Slashdot Mirror
Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time
An anonymous reader writes "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.' Some of the rumors are outrageous, and some came true. The list includes such treasures as the Apple-Nintendo merger, which the article calls 'utterly outlandish,' and the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC — described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.' There is also mention of the iPhone, which CNET says is 'an elaborate hoax dreamed up by Steve Jobs to keep journalists busy.'"
I've used Rhapsody OS DR2 intel on a couple of generic PC's...not the best experience but it booted and responded, started apps and stuff..
m10
Sometimes that is true but looking back through Slash you will find that many of the "stories" about the release of an Apple phone actually are sparked by the new release of an actual Cisco iPhone product that Apple fanbois leapt upon with the breathless credulity of a Myspacer forwarding to their first chain letter.
Laborare Est Orare
I think with new Apple products, it comes down to this:
If it's a gadget that Steve Jobs uses in his everyday life, he wants it to be better. And if it makes sense for Apple to build it, they do.
Steve uses computers - Apple improves the Mac line and OS X to where they're the most stylish, well-designed computers on the market.
Steve listens to music - Apple comes out with the iPod
Steve doesn't play video games - I'm an unabashed Mac fanboy, but I gotta admit that OS X just blows for game selection.
Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting. Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no. Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?
Aye, there's the rub.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.
That would be true if Apple's primary target consumer was the business. Since Apple is targeting the home, all they need is a "good enough" office suite. Open Office should fit.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Oh wait, that's under the top ten rationalizations of Apple fanboys, my bad. Actually, back when iLife first came out, that was a very compelling package that did not exist by default with Windows, and it did help even the cost. Granted, over time, Windows has caught up very nicely, and the RC candidates of Vista Ultimate included pretty much the same things as the iLife suite. Some are not as nice (Windows Movie Maker still lags behind iMovie), but they are getting there.
Everyone makes excuses for what they buy, and a lot of people like to mock things they don't fully understand. People have their reasons, be it that's what they have allways used, to that's what their tech friend recommended. I myself use both platforms, and have tried linux before, but I'm not a linux guru and could not get a stable distro running on my laptop (nc6320). That model apparently has a lot of weird issues. Of course, even the release version of Vista Business edition failed to recognize most of the laptops hardware.
Fanbois aside, both machines have a place in the world, and both are good at what they were designed to do. Failure to realize this shows signs of ignorance or apathy. Which one is it? My guess is, fanbois don't know, and they don't care.
--nutz
That was a big one for a while.
Seems now the rumors have flipped on that one.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
When I saw the "30th anniversary Mac", I did some quick math - Mac came out in 1984, plus 30 years equals 2014 - it didn't make sense until I realized they meant the 30th anniversary of APPLE. In which case, the 30th anniversary computer should be a new version of the Apple ][ - now THAT would be cool. (OK technically the Apple 1, but that would be kind of silly)
That'd be because Microsoft sells their operating system to every hardware vendor who wants to save a buck by not developing their own OS in-house. MS-DOS didn't have a heavily entrenched incumbent OS to compete against, whereas Mac OS X would have to wage the uphill battle against Windows to become a profitable generic-PC OS, meanwhile Apple's hardware sales would suffer.
Very true. However, just because the software and OS are what are driving Apple's sales, that doesn't mean that that's where they make their money. They make the bulk of their profits on hardware sales, the OS and software are what motivates people to buy said hardware.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the dominant software supplier in a million years by supporting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. They'd end up going through the same thing they went through 10—15 years ago, when they experimented with Mac clones: all the other companies (who wouldn't have to make up the cost of software R&D and support) would easily undercut the price of Apple's hardware, canniballizing their sales. Since hardware sales are Apple's bread-and-butter, they'd end up hemorrhaging money, and the only way to make up that with licensing fees would be to make those fees prohibitively expensive, making other hardware vendors reluctant to add Mac OS X to their offerings.
They're not being cowards, they're being smart. Apple's business model is completely, fundamentally different from Microsoft's. To have a chance at being profitable off OS and software sales, Apple would have to completely change their fundamental business model, only to face an uphill battle against the ultra-entrenched Windows OS.
The U.S. Constitution needs to be ammended with a "separation of business and state" clause.
> Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting.
Quite a different matter. Steve likes to control things. They have a tight grip over iPods/iTunes (main revenue stream) - they own it. They have tight grip on Mac OS X - it can run only their hardware.
In fact it is a semi monopoly. Thiking of a PC I can get a PC that runs Windows/Linux whatever from any vendor I like. Be it IBM/Lenoovo, Dell, HP, smaller shops etc. - if I don't like HP I go to Dell and vice versa.
Now if from some reason you want to switch hardware vendors and still run Mac OS X you can't do it. You must go to one vendor. I have quite really have enough of Apple and this is probably my last Mac. It is not due Apple directly. I live in Poland and here there is no Apple Company - here we have Apple IMC (Independent Marketing Company) Poland - they have shitty service and given that Mac like any other PC breaks in one or two years and needs service (mine has dead SuperDrive) it is a PITA.
So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.
> Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power,
> design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no.
Obviously a Nokia or Motorola. I know you mac-heads just love your iPods and Macs but please keep in mind that there is like 1/4 of whole Earths population of cellphones out here and just a handfull of iPods and even less Macs.
> Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?
I think they are not in position to shake anything in that market and Steve knows that.