to learn to stop going the way of the Betamax and integrate with other hardware vendors. Yes, I said it -- Apple has to become a software company if they want to survive. The next version of Vista could be (and I'm not cheerleading for anybody here) amazing -- and it could blow everything Apple touts -- ease of use, 'prettyness', stability, security -- out of the water. Then what can Apple retort with? What will their "Switch" commercials say? "Before I got an Apple, I didn't have a cool looking tower, but now, with the new iMac, I paid a premium price for an OS and hardware that is not as good as Windows Vista."
I know the Slashdot crowd generally love *nix, and that Apple has such a framework underneath it that encompasses those *nix environments, that Windows is automatically an antithesis to this -- and to some definate truth. However I'm a bit of a realist, and I know that Microsoft can go for the jugular this time around, because they know they need to compete not only with the ease of use of Apple, but the security of what is intruding into the server world with Linux.
Aside from ease of use NOW, what does Apple offer? Security can be had with a well-minded individual in Windows as well. And the fact that Windows runs on most anything lets me run applications faster and faster, and games better and better. Video editing, graphics manipulation, 3D processing -- it's all faster on PCs now. And that's where Apple had a great stranglehold yet, the latest Star Wars was rendered on a bank of AMD processors.
So in the immediate future, Apple will push its own hardware. And that's fine. But if Microsoft brings Vista to the table prepared, built well, and most importantly -- BETTER -- than OS X... Apple can't survive with their profit margins.
I must add a disclaimer, that I don't own a Mac yet -- still waiting until they are cheaper. But I am a huge fan having used my friend's PowerBook. There are some things Apple has that are small, ingenious touches that I really enjoy. But I can't bring myself to buy a laptop that costs more money, and does essentially less than a similar Windows machine. But they are so damn cool, I still will break down at some point, and buy one. Maybe when I get a tax return...
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Apple should understand that most people want OS X for the operating system's technical superiority, not the beautifulness of Apple's hardware.
BWHAHAHAHAHHAAAH.... . hAHHAHHAhahaha.... gurgle... AHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
Yet another example of a Slashdot user who is completely detached from reality and has absolutely no idea how most people choose/use computers.
People buy Apples because of marketing. Macs look great. People love that. Nough said.
-most people want OS X for the operating system's technical superiority, not the beautifulness of Apple's hardware.
Actually, I think the empirical evidence is most people don't want OS X at all.
The biggest issue is this is: would the quality remain the same if Apple released its OS X for general x86 use? I think the answer is no, and I'll tell you why.
The biggest thing windows has against it now is the multitude of hardware it must support. Any average joe company can build a horrible piece of hardware for a pc and code crap drivers for it. An end user may not even realize that the horrible english translation on the box and rock bottom price means to be cautious. They install it, and BAM...windows sucks.
If the mac had to support the same myriad hardware that windows does, I'm willing to wager that while it may not be AS bad, it would be a far cry from the stable OS we know it as today. Hardware controls and great software integration MAKE the OS X experience.
lets link to the article.... wait, even though zdnet runs their site off of beowolved toasters, that may not bring them down.
I GOT IT, lets post the Photo Gallery link too. hehehehe.
I am Zonk, destroyer of articles, shatterer of web pages.
This feature was present in Windows 95. That alone makes it vastly superior to Windows XP and Mac OS X!
From the photo gallery: Registration, however, is obligatory.
Guess they didn't try hitting cmd-Q during that to skip it. It's worked on every version of the registration screen so far, so I doubt it's been changed for the x86 version of OS X.
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
It's interesting to me how the worlds of physical and logical play out.
Take for instance the PS3 and the Xbox360. These machines are powerful and expensive - but they will be sold at a loss in order to increase sales of the games (software). So it seems to me that the trend for their pricing is downward for the hardware - pay only for the software; this is strange to me.
Now with Mac they want to lock-in what hardware you can install their software onto - because they want to NOT sell their hardware at a loss.
I've always though that hardware should be what you actually pay for, and that hardware manufacturers should buy "certifications" for various softwares. This way the consumer would pay the hardware manufacturers and then the hardware manufacturers would pay the software engineers.
Would this create greater disparity and more hetrogeny? I think it would do the opposite, as hardware manufacturers now have to worry about a popular piece of software running on their hardware, instead of the other way around (as it largely seems currently).
Just wild conjecture on my part: please, tear down my ideas. Only fools wish to have their views and ideas go unchallenged.
Apple states they do not want to sell their OS X to run on generic x86 hardware because it will cut into their profits. I don't see Microsoft having the same reservations.
In fact I can see Microsoft selling a version of Windows made specifically for the x86 Mac line. The Microsoft product would install Windows on the x86 Mac as a dual boot option (Windows being the default option of course). The MS product would repartion the drive and then install Windows, leaving you with a primary Windows Mac that could also boot OS X.
This would leave Apple with a shrinking market share since their machines are now being sold against commodity x86 hardware, and without their OS X being sold for non-Apple hardware. Seems to me to be a lose-lose situation for Apple.
Dirkus
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most people who use Macs, and an even greater number of potential Mac "switchers," could give a rat's ass about what OS the thing runs. A similar question to ask is whether the typical VW buyer buys because of who made the engine. The reason they bought their Jetta is that they thought it looked cool and the brand identity fits their style. Same goes for Mac buyers.
So the question isn't what OS does it run, instead some more pertinent questions are, "does it look cooler than a 'regular' pc?" "Can I run MS Office on it?" and "Does it connect to the Internet and e-mail?" and "Can I print my digital pictures using it?" Maybe a few will wonder "can I hook my iPod up to it?" And maybe most importantly "if it doesn't work can I call my son-in-law and he'll know what to do?"
The answer to that last one is usually "no" these days unless he happens to be a Mac freak, which is unlikely given the numbers. But the answer to that one can be changed to a "yes" with a simple install of Windows on your x86 iMac. And the answers to the other questions don't change either way.
A really smart idea for Apple would be to offer the new Macs with Windows Vista pre-installed as an option. Once Apple does this there's litte in their way to compete directly with Dell. And the only difference between Apple and Dell will be that Apple will be able to get more profit per machine because of their premium brand image. Apple could eat Dell for lunch within a year if they execute right.
And they could leverage their advantage in user-friendly software design by simply porting all their iApps to Windows. They still don't have to allow those apps to run on non-Apple hardware if they don't want, of course.
Everytime anything about Apple gets posted. 95% of posts are:
/. needs to just have a script generate these with each story.
Either:
1: Apple needs to free OSX for everyones crap whitebox and they will take over the world...
2: Apple really wants everyone to pirate this to see how good it is...
Really folks I think
Answering the naive majority here:
#1: Uhhh NO!. Hell you could give OSX away for free and it wouldn't make a dent. The overwhelming vast majority of people don't reinstall their OS ever, so moving the installed base off Windows is all but impossible. Further since this is where the market is, this is where the vast majority of SW is, most people will continue to buy new machines to use that majority software.
#2: See #1. This is a pointless exercise as only hardcore pirating geeks who don't buy software anyway are going to look at it. They just want to pirate OSX to add to how many OS's they can multi-boot.
What Apple is doing is the only thing that makes sense, the continue to sell a premium experience and can get better margins because of it. If they want more market share they just need to market some lower priced machines not open it up for the world to compete against them in their own space.
IMO there is every sign that once apple gets it's ducks in a row there will be lower priced machines. The mini was the first sign of that. In it's niche the PC machine is actually more expensive. Couple this with the fact that they will be able to better leverage commodity hardware and I expect decently affordable Macs. To be clear these will be the low end models, premiums will rise on the high end, if you must have the absoulte bleeding edge fastest HW for the buck a white box will be the way to go.
On the low end I will happily pay $100 more for a decent OSX/86 mac mini media center, thank you very much, and it will be my first Apple product of any type.
Actually, you're wrong.
I interviewed at Apple for a hardware position. They don't use ultra-cheap components in their designs, but because of their desire for esthetically pleasing devices, they compromise thermal and electrical quality. They don't put things though extensive quality control as you claim...if you have a 6 month design cycle time that doesn't leave a huge margin for testing.
Look up iBook, Powerbook and iPod failures. Apple has had a slew of class action lawsuits and they've been found guilty in almost all cases.
I'm not an Apple basher, I'm an Engineer and I see things factually. Apple is not some holy grail of quality hardware, they think outside first, inside second.
The main reason, most likely, is that Apple already tried to allow clones years ago - and it wasn't exactly a great success.
I don't think they're going to make the same mistake again.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is not like when part of Apple's OS resided in ROM and they were the single source of the ROM chips. Apple hasn't had ROM chips in their computers since the original iMac. If Microsoft is not allowed to require PC manufacturers to only offer their OS for sale with their hardware or else not be able to sell it at all, then Apple should not be allowed to require end users to buy only Apple hardware in order to run their operating system if the operating system otherwise runs well on generic hardware. They should have to compete, just like everyone else.
At first I thought it was cool that somebody put OS X on an x86 but then I thought to myself why do I like Apple's so much. I like Apple's not only because of their operating system but because of their design. I wouldn't want the nice looking OS X on a crappy looking x86 laptop. It is seldom and far between where I have found an x86 computer that looks esthetically pleasing. So even if they did market OS X on x86 platforms, I would still buy from Apple, the leader in fresh design.
Me too..
It's funny how people Diss hyundai. I find hyundai to be the osx of cars. They work, they have great warranties and they're designed and priced accordingly.
My last tiburon got nearly 200k miles with only changing the tires and oil and a clutch rebuild after teaching the wife how to drive.
Hyundai is giving american car manufactures a run for the money, not only in quality but service, performance and reliability.
I'd take a 6 speed 200+ horsepower 06 tiburon over a lexus anyday.
While I understand the point being made concerning Apple's mistake in pursuing only the hardware+software model; I feel the necessity of mentioning a couple of very similar products that crossed that barrier and failed.
[Preface: I also understand the fundamental argument of why the companies failed: lack of quality end-user software.]
Two companies, in particular, attempted to work the Microsoft model back in the nineties and failed misserably: NeXT & Be. (Ironic that both of those companies had not only ties to Apple, but to each other).
I remember when NeXT decided to move from the closed hardware model in favor of OpenStep that a great number of people were psyched. "This is going to kill OS/2 and that other one (Windows, 3.1)", a friend told me. Didn't happen.
When Be stopped making BeBoxes and moved to Apple hardware only, then followed with another move to X86 then moved to personal toy status, we saw it happen again. Was there a great wave of adoption to a better OS? No. Didn't happen.
In all fairness, I realize the cost of getting into the driver's seat w/ Openstep excluded a lot of potential users... but more so was the tricky installation due to driver support. So many devices, so many parts. And from a company that initially controlled it's hardware and built solid devices that... just... worked. Same w/ Be (especially in the, very short, days of riding on the Apple hardware train).
[A mid-post disclaimer: I love NS/OS. I regularly build white boxes running Openstep 4.2 for friends. An old used mobo w/ a 500 MHz AMD, 512 MB of ram , an old black Aptiva case and you've got a screaming good time -- and after doing it for years, I've got the install process and necessary driver set down to a very quick science. But, for a first time enthusiast, It's not a quick process. And I'd recommend a quick Linux install w/ Windowmaker for those wanting the look... but not caring about the "authenticity" -- especially considering the fact that for most people, it's nothing more than a novelty.]
