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.)
I don't find that any more likely. Apple wouldn't muddy the waters by promoting two versions of Mac OS X at once.
I think people are missing the fact that the interface would not have to go but run as a layer on top of Windows. Apple could market the interface to all users and no longer be limited by their own hardware.
Mac OS X is not just a "skin".
The UI is just one part of what makes Mac OS X enjoyable. People think of the UI because that's the part one sees in screenshots and messing around at the Apple Store for fifteen minutes.
Who cares? What's in it for us to allow Apple the power to control what we can and can't do with OS X?
Apple can only justify the continued development of Mac OS X if it is tied to the hardware sales. Otherwise, the revenue potential just isn't there and the investors won't stand for money being wasted.
If you don't like it, use another OS. Pretty simple.
To challenge this in court, assuming you've legally purchased the software and have all the receipts and paperwork all should have to do is use "to use on generic hardware" in the right places and make it look like Apple is trying some anti-competition practices.
Let's say for the sake of argument that somebody files and wins such a case and Apple is forced to release the current version of Mac OS X for all Intel hardware. The result is that a bunch of people buy Mac OS X and try to run it on any from decent to horrible hardware.
In at least quite a few cases, the software won't work right and they'll blame Apple. In the process, Mac OS X's primary investment stream (hardware sales) has been compromised. In this reality, you've rewarded the inventor of a great piece of software by demanding to run it on marginal hardware. You've also prevented them from pursuing the business model that enabled Mac OS X in the first place.
In other words, Mac OS X ceases to exist if the hardware sales are cut from the deal. Apple is not like Microsoft -- they make Mac OS X to sell Macs. Think long term. Who wins in this scenario? Is it really so hard to just buy a Mac? It's Apple's creation, they should be able to sell it in whatever form they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not a personal liberty -- it's a computer product.
NeXT tried to pursue the generic x86 strategy and it failed. Why would Apple bang their head against the wall again?
Exactly. I would love to buy a copy of OS X for x86 on my PC, even if it cost me $400 to do so. It is worth the price, IMO. I will kill for an operating system on plain vanilla x86 machines that is almost perfect.
Is there some reason you can't just buy a Mac? Why do you insist on Mac OS X on a generic piece of hardware? I mean, if you're willing to shell out $400 you're almost there anyway. You can get a basic Mac mini for $500. When were you planning on buying your next machine?
Try to understand that a big part of the reason Mac OS X "just works" is that it's part of an overall picture, not just a cog in the machine.
The Objective-C libraries are heavily based on inheritance, but I've learned that "composition trumps inheritance"... meaning that its better to combine many small focused objects.
Dude, you're high. By "Objective-C libraries" I assume you mean the Cocoa framework? Cocoa encourages minimal subclassing. It does do it when there's a legitimate tree of derived types (for example, on-screen controls), but composition and categories are far more common.
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
You think the same people wouldn't complain about an artifically inflated price? Apple doesn't sell their own hardware "just because" -- they do it because they think it makes for a better experience.
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).
Not just that, but development, QA and support costs. I think it's a bad equation all around.
Perhaps increased market penetration could make up for this?
Perhaps, but perhaps not. It's a rather high-risk gamble either way.
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?
Is that access not deemed sufficient or fast enough by the city?
I don't think it's fast enough, no. Perhaps 5-10 years ago it was. My mom had dialup until very recently and practically stopped using it because she'd have to do other things around the house while waiting for a page to load.
Not to mention when you want to download something from iTunes or a software update.
Ruby vs PHP. Aside from a large userbase and a bunch of legacy php applications, what does PHP have over Ruby?
Going back to my first post, I think the biggest thing is that PHP has deployment absolutely nailed. PHP is easier to deploy on your own server, and practically every hosting company in creation supports it.
I have reservations about FastCGI and mod_ruby apparently isn't all that safe (if I want to use Rails). If I need to stick with Apache, what do I do?
In terms of the language syntax (perhaps this is what you actually meant), I agree there's a lot to like about Ruby, and it's clearly built as OO from the start. That said, I've also found a lot of things that fly in the face of "least surprise".
I see all of this through the eyes of a Cocoa programmer. In the Cocoa world, ambiguity is avoided at all costs. I see more room for ambiguity in Ruby than PHP, but I'm not at all a Ruby expert, either. I'm going to continue playing with Ruby on my own time, but I have no plans to deploy it right now.
At this point if I were just starting out in Web development, wouldn't I want to invest in learning Ruby on Rails instead of PHP?
I've been thinking about this too, but PHP seems to win hands down in the deployment category. It looks like a lot of Rails apps use lighttpd, but a lot of people are very happy with Apache.
You can use mod_ruby, but this gets tricky with multiple applications on the same server instance. The "preferred" deployment method seems to be FastCGI, but this seems like a strange option to me. I worked with FastCGI at a 4 million+ member site, and we were happy when we were able to leave FastCGI behind. It ate up gobs of resources. Maybe things have changed since then?
