Apple replacing PPC with Intel as a CPU, OK. Apple replacing their motherboards with off-the shelf? They're no longer a hardware manufacturer.
Yes, Apple is rumored to be looking at using some method to cripple the OS so that it only runs on their hardware, but who out there wants to buy something that's purposefully crippled? Just the perception alone is enought to kill any interest--I'm paying for something that is purposefully debilitated? No thanks. This will be especially true when other systems will not have such burdensome, restrictive features.
With PPC, at least there was a fairly high technical obstacle to keep Apple in the hardware business, which is where the real revenues are significantly higher (hence Larry Ellison's interest in launching Pillar Data -- story)
So yes, it's not necessarily just about which CPU Apple uses. I think the crippleware aspect is the most troubling consequence of the switch.
OS war? Does anyone else remember when Linux first came on the scene and everyone was predicting it would spell the end of Windows? In the end, the Linux community instead turned cannibalistic and went after its Unix cousins.
Linux was unable to displace M$ from certain markets because of the massive infrastructure invested by companies in acquiring, using, and supporting it. Everything from patch distribution, anti-virus software, productivity software, and more.
I've been a Apple user for more years than I can remember, but the notion of an OS war between M$ and Apple is pure fantasy. If Linux couldn't do it, how could Apple? Where is the battleground for this war? Even today, you see Apple HW/SW mostly in speciality communities (graphics, etc) and in the home. Those markets don't mean much compared to the multiple billions spent by corporations. Sounds like we're talking about no more than an OS skirmish in a far-flung corner of the world, at best.
People may respect Apple's innovation, just like many respect Porsche or Ferrari, but it doesn't mean any significant number of people will buy the product in question. That is, respect doesn't necessarily translate into people trading minivans for Ferraris, or XP for OS X.
As more and more global players come online and start offering IT products (hardware, software, etc), one obvious effect is more competition. But it also means an opportunity for more specialization.
Right now, however, it seems to me that our industry itself is helping to enflame this issue. How many IT departments do you know that refuse to consider anything but the largest one or two players in a particular segment (be it a database, web server, or whatever)? In effect, we restrict our options because of a mindset. You can reasonably argue that you get better support and a more polished product from the #1 or #2 vendors, but you end up changing your approach based on their tools, as opposed to finding a tool that fits your specific needs. You also typically pay a premium for those products.
There is value in "standards", but how far do you go? Is it really necessary for your company to use exclusively a specific version of a single vendor's web server (as a crude example), when there are perhaps a dozen that all comply with larger, RFC-based standards? Don't laugh--I've seen it at larger companies. In that sense, your company's selection of a particular product is not a true "standard", but only a restriction of choice among products that are all standards compliant. You don't want anarchy and chaos in a datacenter, of course, so I'm not suggesting that it should be a free-for-all either. But I do think we need to strike a balance between the extremes that we don't see today.
What I'm trying to get at is that a larger pool of products and technology can be good for everyone. Companies get exactly what they need, and vendors are able to stay in business. One example might be Apple Computer. They've long been considered to have somewhere under 10% of the computer market, yet they're doing just fine. Some would say they represent a "vertical market" segment. Regardless, you'll never see them in the datacenters of many of these corporations solely because they're not considered the #1 or #2 player in the computing market. If you're a Fortune 500 company, you can refuse to do business with anyone but other Fortune 500 companies, and that's your prerogative. But here's where I see opportunity for smaller, more agile competitors to get an edge. I see the recent X Prize winner as an example of that. Boeing and friends don't seem at all interested in a $10M prize--it's too small for them to notice.
I think the key to the future is compliance with open standards (not to be confused with open source) and a change in mindset. If we can do that, I believe market forces will make it possible for players both domestic (meaning US) and foreign to all share in that market.
As a political observation, the Republican party tends to be friendlier to business (both small and large) than the Democratic party. So it seems to me that the results of this year's elections can have a significant impact on the process above.
To elaborate on the safety aspect, a gaseous fuel brings all new problems to the table. What happens in an accident and the CNG, LPG, or Hydrogen starts leaking? That's not to say that gasoline is safe--it's extremely flammable and readily vaporizes, which makes it a real hazard.
However, since we've already accepted gasoline, we don't tend to sue when it burns a car to the ground. With new technologies, you risk the lawyers eating you alive, or so it seems.
In short, there are challenges on all fronts for the introduction of a new fuel source--political, economic, safety, technical, logistical, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple replacing PPC with Intel as a CPU, OK.