Back on track now: This is exactly what many are saying here now. OSX rocks because it's hardware base is controlled. W/ only a handful of aftermarket, end user choices (outside of drives, memory and peripherals) -- it's a solid experience. Once opened up, that's not necessarily the case. God knows it isn't in the Wintel world.
All of that being said -- I agree that there's probably going to be a deal made w/ Dell, HP/Compaq, or even Lenovo. We'll provide the OS, you provide the hardware and the consumer can have a cheap(er) Mac that'll dual boot into Windows -- and the hardware vendor takes the risk of pissing off the redmond giant. My bet is on Dell... but I'm personally hoping it's not (My shop's bread and butter is dealing w/ cheap Dells and their awful hardware issues). I'm not sure how Apple would handle the initial transition -- maybe only allowing the developer's tools to work on Apple hardware? Might be possible. I realize a "patch" would soon be available in the usual places, but it might work as a middling solution.
Anyhow... like I said, a bit of topic, but just a thought for all the "just quit selling hardware" voices out there. It hasn't always worked in the past (for a multitude of reasons that aren't even listed here). Maybe it's in the plans, maybe not. We'll see when we see.
On a closing note... I'd love to get my hands on the X86 mini. God how I'm tired of paying through the nose for mid-power mini-itx mobo/CPU combos. =)
#SickNotWeak
You may find this useful
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
If Apple did license OS X to the world, then I could imagine it very well being a major threat to Windows. Development in Mac OS X is much easier in general. You can make a polished application in OS X in literally half the time of Windows. Also, it is practically impossible to write a bad device driver for OS X. Apple really thought out their driver API ahead of time. Windows drivers are more than 50% total crap. That's why they need such frequent updates. Apple would clearly do better with arbitrary hardware just due to the device driver support classes provided with OS X.
Arguements about whether or not Apple will ultimately allow OSX to run on clones don't quite make sense, given that nearly their entire turnaround has been due to the iPod. Also, they could also just not support OSX on anything other than their own hardware. They're probably just restricting things since moving to Intel is risky, as any such transition is.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
All Apple motherboards are manufactured by a company named Foxconn, probably in the same Shanghai factory as the boards you mention (If you look inside the case at the I/O ports on the back of the motherboards you own, chances are they say "Foxconn" in really little letters).
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
Example: I own a first generation (read: one of the very first off the assembly line) G5 iMacs, and it whines like a motherfucker any time the CPU heats up. All I've been able to determine about the problem is that Apple did not have exactly the fans they wanted when manufacturing the first G5 iMacs, and so substituted for a similar, but different fan. The fan doesn't fit properly and thus makes noise when run at high speeds. Apple quickly thereafter got the fans it wanted and the problem was fixed (I heard it was fixed before December 2004 anyway).
It's all great and wonderful that Apple wastes huge amounts of money making their motherboards aesthetically pleasing, but it would also be great if they made their computers aesthetically pleasing, i.e., test it out in scenarios that consumers would be using it in. I've never opened up my iMac, so I don't get to appreciate how the motherboard looks, but I definitely "appreciate" how noisy their broken fans are.
I might be wrong, and will stand corrected by replies, The hadware marked with the "Apple Logo" - Works. No funky driver conflicts, blue screen etc. I'm not a Apple/Mac specilist, but doesnt apple have the final say on software/drivers etc? Being "Hardware locked" it gurantees the hardware to be "certified" to work? Isn't that a good thing? Yes, it limits choice but whats different about mac's current platform?
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
Putting standard components into a pretty case at a 50% markup is making yourself into the Louis Vuitton of computing. No future in it. They do not have higher margins because of lower costs. OSNews has a thread on the same subject, the conclusion is the same. There is a huge premium, and it is unsustainable. The quicker they recognise it and license the OS, change the business model, the better chance they have, because that's where it is headed.
I think that as Apple continues to build a brand name for themselves associating Apple with high quality products, this will become a real possibility. Especially as they move into the consumer electronics business were people are willing to pay more for better quality.
>>Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has
>>better design.
What, you mean like making sure it doesn't crack in half, or scratch really easily?
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Is this kind of like the same philosophy behind MS offering Office Student & Teacher Edition? For $100 you can get the same MS Office that ordinarily costs $300. You're supposed to give proof that you have a student or teacher in your household, but even if anyone asks, they take you at your word. The strategy is to get legitimate copies of MS Office out into the world for $100 a pop to people who ordinarily might pirate the $300 versions. Maybe Apple would look the other way on people installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware in the hope of selling them iLife later, this way they still recover some money on the sale of iLife, which comes bundled with Apple hardware and is one of the chief reasons why your average home user wants OS X in the first place.
I've got the '04 Tiburon GT 5-speed. Traded in a '00 Sonata on it. Not a complaint on either one.
I kinda agree but have to take issue with a couple of points:
1) "Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things." This is partly true. Yes, they're well designed and tested machines, but Apple's larger hardware prices also have a lot to do with them being married to a bottom line profit percentage. They don't command as large of a market share and people hang onto their Macs longer than the average PC user so Apple has a harder time making money in volume than, say, Dell or HP.
2) "what's wrong with the mini? Dirt cheap as far as computing goes and a very capable system to boot." Nothing's wrong with it per say, but when you add on the price of a keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc... and do a price to performance comparison, it still doesn't stand up to the average PC at the same price point. While the Mini is a decent low cost computer relative to *Apple's* usual offerings, price actually still is a reason to skip Apple though it may drop a little farther down the list now.
The Mini is a neat idea and a little bit tempting but it wreaks of Apple making a half hearted attempt at a lower cost offering that goes way out of it's way to not be a threat to their iMac, iBook, and Powerbook business.
Chris
Why did Apple choose Intel over AMD?
It would have made better sense for Apple to build their new hardware using AMD Athlon 64 processors. Intel has no "true" 64-bit x86 chips, only hybrids that don't perform anything like AMD's new chips. OSX could have taken advantage of AMD's multi-core technology found in the latest batch of 64-bit x86 Athlons.
Basically a multi-core Athlon 64 could have been managed by OSX like a multi-processor using SMTP or similar software technology to distribute the processor load between the two separate cores in the CPU. Choosing Intel was not a good move unless Intel can deliver a "true" x86 64-bit CPU that is comperable to what AMD is producing.
It also makes sense from a Mac Gaming perspective. If Apple wants their Macs become a better gaming platform as they've tried to push in the past they should have chosen AMD. The Athlon and Athlon 64 CPU have always out-performed Intel chips when it comes to 3D graphics and game performance.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
> and in the high-end desktop market, Apple is number one.
No, actually they are'nt. It's just you who wishes they were.
Apple should have divorced itself from hardware years ago. For example, just ordered a new Apple 12" G4 PowerBook for the boss. Total cost $2,199. I can get a nice Dell Latitude for $1,200.
And there really isn't anything particularly special about Apple hardware these days. Hasn't been for at least the past 6 or so years. PC's have indeed caught up.
So the only difference between that $2,199 laptop and the $1,200 laptop is the operating system and the universe of available software.
Hell, for $300 more I could buy two of those Dell Latitudes and run XP Pro on one, and FreeBSD 5.4 on the other and have the best of both worlds.
Regards to markup being your major opposition to buying Apple: what's wrong with the mini?
3-D graphics performance. While it's reasonable for a very low end machine to have the hardware the Mac Mini has, the "problem" is that there's a real gap between the Mac Mini and any step up from it. (Not to mention any step from it loses the wonderful teeny case.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Lots of digital cameras come with dinky little 16MB cards that get formatted FAT16.
I have seen people rigg Chevy 305 motors in a Geo Metro, and run them at the local tracks as funny cars.
Some run down into the upper 5 second range. The car has to be modded, and re-welded time, and time again.
The result is twisted shafts, and broken axels. But with some more modding, it doesn't have to be that way.
TPM will always be hacked. Coding can be modded any way you want. It just takes a lot of time, and an ass load of money.
Insightful.
If you disagree, let's see some screenshots of OSX86 running on yer boxen.
If Apple were to release MacOS x86 for any old run of the mill Intel based computer. That would mean the end of the line for Apple's well designed and award winning hardware. Apple would compete for desktop OS market that is currently dominated by Microsofts Windows operating system. But as we all know domination does not mean superior and any market can change over time (anyone remember what VHS did to BETA then DVD did to VHS is a prime example). So in the short to mid-term, hardware contol is good for Apple, but it may not be so good for the market. Time will tell.
Clearly you're out of your mind.
1) NewEgg is a retailer of goods, not a manufacturer. They sell hardware from every vendor. This is the SAME hardware that goes into Apple products - sometimes even BETTER than what you could get in an Apple. Most "morons" don't shop NewEgg because they are exactly that - morons who don't know how or why a computer works, therefore they have no use for J. Random Video Card.
2) Yes, a "Lexus" engine will fit in a Hyundai (note: there is no such thing as a "Lexus" anything - Lexus is just a brand name for USDM Toyotas). You've just gotta find the right Hyundai to fit the Toyota engine, and make necessary changes to the engine cradle. You obviously have no knowledge of automobiles other than "Engine makes go. Lexus is fancy so it's better than Hyundai!" Stay away from such topics, lest you step on your dick again.
3) Apple doesn't make a 'high-quality' product. Every machine I've ever made has been of higher quality in both build and component selection than any Apple ever on the market. Apple makes 'good-enough' products to keep a generally-ignorant minority happy with flashy plastic and "DO NOT TOUCH!" internals. The only thing of any value that Apple produces (in regards to their PC line) is their OS. I'd love to run OS X, but I'm not willing to pay through the nose for Apple's inferior hardware. On the other hand, I'm an enthusiast - I'm not part of Apple's target demographic.
4) I agree fully that the mark-up on Apple hardware is actually a good thing. Their market is absolutely TINY, so in order to stay afloat they have to make up for the loss of volume through higher prices. I like to see Apple come out with interesting products (iPod line, OS X), and it's exactly that mark-up that makes it possible. However, Apple has very clearly stated to me and the rest of the enthusiast community that they don't want our money. They refuse to allow OS X to be decoupled from their flashy-yet-worthless hardware, even if it meant that they could charge $300-$500 for a 1-5 seat license. It has nothing at all to do with end-user supprt either, since it could be very simply laid out in the T&Cs (EULA) that no support is offered via Apple to get OS X running on non-Apple branded hardware, or to maintain the same install on said hardware. This would pose ZERO problem for people like me, who have never made a support call in their life, and don't plan on using any support, expressed or implied.
So to summarize: You're full of shit. You're an elitist bastard who tries to make analogies which make the Baby Jesus cry. Congratulations on being a brainless zombie. I'm still going to run OS X on my unsupported hardware, and the only people hurt by it will be Apple, because they won't get the money I'M FULLY WILLING TO GIVE THEM FOR THEIR OS.
Steve Jobs can suck my monkey.
Seriously, the shareholders are going to demand this. Jobs may be faced with replacement if he doesn't appease them.
I've looked into it, and it's interesting, but not really attractive.
.... *shudders*.
