Slashdot Mirror
Apple to 'Switch' to Windows?
JFlex writes "PC Mags writer John C. Dvorak discusses the idea that Apple may dump OS X and 'switch' to running Windows in a recent column: "The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.""
Wow, a "professor" observed these things, Dvorak? Of psychology, no less? He must be right!
Ok, let's see what you've got...
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.
Um. Wow, okay.
First of all, the Switch campaign was just an ad campaign. Ad campaigns come and go. Even successful ones. (Think "Be all you can be" or "Dude, yer gettin' a Dell!" And yes, those were both very successful campaigns.)
Also, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever, and growing at a faster rate than, for example, Dell.
So, point 1, wrong.
The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.
First of all, this is completely irrelevant to any discussion about whether or not Apple might switch operating systems, which is what I thought we were talking about. FireWire, or the lack of it, has zero to do with Windows. Additionally, since all DV and HDV cameras and decks have FireWire and require its use as the primary - and usually only - means of video transport, FireWire isn't going anywhere on Macs in general anytime soon. Further, since all Macs since the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) support USB booting, and since all new Macs and PCs are universally guaranteed to have USB 2.0, going with USB on the iPod and eliminating additional support chipsets for things like FireWire - especially on a peripheral - seems prudent.
But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely, utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.
Point 2, wrong. Actually, not even wrong...just utterly irrelevant.
Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen.
Um, no. The iPod was designed to be a product that, you know, sold well. Which it, you know, did. Wildly so.
This whole "iPod was deisgned to sell Macs" business was a fantasy created by press and analysts who attribute that guess to Apple as if it were their sole intent. So we'll just ignore that the iPod is one of the most successful consumer products ever, and at the same time say it failed at some imaginary goal and purpose that there is no solid proof Apple ever created it for.
And on top of it all, most of the anecdotal evidence suggests that the "halo effect", as it were, actually works in some areas, at least marginally. To say nothing of the fact that, as I said before, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever.
Point 3, wrong in both premise and substance.
And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Ahh, Dvorak must be feeling emboldened by his decade-plus of wrong predictions that Apple was on the verge of switching to Intel finally coming true.
There are many, many reasons Apple switched to Intel, all discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. "Switching to Windows" isn't one of them. Has Dvorak missed the amount of time, secrecy, and effort Apple has put into keeping it's options open for Mac OS X to run on alternate hardware platforms? Christ, Dvorak.
To say nothing of the fact that if Apple's secret purpose was to start a switch to Windows, you'd think they'd have at least made it possible to, oh, I don't know, RUN WINDOWS on the Intel-based Macs easily, which isn't possible at this time?
Point 4, wrong again. Well, at least Dvorak's consistent, if anything.
Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows and other x86 OSes in virtualization . That would be the holy grail for many academics, researchers, scientists, and other users, most of whom use Macs because they don't want to use Windows. With hardware partitio
Yeah, now that Apple is using x86 chips, they're going to abandon the one main thing that sets them apart (aesthetics aside) from every other box maker out there. As usual, Dvorak is talking out his ass.
I'm about the furthest thing you can get from a Mac lover, but even I think there's no chance in hell. They were overpriced and underpowered even when they were at least unique on G4s. Now if they switched to Windows, there would be absolutely 0 reason to use them instead of buying a Dell, HP, or Gateway. The last thing any company ever wants is to compete in a commodity market, which is exactly what the Windows PC market is. Apple can't compete with Dell on price. It needs to keep its uniqueness, or its computer market is dead.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Personally, I've always disliked the Mac look'n'feel, from the ugly Chicago fonts of old to the top-of-screen mighty morphin' menu.
But Mac OSX has always had something the PC hasn't -- stability. And that's because it's designed into the OS from the ground up. Windows has always felt like stability was "grafted in" somehow, and it's never been a comfortable fit.
Like most management, he gives no thought to stability or the correctness of the implementation. "As long as it's done, it's good enough." And it's that attitude that placed Windows exactly where it is, and why the Mac exists at all. It's not the "computer for the rest of us" -- it's the computer for the discerning crowd.
John
Does he have any non ridiculous ones?