Another area that's a bit more grey is syntax. Ruby has all sorts of special syntax, some of which is quite clever, but one person's "clever" is another's person "bizarre." Probably not quite as vexing as Perl, though. For better or worse, PHP doesn't have much special syntax. Personally, I think this is good.
Finally, I've found PHP to be unbelievably fast. There's been dozens of instances where I was sure I'd have to spend time optimizing an application, but was proven wrong. Your mileage may vary, of course.
There's a lot that Rails does right, but I'm not yet convinced it's the only reasonable optional for medium-sized apps. Of course, this gets a bit muddle because we're really comparing a framework to a language.
Remember the good old days when creating extensions to specs (MS) used to bring the wrath of the world. It's ok now hoever because Mozilla has done it!
Yeah, well, Mozilla's implementation is open source, so....
iBook (my first Mac ever - OSX 10.3.x), to find it installed there, also. Ever since day one, after tweaks of all sorts, I still have instances when only the first page prints, or cups just leaves behind all junk files in its log directory, etc. Oh, well - just my $0.02.
You shouldn't have to deal with CUPS directly on Mac OS X. Why not just use the standard UI Apple provides?
Here's how printing normally goes on Mac OS X:
1. Plug in/turn on the printer. It's automatically discovered and activated. 2. You select File > Print
If you want, you can launch Print Center to check the job status. I've never even had to install a printer driver.
Slashdot Mirror
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.)
I don't find that any more likely. Apple wouldn't muddy the waters by promoting two versions of Mac OS X at once.
- Scott
Actually, switching to x86 forces all developers to write code that can be compiled under Xcode (and therefore strictly conforms to Cocoa standards).
Those two things are separate. You can have a Carbon app built under Xcode.
So it isn't out of the question that Apple could switch to some sort of customized Windows with a rebadged Openstep for Windows running on top of it
Yes it is. OpenStep is much different than today's Cocoa and related frameworks. Just ask the GNUstep folks.
- Scott
I think people are missing the fact that the interface would not have to go but run as a layer on top of Windows. Apple could market the interface to all users and no longer be limited by their own hardware.
Mac OS X is not just a "skin".
The UI is just one part of what makes Mac OS X enjoyable. People think of the UI because that's the part one sees in screenshots and messing around at the Apple Store for fifteen minutes.
- Scott
Who cares? What's in it for us to allow Apple the power to control what we can and can't do with OS X?
Apple can only justify the continued development of Mac OS X if it is tied to the hardware sales. Otherwise, the revenue potential just isn't there and the investors won't stand for money being wasted.
If you don't like it, use another OS. Pretty simple.
- Scott
To challenge this in court, assuming you've legally purchased the software and have all the receipts and paperwork all should have to do is use "to use on generic hardware" in the right places and make it look like Apple is trying some anti-competition practices.
Let's say for the sake of argument that somebody files and wins such a case and Apple is forced to release the current version of Mac OS X for all Intel hardware. The result is that a bunch of people buy Mac OS X and try to run it on any from decent to horrible hardware.
In at least quite a few cases, the software won't work right and they'll blame Apple. In the process, Mac OS X's primary investment stream (hardware sales) has been compromised. In this reality, you've rewarded the inventor of a great piece of software by demanding to run it on marginal hardware. You've also prevented them from pursuing the business model that enabled Mac OS X in the first place.
In other words, Mac OS X ceases to exist if the hardware sales are cut from the deal. Apple is not like Microsoft -- they make Mac OS X to sell Macs. Think long term. Who wins in this scenario? Is it really so hard to just buy a Mac? It's Apple's creation, they should be able to sell it in whatever form they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not a personal liberty -- it's a computer product.
NeXT tried to pursue the generic x86 strategy and it failed. Why would Apple bang their head against the wall again?
Exactly. I would love to buy a copy of OS X for x86 on my PC, even if it cost me $400 to do so. It is worth the price, IMO. I will kill for an operating system on plain vanilla x86 machines that is almost perfect.
Is there some reason you can't just buy a Mac? Why do you insist on Mac OS X on a generic piece of hardware? I mean, if you're willing to shell out $400 you're almost there anyway. You can get a basic Mac mini for $500. When were you planning on buying your next machine?
Try to understand that a big part of the reason Mac OS X "just works" is that it's part of an overall picture, not just a cog in the machine.
The Objective-C libraries are heavily based on inheritance, but I've learned that "composition trumps inheritance" ... meaning that its better to combine many small focused objects.
Dude, you're high. By "Objective-C libraries" I assume you mean the Cocoa framework? Cocoa encourages minimal subclassing. It does do it when there's a legitimate tree of derived types (for example, on-screen controls), but composition and categories are far more common.
- Scott
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
You think the same people wouldn't complain about an artifically inflated price? Apple doesn't sell their own hardware "just because" -- they do it because they think it makes for a better experience.