Apple replacing their motherboards with off-the shelf? They're no longer a hardware manufacturer.
Yes, Apple is rumored to be looking at using some method to cripple the OS so that it only runs on their hardware, but who out there wants to buy something that's purposefully crippled? Just the perception alone is enought to kill any interest--I'm paying for something that is purposefully debilitated? No thanks. This will be especially true when other systems will not have such burdensome, restrictive features.
With PPC, at least there was a fairly high technical obstacle to keep Apple in the hardware business, which is where the real revenues are significantly higher (hence Larry Ellison's interest in launching Pillar Data -- story)
So yes, it's not necessarily just about which CPU Apple uses. I think the crippleware aspect is the most troubling consequence of the switch.
OS war? Does anyone else remember when Linux first came on the scene and everyone was predicting it would spell the end of Windows? In the end, the Linux community instead turned cannibalistic and went after its Unix cousins.
Linux was unable to displace M$ from certain markets because of the massive infrastructure invested by companies in acquiring, using, and supporting it. Everything from patch distribution, anti-virus software, productivity software, and more.
I've been a Apple user for more years than I can remember, but the notion of an OS war between M$ and Apple is pure fantasy. If Linux couldn't do it, how could Apple? Where is the battleground for this war? Even today, you see Apple HW/SW mostly in speciality communities (graphics, etc) and in the home. Those markets don't mean much compared to the multiple billions spent by corporations. Sounds like we're talking about no more than an OS skirmish in a far-flung corner of the world, at best.
People may respect Apple's innovation, just like many respect Porsche or Ferrari, but it doesn't mean any significant number of people will buy the product in question. That is, respect doesn't necessarily translate into people trading minivans for Ferraris, or XP for OS X.
As more and more global players come online and start offering IT products (hardware, software, etc), one obvious effect is more competition. But it also means an opportunity for more specialization.
Right now, however, it seems to me that our industry itself is helping to enflame this issue. How many IT departments do you know that refuse to consider anything but the largest one or two players in a particular segment (be it a database, web server, or whatever)? In effect, we restrict our options because of a mindset. You can reasonably argue that you get better support and a more polished product from the #1 or #2 vendors, but you end up changing your approach based on their tools, as opposed to finding a tool that fits your specific needs. You also typically pay a premium for those products.
There is value in "standards", but how far do you go? Is it really necessary for your company to use exclusively a specific version of a single vendor's web server (as a crude example), when there are perhaps a dozen that all comply with larger, RFC-based standards? Don't laugh--I've seen it at larger companies. In that sense, your company's selection of a particular product is not a true "standard", but only a restriction of choice among products that are all standards compliant. You don't want anarchy and chaos in a datacenter, of course, so I'm not suggesting that it should be a free-for-all either. But I do think we need to strike a balance between the extremes that we don't see today.
What I'm trying to get at is that a larger pool of products and technology can be good for everyone. Companies get exactly what they need, and vendors are able to stay in business. One example might be Apple Computer. They've long been considered to have somewhere under 10% of the computer market, yet they're doing just fine. Some would say they represent a "vertical market" segment. Regardless, you'll never see them in the datacenters of many of these corporations solely because they're not considered the #1 or #2 player in the computing market. If you're a Fortune 500 company, you can refuse to do business with anyone but other Fortune 500 companies, and that's your prerogative. But here's where I see opportunity for smaller, more agile competitors to get an edge. I see the recent X Prize winner as an example of that. Boeing and friends don't seem at all interested in a $10M prize--it's too small for them to notice.
I think the key to the future is compliance with open standards (not to be confused with open source) and a change in mindset. If we can do that, I believe market forces will make it possible for players both domestic (meaning US) and foreign to all share in that market.
As a political observation, the Republican party tends to be friendlier to business (both small and large) than the Democratic party. So it seems to me that the results of this year's elections can have a significant impact on the process above.
To elaborate on the safety aspect, a gaseous fuel brings all new problems to the table. What happens in an accident and the CNG, LPG, or Hydrogen starts leaking? That's not to say that gasoline is safe--it's extremely flammable and readily vaporizes, which makes it a real hazard.
However, since we've already accepted gasoline, we don't tend to sue when it burns a car to the ground. With new technologies, you risk the lawyers eating you alive, or so it seems.
In short, there are challenges on all fronts for the introduction of a new fuel source--political, economic, safety, technical, logistical, etc.