(As a side note, what's he on? It must be some good stuff for him to think this ever held sense.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Wrong answer.
1. This would be a boon to Linux and a bust for Apple. $x % of people want to be different, and Apple would no longer be different. Or different enough. The GUI is not even close, nor the functionality when comparing the two OSs.
2. OS/X is doing great because of the BSD roots, which benefits from Linux (and vice versa). More hardware makers are opening up their drivers. They have momentum already. And their stock price already reflects this.
3. If it was only about "cool" hardware, Alienware would be larger and Dell's decidedly unsexy hardware would make them another mid-sized company. Cool helps, but there is no shortage of "cool" Wintel boxes, just of buyers.
Sorry, but Dvorak must be jonesing for the hits only slashdot/digg can provide by putting out a story like this. Nothing to see, move along...
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I recently switched from windows to mac. OSX was the primary reason I switched, secondary being quality control/limited hardware sets promote stability and reliability.
I'm a windows developer by trade, I can't imagine going back. I cannot tell you how nice it is to go home to a computer that "just works", works intuitively, and elegantly after a long day FIGHTING with windows systems. Apple would lose a substantial portion of it's customer base and just become a novelty hardware dealer like alienware.
His key points here on how "no one switched/came over because of the ipod" are just wrong. It's true it wasn't a groundswell, but apple's PC marketshare is growing at about 19%. That's pretty fast, and it's better than it was a couple years back.
Story restated
John Dvorak continues to be the biggest idiot in the tech commentator business. He's been making stupid predictions since at least the '80s, and shows no sign of stopping now. Dvorak wishes he had 1/10th of Robert Cringely's wit and insight. We wish that Dvorak would start scorecarding himself the way that Cringely does, and give up so that he can do something else with his time.
Okay, the story summary goes: Apple and Jobs have recently spent multi-tens of millions developing an Intel version of their operating system so that they can use Intel chips. Soon, they will throw away all that development work, infrastructure work, and vendor relationship work and just use Windows, maybe putting a pretty little 'Mac-a-like' face on top of Windows, because, wait for it, because: Steve Jobs wants to be just like Dell and Compaq.
The ignorance beggars comprehension.
As a comparison, Robert Cringely's prediction: free versions of OS X 10.4/intel given away on bootable ipods so that windows users can try mac for free (once 10.5 comes out.)
Anybody remember a few years ago, when Apple was circling the bowl? Microsoft was being raked over the coals by DOJ for antitrust issues, remember? That's when Mr. Gates and Company pulled a rabbit out of their hat by investing in (bailing out) Apple. In one stroke, Mr. G. had diversified his portfolio while preserving the one (semi-)serious competitor in the Personal Computer market, thereby giving the DOJ a face-saving way to quietly let the whole thing go (don't believe me? Why aren't there three companies headquartered at the Microsoft campus right now?)!
Gates ain't gonna let Apple go Windoze - that'll land him right back in the hash with DOJ.
Since USB 2.0 and firewire are roughly (within an order of magnitude) comparable in performance, why would a product developer choose to use the far more expensive firewire chipset? Especially when that presents difficulties breaking into the low-end PC market, where firewire is far from ubiquitous? That's even the reason we assume the iPod went to USB, was to break into the PC market.
I think firewire is the Betamax of local connectivity. It may be technically superior, more convenient, [insert other advantages here] but it never had the industry backing of USB. Firewire will still hang around for a while because of the large amount of legacy video hardware using it, but it's only going to be present on higher-end PCs, kind of like a technologist's version of a VTEC sticker on a ricer. It's already a niche player, and the niche is growing smaller instead of larger.
John
Yes. Dvorak, wrong again. Who would have thunk it. The guy has come to his pseudo-fame by making outlandish tech predictions for decades. He probably started out as a decent writer who couldn't set himself apart from the 94083094583094853098509834905 other tech writers out in the late 80s. Then he realized that if he started making counter-intuitive predictions that would take two sides of a polarized debate in technology and make them go into a flame war about it, people would read his stuff.
... Except stop paying attention.