(a) I have to go and buy Mac OS X. Unless I'm selling significant quantities of software for Mac OS X, or have a significant base of users on it, that's not an attractive prospect. Especially having to keep the bloody thing up to date. Since most of the work I do that gets used on Mac OS X is open source that brings in exactly $0, that's not attractive.
(b) PearPC is sloooooooooooooooooow. The main app I work on takes about 15 minutes to clean rebuild on my Athlon 64 3200+ with gcc4. On a 1GHz eMac (Mac OS X 10.3), it takes over an hour and a half. This is a screaming nightmare when I have to change a major header file. PearPC is some 50 times slower than native execution, suggesting that I could expect build times vastly longer than even on the eMac at work that I currently test on over ssh. That's not at all attractive, in fact it's almost unusable. Imagine building Qt on PearPC
PearPC might be remotely useful with a cross-compiation environment. I'm not aware of anything that useful being possible with Mac OS X, so even that clumsy and frustrating option is probably out.
Now that Apple is moving to x86, I think there's a very strong argument in favour of them providing cheap, easy, and fast access to Mac OS X evironments for developers. It wouldn't take much to make a "Developer edition" unattractive to your average user, but still extremely useful for developers who target Mac OS X as a secondary platform. Virtualization would be a great starting point for the "cheap" and "easy" points, and isn't too bad at all when it comes to "fast".
I'll admit to my potential ignorance now and get it over with...I don't follow the whole MS/Apple/Intel/??? soap opera as closely as most of the Slashdotters do, I'm probably more the everyday Joe Sixpack who just wants a machine that works.
Having switched to Mac OS X from Windows, I have achieved that goal: a machine that "just works." Reboot my iBook? Why? Reboot my HP? Every other day, and make sure I take out the Linksys WiFi card, because half the time it won't boot with it installed.
OK, enough of that, back to the topic at hand.
For years the MacOS has run only on Apple hardware. Now Apple has decided to switch to an x86-based architecture and has a version of OS X that will run on said architecture in advanced development. Marvelous, now they can use x86 processors in Apple hardware instead of PowerPC processors.
Now there's a big hullabaloo about wanting to run OS X on non-Apple hardware. There are pros and cons, many of which have already been brought up for discussion here. "Sell it for standard PC hardware and you'll capture market share!" "Lock it to Apple hardware to prevent loss of hardware sales and keep the stability of running on known hardware!" All valid points.
My question to the masses is: if it is limited to Apple hardware, who cares? How is that different from present, where OS X is only available to the general public with Apple hardware?
It's Apple's OS. Whether it runs on an Apple or grapefruit, that's their own business. Frankly, as a user, I'd prefer that OS X stay on Apple hardware. It works. It's stable. Apple doesn't sell a computer or an OS, they sell a package solution--a package solution that works.
Now, that brings up the question of Microsoft and Microsoft-produced hardware. If Microsoft were to come out and say "Starting with Longhorn, Windows will only run on Microsoft-built hardware." The lawsuits would come down hard and heavy.
How is this different from Apple? With the brief Mac clone market, Apple Mac hardware has always been required to run Apple Mac software (don't know if this is true for the Apple II/III line so I can't go back that far.) Marrying OS X to Apple hardware isn't a new business practice, it's been that way since the beginning. Microsoft starting the same thing now would be abuse of it's near-monopoly position.
So to keep myself from getting long-winded I'll end with the question again. Apple OS tied exclusively to Apple hardware. It's been that way since the beginning, what's the big deal now?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Yeah. Then why is it possible for me to afford the latest and greatest PC - fast or faster than the best Mac and half as expensive?
Price is still one of them. I'm not paying $500 for crap when I can spend $500 on gold. And once OS-X x86 is released into the wild with its hardware (Yes. It will be leaked. Yes. It will be hacked. To suggest different is either an act of self-deceit, or basic, run-of-the-mill stupidity. Not that I'd expect anything less than someone who pays $1700 on a $700 computer), I'll have a computer that blazes past yours, runs Windows, Linux and OS-X (with cross-platform compatibility layers like Rosetta, Wine, SoftPC, and coLinux everywhere), and only cost me that $500.
Yeah. Swear up and down that high-powered G5s are for professional work only. In two years, an equivalent of the G5 will be the contents of the mac mini and the Next Best thing will be touted as "For Professionals Only". Me? I'm buying the AMD knock-offs that run faster and cost less. Screw _your_ rat race.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Can you please provide pics of yourself stroking your black turtleneck when you say such things? Thanks!
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Rant time.
The moderation of the parent article is as follows:
70% Insightful
30% Overrated
Then the next article is by an Apple fan stating that the price is correct because it "goes through more quality control" and the like.
Now, either of them could be right (I personally believe the parent is), but regardless of your opinion on the subject, the fact that you don't agree with a post is NOT a reason to mod it down! Mod it down for the reasons stated: That it's flamebait, that it was trolling, etc. The parent was not a post that should have been modded down because it didn't fit any of those definitions! Was it flaming anyone? I don't think so.
Even so, if you do mod it down, don't short-circuit the metamod system by using -1, Overrated. That's just cowardly.
This should apply everywhere but I see this sort of moderation abuse frequently in Apple-related articles. Now, I'm not saying that it's anywhere near exclusive to them, but I'm sure if you look through the moderation in this article's comments you'll see the same thing.
Posting as myself because I think the point needs to be made. Karma to burn.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The early adopters will be the real beta testers, everybody knows that.
-- Cheers!
So let me get this straight....
You don't want to buy the OS, you don't want to buy the hardware. You want to write programs for it, but you bitch about that as if it's the last thing you'd ever want to do.
What is your motivation again?
I completely agree with you in that the concepts are the same.
But I think they should've let MS keep their browser in personally. I'm pro capitalism and all.
Anyway, I ended up selling all of my Apple hardware and accessories (including a brand new iBook, eMac, and all of my AirPort equipment) on eBay. I even sold the broken PowerBook. And I took that money and bought an Athlon64 XPC and an eMachines desktop. I eventually replaced the PowerBook with a 15.4" Averatec. The new computers perform better than the ones they've replaced, and even though they may not be as pretty (with the exception of the Shuttle ;-), they are definitely sturdier. Haven't had anything break in a year and a half. And I even got free tech support from eMachines for a driver issue outside of the warranty period. Try getting that from Apple!
Since switching to Macs three years ago every single one of my systems has had no upgrades (save for memory) and still runs the latest and greatest software very nicely. I guess this is a pretty slow rat race? I'm fine with that :-)
Apple's design is elegant and reliable from the top down for hardware and software. Apple pushes the whole experience as a product, not just hardware or software. They even push third party manufactures to follow their example. All those made for mac products, are designed to be consistent with the Apple experience. Those are the products the Apple consumer purchase.
Do you see third party hardware being consistent with Dell's design? NO. That's because Dell doesn't design their hardware to esthetically please anyone. It's all about pushing out product. This approach also attributes to the huge number of returns on Laptop that Dell has. They don't care about the design as long as the fucking thing useable.
If I were Apple I wouldn't want to push my OS through Dell's shitty boxes that might be returned 5 times before a useable one ships. That would hinder the experience. I also wouldn't want receive support calls for someone's homebuilt fuckjob with a crappy ECS mobo and cheap ass video card so they could save a few bucks, that's what linux is for. Apple puts top quality and tested hardware in their system to go along with their top quality OS.
I could see OS X Server edition making it's way onto third party hardware before the desktop version. However, small shops are still better off with Apple's hardware as XServe, xSan and Xraid hold their own very well when consider price and features.
Computers my man, we're talking about computers. If you are worried about your desktop getting scratched maybe you should stop carrying it in your pocket.
As for cracking it in half...Jeebus, what are you doing?!
I don't think Jobs even cares if you're able to install OS-X on commodity hardware. Yeah, they'll make it hard; they don't want it _looking_ like they condone that sort of behavior, nor do they want the practice to become _too_ widespread, but eventually, their hand will be "forced", and they'll start making insane amounts of money on the hard work of a million hackers.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
The mini is still an Apple product and gets the same costs of development and QC. It's also marketed to PC users that are interested in Macs, who hopefully already have a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
Should it be $250? For a desktop computer? Whoa.
While it is true that Apple sells the hardware for more than the sum of the parts; Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things.
The following is "screaming into an abyss," but what the hell:
Many posters use the "It Just Works" line re Macs and it's true, but it doesn't capture the whole picture and essence of the platform. That Apple controls the hardware and the software and can, therefore, control the quality of the system in its entirty - AND THEN DOES control the quality of the system in its entirty is huge.
I'm writing this on a Dell laptop running WinXP. Dell and Microsoft talk to each other, right? There should be very little going on from the hardware or OS PoV that both companies are unaware of, right? WELL THEN WHY DOES THIS THING SHIT THE BED EVERY TIME I REMOVE IT FROM THE DOCKING STATION? Even when I use "Unlock Computer" function they've so thoughtfully given me? Why are there continual problems waking this from sleep? Why is there tweakiness when I use an external monitor or projector? I have NONE of these issues with an 8-year old PowerBook and 2-year old iBook.
I'll work to stay away from analogs in the car world: of the comforting rumble of a BMW motor, the perfection with which the seats and mirrors can be adjusted or the way the breaks feel as compared to Nissan or a Saturn. I've driven all of those within a short timeframe of one another; all of them get me to the coffee shop. The difference in experience - with the BMW providing the best one - is more than simply a matter of It Just Working.
Side-by-side comparisons are important: I will never say "Machine X can do Z, while Machine Y cannot." Given time, anything is possible on any platform. I've had and have side-by-side machines running Linux (since Slackware 2.3 on a PS/2 [the MicroChAnnel kind]), OS/2, BeOS (when PPC was the only game in town) and Windows. I was a late-comer to the Mac, but my first one (running OS8.x) made so many things possible and easier w/r/t working with audio and video (even in a shared memory, cooperatively multitasking OS) that I didn't feel the need to continue yoking the other machines into doing what I wanted them to.
CAUTION: Generalization Ahead: The DIYers who can get the latest / cheapest motherboard, RAM modules, gpus, etc. are NOT likely the ones spending 12 hours cutting a good 116 seconds of video into a great 60 seconds of video. They're not likely the ones to spend a 65-hour week tweaking and testing an app that runs well for the widest possible audience. They don't likely need or want to spend a weekend working out song transitions, trying the latest softsynths, writing the Next Lame Novel, etc.
By this, I don't mean building / tweaking / performance tuning your workstation is not Fun and Real Work, but I do mean it's generally more an end unto itself (or unto gaming) rather than the means to another end (like a book, an application, a song or a film short). For people more interested in the latter, I recommend trying an elegant, powerful Macintosh - and to let Apple do most of the work for you beforehand.
1. How long has ZDNet been pirating software and then reviewing it?
/Applications are Intel.
2. MP3 encoding is so slow because iTunes is still a Rosetta-run app. It appears to be the last one left, in fact, as all the other apps in
3. 10.4.3 Intel is NOT ready for primetime. I wish "legitimate" journalism orgs would stop reading some random blog entry and immediately taking it as fact. It still has several bugs and memory leaks. It's still damned good though and I'm excited for Apple and grateful to its developers for polishing some a kick ass product.