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).
Not just that, but development, QA and support costs. I think it's a bad equation all around.
Perhaps increased market penetration could make up for this?
Perhaps, but perhaps not. It's a rather high-risk gamble either way.
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?
and would rather not have Qucktime on my system
Um, like, why?
- Scott
Come on people, there's no need to make a revolution every time a new language is released!
Ruby's been around for ten years.
- Scott
NetZero already offers free internet access.
Isn't NetZero $9.95/mo in most cases?
Is that access not deemed sufficient or fast enough by the city?
I don't think it's fast enough, no. Perhaps 5-10 years ago it was. My mom had dialup until very recently and practically stopped using it because she'd have to do other things around the house while waiting for a page to load.
Not to mention when you want to download something from iTunes or a software update.
- Scott
Ruby vs PHP. Aside from a large userbase and a bunch of legacy php applications, what does PHP have over Ruby?
Going back to my first post, I think the biggest thing is that PHP has deployment absolutely nailed. PHP is easier to deploy on your own server, and practically every hosting company in creation supports it.
I have reservations about FastCGI and mod_ruby apparently isn't all that safe (if I want to use Rails). If I need to stick with Apache, what do I do?
In terms of the language syntax (perhaps this is what you actually meant), I agree there's a lot to like about Ruby, and it's clearly built as OO from the start. That said, I've also found a lot of things that fly in the face of "least surprise".
I see all of this through the eyes of a Cocoa programmer. In the Cocoa world, ambiguity is avoided at all costs. I see more room for ambiguity in Ruby than PHP, but I'm not at all a Ruby expert, either. I'm going to continue playing with Ruby on my own time, but I have no plans to deploy it right now.
At this point if I were just starting out in Web development, wouldn't I want to invest in learning Ruby on Rails instead of PHP?
I've been thinking about this too, but PHP seems to win hands down in the deployment category. It looks like a lot of Rails apps use lighttpd, but a lot of people are very happy with Apache.
You can use mod_ruby, but this gets tricky with multiple applications on the same server instance. The "preferred" deployment method seems to be FastCGI, but this seems like a strange option to me. I worked with FastCGI at a 4 million+ member site, and we were happy when we were able to leave FastCGI behind. It ate up gobs of resources. Maybe things have changed since then?
Another area that's a bit more grey is syntax. Ruby has all sorts of special syntax, some of which is quite clever, but one person's "clever" is another's person "bizarre." Probably not quite as vexing as Perl, though. For better or worse, PHP doesn't have much special syntax. Personally, I think this is good.
Finally, I've found PHP to be unbelievably fast. There's been dozens of instances where I was sure I'd have to spend time optimizing an application, but was proven wrong. Your mileage may vary, of course.
There's a lot that Rails does right, but I'm not yet convinced it's the only reasonable optional for medium-sized apps. Of course, this gets a bit muddle because we're really comparing a framework to a language.
Like .NET, preferrably C#. You know, something you'll use in the real world and get hired for. It's free, and it's much better than PHP.
Regardless of which is "better," there's really no shortage of PHP work. It's probably the most widely-used scripting language on the web.
- Scott
The Nintendo lifestyle is looking more attractive by the minute. Aren't they the only ones making games any more
Yep, you're certainly not the only one who feels this way.
- Scott
minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.
Are you posting this from 1995? If not, are you serious? Most engineering departments can only dream of being so effective.
- Scott
What DOES pass this acid test
Newer builds of Safari do. They haven't been pushed out to the general public but I *think* they might be in the open source repository.
- Scott
How did this get rated as insightful? Virtually every statement is wrong.
- Scott
People like to be connected to each other. I'm not sure you can qualify a form of human contact as addiction.
- Scott
Remember the good old days when creating extensions to specs (MS) used to bring the wrath of the world. It's ok now hoever because Mozilla has done it!
Yeah, well, Mozilla's implementation is open source, so....
- Scott
The "a" is silent.
- Scott
You know, it's just amazing to see you and everybody else fall for the old accidental "leak" trick
It's possible, but it would be a rather extreme shift from history and internal company culture.
- Scott
First they rip-off BSD
I believe you greatly misjudge the situation. Do you think FreeBSD is worse off because of Mac OS X?
In any case, do you know Jordan Hubbard is an engineering manager at Apple?
- Scott
iBook (my first Mac ever - OSX 10.3.x), to find it installed there, also. Ever since day one, after tweaks of all sorts, I still have instances when only the first page prints, or cups just leaves behind all junk files in its log directory, etc. Oh, well - just my $0.02.
You shouldn't have to deal with CUPS directly on Mac OS X. Why not just use the standard UI Apple provides?
Here's how printing normally goes on Mac OS X:
1. Plug in/turn on the printer. It's automatically discovered and activated.
2. You select File > Print
If you want, you can launch Print Center to check the job status. I've never even had to install a printer driver.
Or am I missing your point?
- Scott