This is his job we're talking about. He's not some sort of tech-prophet. He's a writer. He sells words, regardless of their truth and even more so, regardless of his belief in their truth. The more people read his stuff, the more influence he gets, the more his predictions carry any weight, the more money he makes.
If 2 billion people read Dvorak and all disagreed, he wouldn't care. He'd still get paid. As it stands, since all he is doing is predicting, he can't be wrong in the traditional sense, because he can simply say "Just you wait. You'll see!" And there's nothing we can do about it....
An even stronger argument is comparing the iPod's loss of Firewire to the desktop loss of SCSI. If you remember, all old macs were SCSI only. Then the G3s came along, and they went IDE (standard config). Interfaces come and go. Products need contant review and revision to determine what will be most effective both in sales and performance. Apple's done this before, and they didn't switch to Windows then.
So they switch their OSX to x86 going through a ton of work only to come out and say we did this for nothing???
Exactly! There would be no reason for Joe Sixpack to buy an Apple that ran Windows when he could get a Dell cheaper. The appeal of Apple is not their hardware, it's the OS that runs on it.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
"Proper?" That's pretty shortsighted thinking there. One addition to the USB standard combined with a software driver release et voila! USB 2.0 would suddenly be the digital video transport of choice. All accomplished with no hardware changes to the vast majority of consumers' computers.
Here's the conversation at Ritz Photo to imagine: "Sure, I could sell you this digicam with firewire, but you'll need to have a firewire card installed into your computer. I also have this digicam that comes with USB, which your PC already has."
I'm not talking about cinematographers or television studios, or even the "prosumers" here. I'm talking about the 90% of camcorder buyers, Joe Sixpack out there buying a camcorder so he can tell people he's recording Junior's birthday, but really intends to shoot himself and the missus knockin' uglies.
To make lots of money, you build your hardware to sell lots of units at Best Buy. Firewire doesn't entice Joe Sixpack -- to him, it's a computer-geeky negative; especially when there's a known alternative.
John
I keep hearing this troll, but nobody ever proves it, and several price matches with Dell disprove it. What is "overpriced" about Apple's hardware? I'm paying for lots more features, much higher quality, and a much smaller form factor.
OS X is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. Try an iMac sometime, it's the future of computer design today.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That name is 'Troll'.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
Uh, you totally fail to understand how that conversation at Ritz Camera (or anyplace else) would go:
... I think my computer has that. That's good, right?"
Consumer: "How about that camera there? It's $499."
Salesperson: "Sure. It's not bad. But you have to be careful, it's USB."
C: "Oh
S: "USB is really for hooking up keyboards. If your computer isn't really fast, it'll drop frames, and suffer compression artifacts."
C: "Drop....frames?"
S: "It'll look bad."
C: "Oh. Well, that's not good. What else can I buy?"
S: "This one right here is only $699, and it comes with the card for your computer so you don't get dropped frames..."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So easily the dumbest slashdot story ever.
I mean, seriously, haven't you guys learned that Dvorak is just a useless turd of the industry yet?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Anyone who knows anything about marketing will tell you that you have two extremes:
...etc.).
...etc.).
...etc.) as well cheap no namers.
...
1. Commodity products that you sell a lot of at rock bottom prices, and make your money on volume (think no name PCs, computer parts, GM and Ford cars,
2. Expensive unique products that you sell a few of at high prices, and make your money on margin (think Rolex, Ferrari, Porsche, Apple Mac,
Think if an inverted bell curve with price and quantity as the axes, and you get the idea. The former is on the far left, the latter is on the far right.
The best place to be is closer to the left as possible, or closer to the right as possible. Being in the middle is the toughest spot.
Apple is already differentiated and sought after. By going Windows, they will lose a lot:
1. Their hardware will be expensive, while the user interface will be the same as one from Dell or a no name PC.
2. They lose revenue by giving a piece of every sale of a PC to their arch-rival Microsoft.
3. They become undifferentiated, and compete with well established PC vendors (Dell,
4. Their user base will be pissed off and will defect to cheaper PCs, since they lose the most unique part of the deal: OS X.
There is nothing going for this line of thinking. Or rather lack of thinking
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.