Deep in the secret back rooms at Apple the mantra when adapting OS X for Intel is... "the work's not done 'till the BSOD runs". Some may say that BSOD stands for 'Blue Screen of Death'. Well not at Apple. It's the last thing they'll do before release; add that Blue Screen of Done. Then the switchers will come, they will be at home, and when trouble comes, the world will at last have a tasteful BSOD.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
The reverse-self-rightousness of the comment and moderation is moronic. Talk about karma-whoring...
Make obvious point about 'class-ism' pretending to be hippie socialist and have the lemmings cheer "here, here!"
Check back in with us after you graduate...
Apple only sells around 10 different Macs, but Dell sells countless different machines with constant spec changes for each type. Consequentally, Apple probably sell more base spec Minis than Dell does of any given spec, so economies of scale are actually a lot more in Apple's favour than those calling their hardware 'exotic' might think.
Secondly, Apple won't be paying the Windows tax on it's x86 machines, and everybody else (except Linux vendors) will. This gives Apple a price advantage, they could actually undecut Dell if they chose to.
Why does everyone assume we'll be paying a sizable premium for an Apple machine? Because G5s looked more expensive than X86s? That's (if you'll pardon the pun) Apples v. Oranges. Now we are moving to a situation where Apple can be compared a lot more easily to other manufacturers, I think they will either be forced to be competitive, or be revealed to have been competitive all along. Certainly going with IBM/Motorola for CPUs was a big expense for them, or they wouldn't be changing to Intel, so they should have more room for price cuts when they are with Intel.
I think that a big and often overlooked factor in Apple's decision to stay a hardware company is that becoming an OS vendor would quickly shift them above Google as the number 1 target for Mircosoft's wrath, and Microsoft could seriously damage them (without even breaking too many laws this time) just by saying "No more Office for OS X". The general public don't know a CPU from C3PO and are probably going to percieve a x86 box without Office as less compatible with their Windows machine than a G5 with Office was.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
While it is true that Apple sells the hardware for more than the sum of the parts; Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things.
You have a point with design, but Apple notebooks are manufactured by the same ODMs (Quanta, mainly) that manufacture PC notebooks.
When you buy a Mac, you are buying a Lexus. It's a luxury product - the entire experience is controlled to Apple's exacting standards, from the slick packaging to the styling of the product. Even the boot-up experience is uniquely "Apple".
If you care about that experience, buy an Apple. There's nothing wrong with Apple. And there's nothing wrong with Lexus. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the hardware is somehow fundamentally different. Particularly now that Apple has switched to x86.
I agree that the "Mini" shows some promise... but as to the rest?
Apple generally puts out very pretty, but crappy, hardware, and sells it for an amazing premium.
The amazing thing is that they have convince a lot of people that Apple crap == Quality.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I think the piracy community is going to make apple look a little like this...
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?btnG=Search+Froo gle&hl=en&lnk=next&q=computer&sa=N&scoring=p&start =80/
Yeah, that'd never happen...
If Dell is paying $200 for OSX licenses, then a crappy dell workstation will cost $600 ($400 for HW and $200 for OS)
That $200 enables apple to sell a Mini like computer at the same price point, and most customers will ultimately go for the Apple. By letting other vendors sell it, it opens them up to dual boot systems and the likes. It also provides a nice migration path for businesses and home users that have a large investment in pc hardware.
If apple could certify existing hardware then they could also sell dirt cheap education licenses, since i suspect quite a lot of schools would move back to mac if they could.
Yeah, but add form-factor into the equation. Seriously. You can get a PC for cheaper, and one that will out-preform a mini... in a big-ol' ATX case. But compare mini to ultra-small form-factor PCs, and I think you'll find the mini is suddenly much more competitive.
So it's true, Apple doesn't compete in the big-ol-ugly ultra-cheap market. They don't sell machines with under 512MB of RAM these days. More and more, their machines have DVD+-RW, bluetooth, and WiFi built in. They all have Firewire and USB2. They've never used those el-cheapo Intel video chipsets, and only the iBook still uses VGA. Now they're starting to include cameras and remotes with their systems.
The truth is, when you compare the whole package-- price, performance, quality, features, and form-factor-- Apple hardware is generally a good deal.
"The mini is still an Apple product and gets the same costs of development and QC. It's also marketed to PC users that are interested in Macs, who hopefully already have a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
:) I was actually thinking more like, if that's what they care to charge for the Mini, it should at least be a competive computer with PCs at the same price point. The Mini can't even really run OSX well with all of the graphical flair turned on. Saying that a potential Mini buyer probably already has a keyboard, mouse, and monitor is making excuses for its short comings. The fact of the matter is that it's still a very pricey computer for what it is. And really, can you think of another major manufacturer that sells a computer and doesn't include a keyboard and mouse? Are basic input devices really optional in Apple's world?
Should it be $250? For a desktop computer? Whoa."
Well, $250 would be great obviously
Chris
Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform.
They were merely trying to protect the efforts of those brave skinners and themers who gave up their (social) lives to 'port' the Aqua/OS 9 look on their favorite Window Managers.
If they were so sure about their operating system they would sure as hell sell it for x86 platforms. There's clearly much more profit in this than selling over priced old hardware..
"it is THEIR operating system"
Well, yes, but when I buy a copy, its my copy to put on whatever machine I can hack it onto.
"How much of any OS developer's time is wasted trying to account for instabilities in your cheap ass, five dollar, no name, Korean sweat shop motherboard?"
So much to dissect here.
1) I have no idea and neither do you
2) instabilities? THe only motherboard that is truely stable for Intel chips is an Intel motherboard, but you can only buy those OEM.
3) Nice shot at Korea (presumably South), but you'll find the sweatshops actually are in China.
"It's because there are N! possible combinations of hardware and software to try and get working together nicely, which is a lofty goal at best."
Pure speculation. I could speculate that computer that are unstable tend to be based around Microsoft operating systems. Both of us have an equal chance of being right, but he difference is you won't admit you're talking out of your ass.
"but I'm at an age where I just want it to work, and my Powerbook at home always does, and my Powerbook at work always does."
Albiet slowly. I gave my Powerbook to my daughter last year and as a platform to run MS Word and run AOL's AIM, its nice. For anything else, its very slow. My son turned it down because "...dad...its too slow to do anything with...". As to quality, I've now replaced the processor board twice, and the backlight has burned out. Thank heavens enough of them break so the parts can be purchased on ebay without paying extortion prices to Apple for customized parts.
As to it not crashing.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh sorry. Maybe using 10.4 is too cutting edge?
"Part of that is the quality of the OS"
It looks pretty. Although I felt really fleeced paying $130 for the equivalent of Apple's brand of Konfabulator. But to make up for it, I gave a copy of 10.4 to my friends, so the net cost was about $5/user. Although I didn't charge them; unlike Apple, I have some scruples.
"and that's reflected in the (relative, not concrete) stability of the reference platform it's built on."
You're funny.
So, what sticker will they be using on the case?
"Apple Seed Inside" maybe?
It was widely reported at the Mactel announcment that Apple currently pays less to IBM for G4 and G5 chips than it will cost them to buy Intel chips. Apple's processor costs per unit will actually increase as a result of moving to Intel. Further, economies of scale have both increasing and decreasing returns to scale. Making more of a widget only decreases costs per widget up to a certain point. At a certain point in volume production, the fixed costs per unit have been effectively reduced to zero. At that point, price is determined entirely by the cost of inputs which can go both up and down when purchased in high volumes.
Lastly, Apple's chip purchases from IBM were reported to be less than 5% capacity of one IBM production facility. Once you look at the universe of PPC chips that big blue is selling, it becomes rather obvious that Apple is a rather small customer. For IBM, it simply isn't worth it to ramp up higher production of Apple specific PPC chips. Consequently, Apple is restricted to buying only as many PPC chips as IBM wants to produce.
Please don't say the golf.
I left the Mac world around System 7.5 but if I remember correctly other companies started selling Mac Computers around that time. I believe the hardware was the first generation PPC601 chips and remember a company called Power Something ond a couple others.
Why did that end? It probably provides insight as to why they aren't willing to do it again.
Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
The main app I work on, Scribus, has quite a lot of people who want to use it on Mac OS X. While I don't want to use it on Mac OS X , or use Mac OS X myself, I'd like to be able to make that easier for those people. Currently only one person on the team can do much work on the Mac OS X port due to issues with access to the OS and hardware. I'd like to, at the very least, be able to test against Mac OS X when a bug report comes in, and autobuild on it to make sure that no recent changes broke the Mac OS X port.
I'll work on Mac OS X for the same reason I work on autohell - it's unpleasant, but I learn a lot, help some folks out, and it helps me iron out kinks in areas that I do care more about.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this position. A lot of other OSS developers are likely to be to some extent or another. I'd be surprised if many smaller commercial developers wouldn't mind the ability to use their existing hardware to build on Mac OS X without worrying about regular software updates and introducing another operating system into the network admin's life too.
Portable coding is becoming more common (well, outside the win32 world). Portable GUI toolkits are getting more popular and they're getting better. Surely it'd be in Apple's interests to lower the barrier of entry for developers who might target Mac OS X as a secondary platform, or just want to give it a go with their app before deciding?
I also wouldn't mind being able to deploy Scribus at work at some point, and that's very unlikely to be happening on Linux for our main production users. Easy access to Mac OS X for development would make this more practical, and make me more inclined to select Mac OS X over Windows when we ditch our current Mac OS 9 machines (with pleasure, I might add).
Now, if a "developer version" would be some enormous project, then my suggestion would be very silly. Everything I've seen about Mac OS X suggests that it should be a week or two's work for a couple of people to get most of the work required done, since Mac OS X appears to be pretty modular. Most of what would be required would be removing applications, etc, which is one of the easiest things to do on a Mac.
See, it's the "more and more" part and the "these days" part that I have issues with. On the $499 model, blue tooth and airport functionality are $99 additions. 512MB of RAM standard just started with the most recent Mini rev. It's still a computer at the tail end of the entery level spec chart. I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list. When you buy a computer, you have a budget in mind and a list of tasks you want it to be able to accomplish. If it's small, that's great, but it's not going to bring the average person in the door for a potential purchase.
When you get away from the Mini and start looking at Power Macs, they no longer have the size advantage, they're just nice looking towers that cost a lot and, again, run pretty OS slower than a similar priced PC runs Windows.
Chris
The difference being that even with technically (I mean, by specification, not including whatever funky copy-protection nonsense is on there) identical hardware, Apple wishes to restrict their base.
First, the technically identical hardware is temporary, its convenient, it may be a good feint, etc. Switching to an Intel PCI chipset and Intel CPU *does not* mean you will have PC/AT compatible hardware. Apple has the expertise to design their own motherboards and chipsets. They could do anything from take their current proprietary design and replace the PowerPC with a Pentium to take a stock Intel PCI chipset as a reference and incorporate some of their custom chipset work, or simply leave out legacy PC junk that they have no historical dependency on but the currently shipping Windows does. Apple *did not* say that the current version of Windows would run on their hardware, they said they would not prevent Windows from running on their hardware. This suggests Windows will need to be ported to Apple's x86 hardware. Look back in history, once upon a time MS-DOS machines were not IBM PC compatible, the IBM PC was merely one of various MS-DOS machines. These machines had Intel CPUs and other similar hardware and benefitted from commodity parts as a result. However these systems were fundamentally incompatible, you had to adhere to the MS-DOS API to be safe. I'm leaning towards a repeat of history over a standard off-the-shelf PC design plus a DRM chip.
Secondly, Apple does not wish to restrict their user base, they wish to ensure that they survive in a meaningful sense. Apple fundamentally is a hardware company, they are famous for their software but that software is largely a tool to get people to buy their more expensive hardware(1). Their software is not really their core business, it is their core marketting to some degree. To run Mac OS X on generic PC hardware would kill their hardware business. They tried growing the Mac market by introducing alternative hardware vendors and it nearly killed them. The market did not grow, Apple's sales were cannibalized as existing Mac users flocked to the Mac clones. You can look to Linux as another example. Sun once had a thriving desktop business selling generic (with respect to the functionality that the user needed) unix boxes. Once a generic unix (Linux - again, only addressing people who needed generic unix apps/tools) could be run on inexpensive hardware Sun's desktop market evaporated. Apple would suffer a similar evaporation of their hardware market, suffer a devestating loss in revenue, and be a ghost of their former self. So a PC user may benefit from Mac OS X on generic PC hardware but what is in it for Apple. It has to be a mutually beneficial deal for it to happen, it is not, it won't happen.
(1) I have to note the mini as an exception. Unlike other systems it is pretty damn price competitive, or maybe its just that Apple's proportionately higher markup is being applied to such an inexpensive machine that the difference between the mini and a comparable PC is insignificant. Or maybe the mini's margin is much less than other Macs and the mini is being used as a "loss leader" to draw users into the Apple family. If enough people buy a bigger Mac as their second Mac whenever it comes time to upgrade Apple may have made a very good long term versus short term tradeoff.
My personal favorite:
Mac OS X x86 looks less impressive in the application-based test using iTunes (version 4.8). Windows XP is clearly faster here, taking 20.7 seconds for the MP3 transformation test compared to 61 seconds for the Apple operating system. [...] iTunes on Mac OS X x86's slower speed in this test is actually due to the Rosetta emulation environment, under which this PowerPC application (among others) runs.
[...]
Application performance clearly lags behind, though, and still needs to improve.
I'm looking forward to their next well-researched, hard-hitting review, where they run iTunes on a G5, then iTunes for Windows under VirtualPC on the same machine, then conclude that Windows application performance clearly lags behind.
I'm confused about the $500 for crap for $500 for gold part. I mean.. I have a mac mini and a PC. I spend about $700 on both (I have one of the new 1.5Ghz Minis that just came out). Both are less than 6 months old. The mini beats the PC into the ground on everything but 3d performance.
I'm not really much of a gamer so that doesn't matter to me.
Pure speed is over-rated. I'll take the great user experience, nice design, and top rate quality. My beige box PC makes funny noises, runs Windows (blech) and is essentially only useful for gaming.
.plan!! what plan?
Hyundai is giving american car manufactures a run for the money, not only in quality but service, performance and reliability.
It's not difficult to give American car manufacturers a run for their money. I owned a 1999 Mustang coupe that was the shittiest car I've ever been lumbered with. My MGB GT was more reliable (yup, the Mustang was that bad), while my Jaguar XJS had better performance. As for servicing, San Francisco streets meant the Mustang's suspension was fucked within a month so the servicing needed to be cheap.
There is currently group effort on win2osx.net/forum Patches and Development section to break TPM.
If you are developer please join the forum and help in getting next revision to work on generic X86 hardware.
If Apple had half a brain, they'd realize that the $$ is made in SOFTWARE! Want proof? Look at Microsoft! Apple should stop making computers all together and concentrate in getting their SUPERIOR operating system on as many PC's as possible. What's WRONG with Dell putting OS-X on millions of PC's? Even if Apple made 20 bucks per computer, 10 million computers sold means 200 million bucks in Apple's pocket for doing essentially NOTHING! Instead of wasting time and resources on making computers, Apple should continue manufacturing the "cash cow" cutting edge devices that they are now known for (IPODS, etc.).
All I want to know is if the x86 Linux binaries will work on the x86 Apple.
Id MUCH rather dual-boot OS X and Linux than Windows and Linux, but need true x86 arch for Nvidia drivers, games, etc.
I think "widely reported" is a mischaracterization. First off, I'm a technical IT manager.. that is I'm an IT Manager who doesn't expect his staff to do anything I can't or won't do myself. I've NOT heard this characterisation and I follow the trends, especially this one, closely. I am, after all, a mac-god.
Second, Apple isn't just buying chips, they are buying a full Intel package. Apple's getting the same deal that Dell will be getting. They will get volume discounts for FULL systems. Apple's repackaging Intel chipset/processor systems and I strongly suspect we'll see Apple systems which are reference systems. Apple's R&D for new Intel systems will be nearly nothing compared to what they currently spend on PowerPC systems. Apple designs the system controller themselves after all.
Not only will they get bulk system pricing, but they'll qualify for the same exclusivity pricing that Dell leverages. Could there be any other reason why Apple didn't simultaneously announce future server support for Opteron? Aside from just being a better architecture, Opteron's support for large SMP configurations is at least a generation ahead of Xeon and XeonMP.
I'm not sure I follow your argument on capacity either.
I don't disagree that Apple's G5 production is 5% of plant capacity for IBM.
This doesn't mean that IBM can easily ramp up production for PPC970s though. The 5% staticstic doesn't address the overall capacity of the plant at all. Are they running at 50%? 80%? 100%.. are they pulling overtime and trying to push 105% capacity?
Additionally, running a product line in a fab that takes up 5% of that fab's capacity will NOT make it cheaper. There are certainly the penalties of lack of economies of scale at play in this case.
My basic points.. I don't believe for one second that Apple will pay more for Intel chips than PowerPC chips. That MAY be the case with outdated G4 processors but I simply can't believe that's the case for PPC 970s. Even if I were completely wrong on this, you have to acknowledge that Apple will end up paying significantly less to build Intel systems v. G5 systems since they will have SIGNIFICANTLY less R&D with Intel's complete solutions.
ffakr.
I'm not feeling witty so bite me
Such is why I'm a PC user all the way. You can't build your own Apple machine for way cheaper, and when something does go bad, you can replace it yourself. Not to say that it isn't possible, but it's obviously more difficult.
Sometimes I comment just to hear myself typing.
Linux does little to take advantage of hardware acceleration in the GUI or core libraries. OS X does.
Linux's support for many kinds of hardware is a complete hack (wifi anyone?). I used Linux as my primary desktop OS from 1998 until 2003 when I bought a Mac, and I have Debian on said Mac, and I still shudder when friends ask for help getting XXX piece of new hardware to work.
Even today, Linux often makes you worry about crap that most OS X users don't even know exists - like the particular chipset and power management system your motherboard uses.
Linux is _NOT_ a glowing example of good hardware/software integration.
Rebecca Runkle of Morgan Stanley raised the price target and maintained an "overweight" rating on Apple Computer in anticipation of a strong holiday season and continued portfolio expansion with the potential introduction of Macintosh computers based on Intel chips next year. "Apple is evolving into a growth-driven portfolio franchise," said the analyst. Runkle expects calendar fourth-quarter 2005 results to be "impressive," driven by an expanded iPod installed base, new iPods, extended digital content and CPU refreshes. The analyst said an Intel Mac launch in the first half of 2006 would be a major catalyst to near-term and long-term upside. She raised the price target on Apple to $70 from $60. "As the portfolio strategy expands, margins have the potential to increase similar to other secular growth stories," said Runkle. "As a result, upside exists to current expectations and Apple shares continue to look attractive over the next 12 to 18 months."
There aren't any because Microsoft doesn't MAKE any PCs.
They were responsable for the commoditization of the PC and the entire hardware supply chain.
That's why there no iMac comparables out there. The iMac has gone from a Bondi blue to a five color bowling ball, to an articulated screen on a white half ball, to the current flat panel. In the mean time the best the PCs could come up with was slapping some ugly colored plastic panels on the SAME CHASSIS.
The companies that make chassis, the two or three that are left in the world (Well Taiwan anyway,) according to Google, don't give a shit that the Mac chassis sell, their chassis sell too. They aren't going to screw with their product line and their clients are stuck with it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
By your reasoning, because you can get Debian for PPC for free, Apple should be giving out Mac OS X for free. But they don't! They charge $129, which is actually more than what the upgrade version of Windows XP costs! Apple doesn't even give a price break to upgraders because they have you locked in! You have to run their OS on their hardware. They've even done nasty things with OpenFirmware to prevent other operating systems (like BeOS) from being run on their hardware in the past. Now tell me that's not predatory!
Operating systems are not generic like soda. Pepsi and Coke have virtually the same mass, the same nutritional value. They might differ a little in taste, but that's about it. It's not like Pepsi can force you to drink out of a certain glass, but that's exactly what Apple is trying to do by tying Mac OS X to Apple hardware! It theoretically should work fine on any other computer, just like Pepsi would taste just as good in a colored glass as in a clear glass. But Apple is able to lock end-users who may have a need to run Mac OS X for whatever reason (say they work in an office that's standardized on Pages or Keynote; I know it's unlikely, but it's possible!). Their choices are limited to the overpriced, flimsy, you-get-support-if-you-fork-over-even-more-cash-fo r-AppleCare computers that Apple manufactures and sells. Why should anyone have to pay $1300 for an iMac just because they iPhoto, when a $400 PC + $200 monitor will do just as well? Don't even mention the Mac mini. That $400 PC gives about 20 times the performance of the mini. The PC hard drive alone is likely twice the rotational speed of the cheap laptop drive in the mini.
I, for one, would like to see the powers-that-be go after Apple with as much zeal and force as they did after Microsoft. I think Apple is even more anti-competitive than Microsoft. What makes Apple more insidious, though, is that they can make hurting consumers look cool, whereas Microsoft doesn't have the RDF around itself to get away with the kind of anti-consumer behavior that Apple regularly exhibits.
And as for your other argument:
This is pure hooey. Mac OS X doesn't come bundled with any applications other than development tools. What else? iChat? iCal? Gimme a break. Most of the other stuff is bundled with the hardware, not with the operating system. You have to buy iLife, etc. separately if you don't get it pre-installed with your hardware. Linux with gaim and evolution is at least as much value as what comes bundled with Mac OS X.
If all Apple cares about is making $, there's two easy ways for them to do it:
1) charge $BIG_BUCKS for the software
2) sell the software for $129 and sell a hardware dongle for $BIG_BUCKS-$129.
If they want quality-control on the hardware, they can license an add-on chip to computer makers, for installation ONLY into machines that meet certain performance and quality criteria. They can then charge the manufacturers or end-users $BIG_BUCKS-$129 for a code to turn that particular chip on.
Of course, after Apple canceled its licensing program in the late 1990s, I'd be wary if I were a computer vendor's lawyers and Apple approached me with something like this.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why wouldn't Apple make OSX work for generic x86 hardware? They want to sell operating systems, right? They see how much money MS is making with Windows, and they want a piece of the action.
Even if Dell was to sell cheap Apple clones in x86 architecture, there's still a market for Apple to sell high end "genuine Mac" products. Best of all, Dell would be pushing Mac OSX licences, so even if it's not Apple hardware, it's still Apple software going out the door.
Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, but for the x86 version of Mac OSX to work only with Apple authorised hardware seems too confining for an operating system superior to Windows and capable of eating Microsoft's lunch.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Which isn't exactly obscene, considering bluetooth/wifi adapters could easily run you around $40 a piece, and it's $99 for both.
I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list.
Not necessarily, but it is nice. It's like any other feature. Some people might be fine with a big computer, no floppy drive, only a CD reader, no USB, no Firewire, and a 10 GB hard drive. If those people buy a mini, they'll be spending lots of money for things they don't really need. Regardless, when you compare the mini to a comparable machine running Windows, they're comparably priced.
When you get away from the Mini and start looking at Power Macs, they no longer have the size advantage, they're just nice looking towers that cost a lot and, again, run pretty OS slower than a similar priced PC runs Windows.
First, you're ignoring the nice in-between machine, which is the iMac. The current iMacs are pretty great, and not badly priced. Yes, they have a built-in monitor, and if you don't like that, then you won't like the iMac. Still, I'm sure that if you compare comparable machines on the Windows side, and you'll find the iMac is well-priced (if you can find a comparable machine).
Additionally, PowerMacs are not just "towers". They aren't built like home PC towers. They're built like workstations, and that's where you need to compare them. What's the price/performance ratio of a PowerMac to a Dell Precision workstation? I don't know, but I'm sure it depends a bit on the task.
I've used both PCs and Apple for about a decade - the three PCs I've had broke after a few years of hard use. My two apple laptops still work great. I'll get a new one when the second generation of intel comes out because I think it's going to be look cool and my current laptop looks a little worn around the edges - but it really doesn't matter that you can't replace things because apple computers don't break (I once ran over my first one with a mountain bike on accident). My first laptop is now the greatest bedroom stereo I can imagine - just looking at a new iBook as a stereo component, it seems reasonably priced - just for that one application.
Thank you. Glad someone out there understands.
BTW, since your post I've also gained a %20 Troll. All for saying Mac hardware is overpriced, apparently. Which I still believe to be true.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The reason that Apple can't let go of the hardware side of the business and focus on selling OS X is simple.. they can't generate even a fraction of the revenue they currently generate otherwise. Think back to the early days of the PC industry when Microsoft just made MS-DOS and a crappy version of BASIC. They were a tiny company selling an operating system and tools. Even licensing it to everyone in the early glory days of MS-DOS (circa 1985) they were still an itty-bitty company by comparison to today. You just can't make enough money selling an OS alone. Why do you think Linus didn't even try?
No, Microsoft got rich by creating applications on top of their OS that were better than their competitors (by hook or by crook, as we all know), and by bundling things into the OS so that it became ever more feature-rich. This created lock-in, which ultimately allowed them to raise the price of the OS to the point where now, years later, they probably do almost break-even now on sales (versus Windows R&D costs). So much for monopoly profits. Microsoft's cash cow is not Windows, it's everything they've built ON Windows.
Apple doesn't start today from that position. Yes, OS X is feature rich and comes bundled with really great stuff, but they can't make enough from the sale of that alone to forego the rest of their business. What are they going to upsell customers to.. iLife?
Not that the potential isn't there. Jobs could recreate Microsoft's success if they follow a patient strategy of first getting the OS out there on a wider basis, and then building the higher-level stuff where they can generate margin, and cultivate a healthy 3rd party base to fill in the gaps in their product line (like MS does). Once they have that in place, then they can afford to make the OS available to run on anything and everything (like Microsoft does Windows). At that point, Apple can be an Insanely Great software company that competes head-to-head with Microsoft. But, that's years away, if ever.
Will people run OS X on non-Apple hardware? Heck yes.. if they can find a way they will. I'd love to be able to boot my Dell into Linux, XP or OS X depending on my mood. Slashdot users (which constitute 0.0001% of the computing world) will all be doing that someday. It actually doesn't hurt Apple really.. because they won't forego enough revenue on a bunch of geeks to make it worth the effort to go after us, and in fact, they would be stupid to irritate a bunch of people that might help build all of those killer OS X apps that they want.
Will Dell probably ever sell Apple clones? Only when the aforementioned economic conditions are in place to enable Apple to generate enough revenue from each additional user to make it worth their while. Until Apple can generate $10 for every $1 in OS revenue they generate (like MS does), then you aren't going to see that happen.
The stability is great, but lets face facts, no OS is perfect. The fantastic thing about a mac is that if your mac doesn't work right, you have one company that takes responsibility and solves the thing. For those of us who just want to be able to get work done, this is a godsend.
And does anyone remember the days when people were bitching about Windows install space (forget about it being 75% drivers in 2000/XP)?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
"Bottom line is, Apple wants to keep its hardware prices high and doesn't want Dell to undersell them."
You're assuming Apple won't cut their prices to some degree.
When they move to Intel, they won't be able to cloak their pricing in a fog of 'CPU difference uncertainty'. Buyers and reviewers might cut Apple some slack on pricing because of the difference between CPUs making the value proposition a bit hard to pin down.
With the machines running x86 CPUs, that uncertainty will be gone, and buyers and reviewers will cut Apple less slack for higher pricing.
So Apple will probably cut their x86 prices to some degree. Not to bargain-basement prices, but they'll be in the ballpark of, say, higher-end Sony Vaios.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
The windows driver model (WDM), is, quite frankly, one of the most impressive parts of the entire operating system. It is quite a bit more flexible and a lot easier to use than the unix model, and is so simply because there are so many cheap-ass broken devices out there.
I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. The parent is correct, and obviously you've never tried to develop a device driver and in fact are an end-user at best. I have done drivers, and let me tell you - unix is a pain in the ass to develop for. There are no standard classes, interfaces, or architectures for developing a device - simply "is this a block or character device". How quaint. You get to jump through hoops and develop the entire thing yourself, with no real framework to work in. At least Microsoft provides you that much.
Microsoft blames device drivers for a simple reason: 99% of them suck ass and are written by hardware hacks who just don't understand software and can't write it to save their lives. The only reason a BSD/Unix/Linux driver will be any better is because someone more familiar with _software_ will be writing it.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
Have any of the x86 builds (beyond the first one) been cracked? There have been at least two more, and I haven't seen anything indicating any success.
Furthermore, with all of the "trusted computing" locks in place, will OS X run in VMWare (I'm assuming VMWare will come out for the IntelMacs)?
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
There's no way their custom motherboards can compete with quality brands like Abit, Asus and MSI and this is the reason I would never buy a computer from them to begin with.
Not to mention those "custom" mobos and powerbooks are made by Asus.
Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid."
My quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that if Dell manufactured and sold Apple clones, the OS X license fees would make up lost hardware revenue.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Maybe if the software weren't written by baby chickens, it wouldn't take so long to produce.
Considering that, as someone already posted, ZDnet were using a pirated version of OSX straight from bittorrent and that most of the major piracy sites already have sizeable Mac sections I think I can pretty much say that people regard software as having no value.
-- A.C.
My quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that iApple would have to sell Mac OS X for at least $100 more to make up for the revenue loss on a Mac mini or iBook, more on the iMac, Powerbook, or Powermac.
On the other hand, Microsoft sells XP Professional for $300 new, $200 upgrade. If Apple sold "OS X86" for $300, and kept the current price for OS X as an "upgrade" (because that's effectively what it is, unless you're one of the vanishingly few people upgrading from OS 9), they *would* come close to breaking even.
Here's Apple's strategy. When I poll my PC user friends why they really have to have the latest/ greatest hardware the answer is not that they want to fire up MS Word (TM) faster. Rather it is to frag their on-line buddies on a Sat night. An Apple/Intel machine capable of living in both worlds (reliable and modern by day; whiz/bang/pow by night) would be a big seller. The consumer product I envision is a devoted iPod/movie platform that can play games. 537
It depends on the terms Apple licensed Mac OS on. I don't know what they were, but if they weren't high enough to make up for the price difference the problem was that they weren't high enough.
They probably couldn't make them that high back then because they licensees had to make computers that ONLY ran Mac OS. This time around they could make generic computers and sell OS X as an option... so if Apple charged them an amount in the same range as their margin on the equivalent Mac they would experience less pushback.
Let's say they licensed OS X86 for... $300 retail box, $150 upgrade, and $100 + 10% of retail on bundles (up to $300). That would mean your $350 entry-level Dell would cost $495 with Mac OS X. Your $1300 Thinkpad would go up to $1530.
If the licensing fee DID make the cost of the machines guess which one people would buy?
Mac mini for $500, or a comparable PC I can add PCI and AGP cards to for $700?
iBook for $1300, or a Thinkpad with a keyboard that doesn't suck and two mouse buttons for $1500?
I'd take the Thinkpad.
Apple can keep their boutique boxes, I want their boutique OS.
If you buy only hardware that has good linux support etc. you don't run into any of those problems with linux. You are talking about someone either buying a mac or buying a PC system and putting linux on it--therefore it is safe to assume that the person buying the x86 linux system can pick his hardware. After all, you can't buy a Mac and expect to run it on a randomly chosen PC--why do you expect linux to?
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Had you graduated, you would have realized the saying is "Hear, hear."
Back to school with you!
I note a whole lot of comments about how Apple "ought to do clones so that I could homebuild my own Mac," and Apple sux or Apple rox or whatever.
The real interest in this article is that Apple is moving forward to increase its market share. They're a hardware company and they also write software that makes their hardware really sparkle, though I have read a number of articles that suggest that their OS software created so much overhead that it's not a great server for a back-office application
But from the user's perspective -- a GUI tool to partition a hard drive, imagine that! Easy installation that starts out with a simple GUI, gosh, that's neat! -- Apple's operating system generates a user experience that sets it above many others. Apple has "done design" on its hardware and they have also "done design" on their software.
A great follow-on article to this would be a research project to teach 10 students to use Windows, 10 to use Apple's OS X, 10 to use a popular and easy-to-use distro of Linux, 10 to use BSD, etc. Then submit a survey to them after they're up and running on their computers and try to elicit how each user feels about the experience of using the operating system and the applications they would use to do regular work, like write term papers, do finances, research things on the Internet and so on.
From my own experience of having used Windows and Apple's System 7, 8 and 9 as well as OS X, I'd say my personal experience on a Mac is an easier one. I think I am more relaxed on it. I think less about computer problems than I used to and now think only in terms of getting the sork accomplished.
Apple won't allow clones because when they had clones, it almost took down the company. They need the high income stream to continue to innovate. Sorry about all of you homebrew computer enthusiasts out there who want to build your own Mac but this cannot be helped.
And there are cheaper Macs out there; the Mac Mini is being sold for as little as $499, "nicely outfitted" at $998, plus the cost of a monitor. But remember, you're not buying "homebrew." You're not buying an Acer heapy-cheapy clone from some box assembler that does not innovate. Apple should be compared to HP in terms of price because HP actually does put innovation in their computers. IBM used to but they sold out to Lenovo and now they'll fast besmirch the name. So price comparisons need to take reality into consideration -- one should not rank Apple's price with a lower-tier manufacturer.
Also, the Apple computer I purchased in 1999 is still going strong and very useful. I know of no pee cees that can last that long. This probably cuts into the perceived market share for Apple computers because, if you buy a good one, it'll last longer than the equivelant pee cee. Look at the user-installed base to see Apple's true market share. I even know of people who are still using Apple's old System software and have not transitioned to OS X. One, in particular, does audio mixing with Digidesign's Pro Tools and not Avid's because the old software that ran under the old OS meets all current and future needs -- until his Mac finally bites the dust.
Intel makes processors and motherboards. Apple went with Intel, presumably because they had something more to offer than IBM.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
It's a completely different environment today. Back then the clones ONLY ran Mac OS. This caused two problems:
1. Apple was limited in what they could charge since the clone maker had to make all their money back from clone sales... they couldn't share the hardware development cost between Macs and PCs.
2. The primary competition for the clones was Apple themselves.
Today Apple could almost certainly get away with charging something comparable to Windows retail prices for licences... which is $70-$170 more than they sell OS X for Macs for... by treating the OS X for Macs as an "upgrade". That would be enough to offset the loss of revenue from the "Mac Tax" and then some. And today the primary competition for the clones would be Windows sales on the same hardware.
I thought the same thing when I read that post... I just bought an '03 Sonata and couldn't be any happier. Great price (I realize it was used, but it was more car than I thought we could afford), some remaining warranty, and the user interface seems to be spot on. The only thing wrong with it is that the "Cancel" button on the cruise control doesn't seem to do anything; tapping the brakes is the only way to drop it out of cruise.
I don't know, last time I came up with a configuration for a home built latest and greatest 'beige box' it ended up being quite a bit more expensive than the highest end Powermac. And if I came up with a configuration equal to that of the highest end Powermac the money saved was probably about as much as it would cost to pay someone to assmble the machine.
Will it be possible to put Windows XP or Vista on Apple's new x86 hardware?
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
All Apple has to do is put OpenBoot into the boot ROMs instead one of the normal idiot BIOSs. With no BIOS, ntloadr.com won't be able to run and boot Windows, but Linux and *bsd will still work after the startup code from the PPC architectures is added to the x86 arch, and Apple can even keep the same startup code in the released version of OS/X.
This also allows them to migrate the desktops, if they choose, and, assuming that the FCode in existing "Mac" (and Sun/SPARC) -compatible PCI adapters is written correctly (it's supposed to be "endian-agnostic"), they will still work with either CPU family. In fact, it would be nice if Apple could purchase special SMP-capable editions of the Mobile Pentiums, which already use the Xeon bus and chipsets.
Don't believe me about Mac OS X's very much un-UNIX-like true heart? Try to add a static network mount.
...
/etc/fstab is a problem, I'm not sure you're ready to think about trying to write really portable code. Just go "it works on RHEL 3 and Solaris 10, so it's portable!" and give us all a laugh.
There is no standard way to add a static network mount on UNIX. Editing fstab? that's a BSDism. It's a COMMON BSDism, but there's UNIX boxes that don't even have an fstab.
All these sorts of issues make it crucial to test on Mac OS X
Err... you would consider it reasonable to not test on any popular system, exotic and mundane alike? What do you normally test on? Red Hat and Suse? Do you include Debian and maybe even Solaris?
Here, try Tru64, AIX, HPUX, and Unixware as well.
If your idea of UNIX is so narrow that not having to change ONE configuration file before using
I think Apple will put a toe in the x86 water by locking OSX to their own hardware, so they don't compete head to head with Microsoft. If it works well for them though, I suspect they'll start to sell the OS alone.
Let me get this straight--if their strategy is working well for them, they are likely to change it?
That makes no business sense. If they are successful selling Macs with Intel inside, they will continue to sell Macs with Intel inside.
Selling computers and selling OS licenses are two very different business strategies. Companies change strategies when they are not working, or when they think they are ob. When the strategy succeeds, you stick with it until it stops succeeding!
Apple has been selling integrated computers since they started...the one time they tried the licensing strategy it turned out horrible for them. I think it's pretty likely they'll stick with it in the future as long as it continues to work for them.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The powerbooks have particularly low tolerance for bad third party ram. Call it a flaw on apples part if you will (if you think their hardware should accept any old crappy ram), but that's almost certainly the case here. My pb at work crashes every couple of weeks with 1 gb of third party ram. I consider this to be too frequent. It ran for months and months on the original 512 mb that came from apple. Your pc with PIRATE-OS probably has better memory in it.
The way that Apple clamps down on rumor sites, it makes me wonder why they did not step on ZD Net for publishing this. Makes you wonder why Apple would permit it.
FYI: Your repulsive sneering put me off reading the rest of your post. You can play the Ugly American elsewhere; why drag such crap into technology discussions?
"Which isn't exactly obscene, considering bluetooth/wifi adapters could easily run you around $40 a piece, and it's $99 for both."
No, the $99 isn't obscene, but the point is that it's still a tack on price for an item (well, wireless networking if not bluetooth anyway) that is commonly found on other computers now a days. Add on that $99 and the price to performance / features value gets even worse.
"Not necessarily, but it is nice. It's like any other feature. Some people might be fine with a big computer, no floppy drive, only a CD reader, no USB, no Firewire, and a 10 GB hard drive. If those people buy a mini, they'll be spending lots of money for things they don't really need. Regardless, when you compare the mini to a comparable machine running Windows, they're comparably priced."
At that same $499 Mini price point, you will get much more PC for your money. Find a PC that compares to it feature wise (obviously not size wise) and you'll spend much less, $150 to $200 less for a name brand machine if you keep your eyes open. Either way you gauge it, it's tough to argue that a Mini is a better value than a PC.
"First, you're ignoring the nice in-between machine, which is the iMac. The current iMacs are pretty great, and not badly priced. Yes, they have a built-in monitor, and if you don't like that, then you won't like the iMac. Still, I'm sure that if you compare comparable machines on the Windows side, and you'll find the iMac is well-priced (if you can find a comparable machine)."
You're right, I forgot about the iMac which is much more consumer than the PowerMac. The last iteration of iMacs (again, the most RECENT line, still trailing the rest of the industry) has gotten closer to the PC in terms of price for features / performance. Well priced? Better priced than it was in the past maybe, but you can still get a better PC for much less, LCD display included. It's hard to argue that the iMac is "well priced" when I can get a 3Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM and an LCD for the same price.
I'm not indifferent to the quality of the design of Apple products and I do believe that quality should allow them a certain premium price, but 30 to 50% higher prices than comparably spec'd products? If you have very specific needs from the form factor maybe but the Mini just isn't the great equalizer that some Apple fans claim it to be.
Chris
You'd have to get OSX illegally. You'd have to either get a hacked version from uncle jed or you'd have to download something weird from a strange site, or worse, IRC, to mix with OSX to get it to work. People like us could pull this off, or teenage hacker wannabes with a lot of free time. But most people want to buy the computer with the OS already installed, then never think about it again. I'm sure we'll see a hacked any-hardware version of OSX in the wild, and I'm sure they'll sue. But I doubt it will matter much to apple. They can control this quite well with access to drivers I think. Open source people will probably address some of this, but I bet most of those people will continue to work on linux.
:-)
What this really opens the door to is a wine-like product to run apple applications on linux.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
So you agree that linux driver support is poor enough that you have to carefully pick what hardware you buy?
OS X's driver support would be no better than linux's. This means you won't just be able to install it on generic intel boxes and have things "just work". And this in turn means that it would still be relegated mostly to Apple hardware, and would not compete with windows.
The Mini can't even really run OSX well with all of the graphical flair turned on.
Not true. I own a 1.25 ghz mini. My graphical flair is turned on. The system works well. The only thing you don't get is coreimage based flair, but most OS X flair is not coreimage flair. You do need half a gig of ram at least for the flair to work well, but that's the default spec nowadays, so...
The fact of the matter is that it's still a very pricey computer for what it is.
It's a mac. A real one. It's dirtcheap for a mac. Now, for a low-end PC, yes, it's expensive, but that is not what it is to people who buy one. The point of the mini is not to compete with low-end PC's, it's too give people who are normal PC users but tired of windows a chance to affordably get into the mac world. My previous PC was top-of-the-line when I got it, and I've always had top-of-the-line machines. The mini for me was an experiment to see if the mac way of working suited me. That's also how Apple has profiled it. I'm a switched now, and my next mac will be higher end.
And really, can you think of another major manufacturer that sells a computer and doesn't include a keyboard and mouse? Are basic input devices really optional in Apple's world?
I don't like how a lot of manufacturers require you to get a keyboard, mouse and screen even when you already have them. Choice is good. Do you disagree with that?
Linux is stable, rock solid. I can't crash it, I can't do anything to bring it down.
But that doesn't mean it WORKS. Just because it doesn't crash and it is stable, doesn't mean it WORKS. So what if your video card doesn't work, or your 3D acceleration doesn't work right, or you can't get 5.1 dolby surround on your SB Extigy, it doesn't crash!
Who cares if you are not crashing, if you are driving 5mph all the time, in the summer heat, with no A/C... Not fun.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list.
The mini's size actually works against it. People don't take it seriously. They don't think it's a real computer. I've had derisive remarks about its size from more than one person I've showed it to.
The thing Apple does not advertise at all but that really surprised me was the noise of the system, or rather the lack thereof. It's quiet. It's so quiet I never turn it off yet sleep right next to it. In comparison, small form factor PC's tend to be so noisy as to be annoying. Same goes for low-end PC's.
Which is the essence of why people get macs. They're less annoying. If you don't think generic wintel boxes are annoying, then there is nothing of appeal in the mac for you.
Unless something has changed in the last 4 months Toyota doesn't sell Lexus in Japan. They have a bunch of different brands and models there but not Lexus.
Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
That reviewer is such a XP kissing tool. How can he compare a developer version of the Apple OS to an OS that's gone gold?
An obvious solution for Apple to help protect their bottom line, and perhaps increase market penetration, is to sell a special version of Mac OS X x86 that will run on any x86 hardware. Said version would be priced higher than the version which only runs on Apple hardware, so as to attempt to make up the lost profit from the loss of the hardware sale. I realize that it probably couldn't be marked up sufficiently to make up the profit difference from a workstation-class hardware sale (meaning non-iMac/eMac). Perhaps increased market penetration could make up for this?
"Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones."
What a complete crock of shit.
Dell doesn't have to clone Apples since Apple is already cloning Dells.
The systems Apple is going to be selling are standard commodity PC's with a built in dongle for OS-X. They can't be cloned because there's nothing there TO clone.
At the end of the day they're really making a huge mistake here. They want to be a hardware company whose competitive advantage is derived from their software. This is an excellent strategy for limiting growth and market penetration. What they should be doing is selling boxed copies to all comers and bundling the OS with the offerings of PC vendors that meet the technical specifications Apple sets. But they won't do this because then they'll actually have to compete with other companies like Microsoft and Redhat for a healthy share of the market. Instead they'd rather go sit in the corner with their miniscule market share and talk to themselves about how great they are and how much all the other companies want what they have.
When Apple pulls crap like this I'm sure that the big wigs at Microsoft are all smiles.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
After all, you can't buy a Mac and expect to run it on a randomly chosen PC--why do you expect linux to?
Context, people.
I listed all those things in response to the great-grandparent's saying that linux has good hardware support. The point is that while Linux supports lots of hardware, the way in which it supports said hardware is not by any stretch of the imagination something you could call smooth or transparent, as it is on OS X.
This comes in a conversation about much of OS X's polished feel coming from OS X being tightly bound to the hardware, which in turn comes in a conversation about how great it would be if OS X ran on any old computer.
Now, given the back-and-forth of the conversation, as well as the content of the grandparent post, I would assume that the most logical interpretation would be that the post is an argument for keeping OS X bound to Apple hardware, not that Linux should run as smoothly as OS X/ppc despite running on everything from 512-CPU servers down to toasters.
Having to carefully pick your hardware works fine for a geek OS like linux. However, I think it would be very bad for Apple if they released OS X for Intel without just super-awesome support for all reasonably common hardware.
If Apple were to allow OS X installs on any random x86 computer, every random luser wannabe Apple fanboy who drools over OS X but whines about the cost of Apple hardware is going to buy it without checking the system specs, discover that it doesn't work right on their computer because the network card or whatever isn't supported, and then bitch endlessly about how Apple makes a shit product.
Which is the same as one of the main complaints I hear about Linux from luser wannabe Linux fanboys who try installing it without doing their research. The difference is, OS X's main selling point is ease of use, so developing a reputation for being touchy and hard to work would be a serious hit for Apple.
It's hard to argue that the iMac is "well priced" when I can get a 3Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM and an LCD for the same price.
Very true! Especially to people who don't care about how the OS works, how the machine looks, how QUIET it is and how many features it has (Firewire, USB 2.0, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, 802.11g, DVD+_RW DL, digital monitor connection, SATA, Gigabit ethernet, built in camera and remote). People who only shop for a computer based on cost or on its ability to run MS Word, play MP3s and surf the net are never going to be convinced that Apple computers are worth the slight increase in cost.
What really annoys me about some BIY PC owners is that they don't consider the warranty of the machine, the superior OS (Mac OS X), the lack of searching for/fighting with drivers, noise level, power consumption, astetics and sometimes feature sets, when they claim that their BIY PC cost them up to a couple hundred less than a Mac.
Dammit. You beat me to a great "insensitive clod" joke.
:p Truth be told, I looked at and liked some American (made in Canaday & Mexico) cars, I just couldn't hack the price. The next Korean car I buy will probably be made in the USA anyways, so it's all just semantics!
I'll just toss one more "Yeah me too" onto the list; I have an '04 Tiburon. It was far and away the most car I could get for the money it cost, which is pretty important for a teacher
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
So what was up with Datsun becoming Nissan. I get the Lexus - Toyota line. Infinity is Nissan. And aren't Acura's Hondas? Then there is that weird Mazda - Ford connection. I'm so hopelessly confused. . .
The bling-bling diamond on my finger is a status symbol.
My shiny red Lexus with its five-inch gold circle-L logo on the grille is a status symbol.
My Rolex is a status symbol.
The brand name clothes I wear every day are status symbols.
My iPod, with its bright-white headphones, is a status symbol.
The computer that sits on my desk in my office is not a status symbol. I do not ever invite people into my office to show off my Mac. Sure, it's pretty, but all the friends and neighbors I'm trying so hard to impress with my worldly wealth just give me a funny look when I show them my shiny new Power Mac.
Shut the hell up, thief!
The hell you can 'biuld your own' equivalent PC for 'way cheaper' than a Mac.
Did you buy that copy of windows you are running? Did you shell out $299 for that WinXP Pro? Or did you steal if from Microsoft as most of the other way-cheapers?
How would you feel if I came to McDonnald's and stole those burgers you just flipped??
And for the noble *nix-only people out there, your machines are in no way equivalent to Macs.
...down to the level of Linux? :)
"Which is the essence of why people get macs. They're less annoying. If you don't think generic wintel boxes are annoying, then there is nothing of appeal in the mac for you."
This is probably true. Like I said in other posts, I can't argue that Apple doesn't make a well designed product. I guess that there are only so many people that see the value of a BMW and are willing to pay BMW prices. Same goes for Apple. I'd happily buy an Apple because I recognize that it's a superior product to WinTel if it were not for the sticker shock.
Chris
Regards to markup being your major opposition to buying Apple: what's wrong with the mini? Dirt cheap as far as computing goes and a very capable system to boot.
Mac Mini is dirt cheap? $499 is not dirt cheap. Dirt cheap is those $99 AMD Socket A boxes that Fry's likes to sell occasionally. Whether or not those are capable is another issue entirely.
Hey, the 1980s called -- and they want your outdated opinion of Hyundai back!
/. crowd's epitome of perfection.
Why does it seem that Hyundai is the default definition for cheap-ass vehicle in Slashdot posts like this one? Have you driven one lately or talked to someone who's owned one of recent vintage? We've got two in the garage now, and believe me, we could have easily sprung for a "name" Euro sedan or high-end General Motors or Ford POS that would be making our mechanic rich. I can attest to Hyundai's reliability.
Check out the reviews on the 2006 Sonata -- it has caught up to or exceeded the Accord and Camry in all aspects for thousands less. Some say the fit and finish is on par with a *Lexus* -- which seems to be the
Let's find a new whipping boy to replace the SAT analogy
AWESOME : SH*T
Lexus : Hyundai
Pretty much any American-made bucket of bolts should suffice.
It's funny how people Diss hyundai.
:-)
... okay ... But it has 200 HP! It can ... merge ... really fast.
It's much funnier how all the Hyundai owners are coming out of the woodwork to defend the honor of their cars.
My thoughts are: does it run on renewable fuel? Ah, no, plain old gasoline. Well, at least it gets excellent mileage, right? Um, well, the smallest engine will just hit 30 mpg on the freeway. Yeah
Of course, now that I've insulted the great Hyundai, I'm really going to get it. Asbestos suit, check!
What has struck me for the last year, with rumours of Apple going Intel is the general opinion what lockin is good and cool, as long as it's Apple doing it. IBM was about to be torn apart by the US government for similar marked behavior (lockin etc.) and MS has gotten it's fair share of bashing for behavior similar to Apple.
Agreed Apple is a much smaller company, but in my book, that doesn't matter one iota. The actions of a company should dictate whether it's a good company (ethical and morally favourable), not the size of it.
Can anyone enlighen me why Apple deserves a get-out-of-jail free-card for being just as big a dick as the other large companies without getting a "single" bashing?
I'm surprised that Apple is even porting to X86 specifically, rather than having Intel design a PPC variant or license the PPC processor from the current manufacturers/owners of the design.
Why would they do that [Put OS X on X86/Generic Hardware]? Unless Steve J is trying to copy (for once) the marketing techniques of Bill G and co; and just get everyone (who knows the difference) to pirate Mac OS X instead of pirating Windows. I refer to south-east asia, mostly.
It's not often you'll hear me say this, but for once the proprietary nature of Apples product(s) - I think - make those products "better" than those that run Windows, and even Windows itself.
[In case you are wondering, I use 4 different OSes daily, so I'm confident that there is *some* legitimacy to my opinion].
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
NT
What has struck me for the last year, with rumours of Apple going Intel is the general opinion what lockin is good and cool, as long as it's Apple doing it.
Apple has always made their own hardware and software. That's what they do and it's how they make money. Simply put, if they didn't sell their own hardware, there'd be no Mac OS X. Apple isn't porting Mac OS X to PCs, it's creating Intel-based Macs that run Mac OS X.
IBM was about to be torn apart by the US government for similar marked behavior (lockin etc.) and MS has gotten it's fair share of bashing for behavior similar to Apple.
Apple isn't attempting to extend a long-standing monopoly as IBM and Microsoft have done. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps over the last eight years and made a great platform.
Agreed Apple is a much smaller company, but in my book, that doesn't matter one iota.
I think you're in the minority on that. Things aren't so black and white.
The actions of a company should dictate whether it's a good company (ethical and morally favourable), not the size of it.
How is designing a single hardware + software product immoral? How is it any different from the situation with Playstation, Xbox or GameCube?
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
BTW, please find me a PC the size of Mac mini that also has FireWire etc. for that price.
You said it yourself, really: "When you buy a computer, you have a budget in mind and a list of tasks you want it to be able to accomplish." Those tasks do not generally include things such as "ranks in the top 10 for performace", but rather "e-mail, internet, something to download my photos with..."
As for OS X running slow on a PowerMac, lets just wait and see how fast Vista runs on today's hardware, because that's a much more fair comparason.
I challange you to find me a single PC the same price as the mini that has the same software. And when I mean same, I'm not talking about crappy 3rd party bundles that aren't worth paying more than $10 for.
You seem to think that for a Mac to be competitive, it must be the fastest and have the latest version of whatever rather than including real, practical features that the average consumer cares about. The new iMacs for instance, come with a built-in camera and a remote to use with Front Row. Now find me a non-Media center PC that does that ... It's not a common feature.
BTW. Please tell me exactly how the new iMacs are "trailing the industry."
With computers on the other hand, there is the "Microsoft crashes all the time" mentality. Many people are willing to pay a little extra if it means more reliability, since it's a bigger issue than in the car world.
Nonsense. You find me a cheap LCD display that is anywhere near the quality of the iMac 20" display. Typical LCD displays are absolute garbage compared to the Apple displays. That makes a huge difference, you have to look at that display all day long.
... and then they built the supercollider.
"At the end of the day they're really making a huge mistake here. They want to be a hardware company whose competitive advantage is derived from their software. This is an excellent strategy for limiting growth and market penetration. What they should be doing is selling boxed copies to all comers and bundling the OS with the offerings of PC vendors that meet the technical specifications Apple sets."
The first question you should ask yourself with any professional decision is "what do I want to do".
I think Jobs has asked himself that question repeatedly.
Your analysis could be perfect (whatever I think about it) but it doesn't consider the all-important question.
Afaic no mistake on Apple's part. I enjoy their hardware (not all good, have to be picky and price conscious) and their software. Since OS X I've also enjoyed heaps of OSS. From people who imo have asked themselves that all-important question and for the most part are having a blast.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
A lot of people seem to think Apple should only make software.
That's like saying Volkswagen should only make engines.
Could be a very good decision (It patently isn't, but I'm not going into that), but I think a lot of Volkswagen engineers enjoy making cars.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Apple's own vice president indicated that future intel based mac's may run windows. Wouldn't that lure people to try both OSes with the same machine?? I guess Apple will be shaping to compete with DELL, Gateway etc etc........rather than fighting a lost battle with MS.
Apple is afterall an hardware company!!!
Heh. Tell that to my 500MHz Linux-running Dell.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
I think that there will be some expert programming geeks who will come up with something like "x86postfacto" (the x86 flavor of xpostfacto for old unsupported PPC macs to run OSX) to get the OS X to run on your x86 clone Rig or other major pc brand. There can be a BIOS overlay in the boot sector that tricks the OS into thinking you have a true Apple computer, when it is just a regular PC. They can never stop the possibility of someone being able to workaround the restrictions. :-)