Apple is not the anti-Microsoft in that they are both companies, and not charities. It's within the realm of capitalism that Apple should be judged. From that aspect, they're very much not Microsoft.
They'd have to gain around 8X the marketshare for that to happen.
Re:gee, it couldn't possibly be that...
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 2
You miss the point. IE actually is a good browser in comparison to Netscape - potentially even better.
The point is, I want the be the one to choose which browser I use. I want to be able to choose not to have a browser at all. It's not an 'integral part of the operating system', and I should be able to dump it.
--- Yeah! Features like conformity with W3C standards. Who needs em?!? ---
Conforming to W3C standards is all well and good, but it'd be nice to have a halfway native UI. This is the main thing that is bugging me with Mozilla...
Fair enough. Maybe I don't think it will happen because I really, really don't want it to happen.:>
Seriously though, couldn't have Microsoft done this far far earlier? I'm not sure how easy it would be to integrate BeOS into the rest of Microsoft's offerings.
Actually, there's a kernel of truth to this. While there are still a lot of Mac users (and, erm, some zealots) out there, Apple has definately changed their direction.
As far as UI is concerned, I'm talking about the MacOS from '84 up until recently. Apple has demonstrated a disregard for its own UI design recently that is more than a little bit disturbing. Witness QuickTime 4, Sherlock 2, and much of MacOS X.
For the record, I run LinuxPPC on my Mac hardware, but still end up switching back to the MacOS to get stuff done. The Gnome/KDE UI just isn't there yet (given a year or two, though, it may very well pass Windows in that regard).
[watches as this message, like the previous, is marked as flamebait for no reason whatsoever]:>
Um, AOLers are inferior*. Have you ever actually tried communicating with one? It's usually a lesson in futility.
I'm surprised nobody told you.
*('inferior' in the sense that many are really, really annoying. This is not all-inclusive - occasionally there are non-annoying AOLers that pop up. As a group, though, they rank somewhere around the WebTV and MSN factions)
It's hard to say. Apple almost bought Be when it was shopping around (ended up going with NeXT instead), but Be's asking price was too high - around 400 million.
At this point, their OS is far more mature in the sense that many of the main services work well and are in a useful state. From the sounds of it, R5 is pretty good as well (last version I used was 4.5).
On the other hand, someone buying Be wouldn't be gaining a large number of users with it. It's possible that Free-Be will change this, but from what I've heard there are only 100-150 thousand people having tried it out (I'm sure there are a number who tried it and eventually went back to something else due to lack of apps).
That's another issue - good 3rd party apps are tough to find. There are some decent contenders, but Be's 3rd party developer community makes the Mac dev community look positively enormous in comparison. The apps are usually quite good, but they've been looking for a 'tractor app' for around 4 years now. Not good. I imagine that might make a difference in what Be's going price is.
Then again, back when Be was selling, they didn't have shareholders. I don't know the general makeup of its investors, but in theory the company could be overruled by those who pay the bills if a suitor came along.
So far, they're not making any cash, and after about 10 years in existance are moving into uncharted territory (internet appliances). Some companies have at least survived with this idea, but that road is covered in the corpses of those who have tried. My guess is that gaming consoles will be the first to do it, with WebTV and things like the i-Opener maybe hanging around as a distant second. Be has a good point in that they can fill a niche market and survive just fine (Apple has done okay with this), but the company is too damned fickle to tell for sure. As it is now, they're still in the red.
--- LinuxPPC - lead engineer in a hospital bed (/. story a few days ago) ---
I'm not sure what this has to do with the viability of the distribution (which rocks), or with Apple (do you think they were behind the wreck?).
--- YellowDog - no idea ---
Just announced full AltiVec support in their distribution - see the/. story of a few days back. Not certain of all of the details, but it sounds pretty interesting. Note that as of yet even Apple's own OS doesn't natively support AltiVec.
--- BSD-Open/NetBSD. The dead ArchBSD. ---
BSD is not dead on PPC.
--- MkLinux-Apple pulled out a few years ago...not much happening there, unless someone has piked it up. Darwin - Up until a few days ago, there was no bootable disk. ---
Apple dumped MkLinux - you would do the same if your company had lost ~700 million dollars in that timeframe. The project itself lives on, though. How many open-source operating systems has Be provided, let alone abandoned?
As for Darwin - it is hardly dead. In fact, it is not just a derivative of OSX, it is the core of OSX. Sure, it's not the part that most regular Mac users are interested in (or would pay much for - I'm talking about the GUI here), but it's plenty full enough of Unixy goodness for hackers to bite into and positive changes to the codebase to be made. Darwin is very much alive and kicking.
Either way, the source has survived in both Darwin and MkLinux. Darwin obviously boots on G3s and I believe G4s. No reverse engineering required - paid Apple employees are responsible for this stuff.
--- Can you get under NDA or not the hardware specs from Apple? ---
I don't see what you really really want Apple to do. I seriously doubt they have an OS implementation booklet that they pass out to anyone and everyone. Someone there would probably have to work with Be for a while. Did Be offer to pay for that engineer's time? Hard to say. Apple - especially at the time - didn't exactly have much spare cash to spread around on things like this, and Be probably didn't care to justify that kind of expenditure.
--- Gasse may be as big a windbag/asshole as Jobs ---
I wouldn't say either of them fit that description perfectly. Both are, shall we say, somewhat driven. You can take that however you mean. On the other hand, Jobs has never been afraid to say it how he means it (and get himself in trouble in the process). Despite the reputation of his RDF, it's usually limited to overly optimistic benchmarks and colored plastics. Gassee on the other hand, well... He's similar - but I really don't see his argument with regards to the G3/G4 specs. That just seems like a convenient excuse that has since not panned out. Apple's actions haven't lived up to this reputation Be has indicated.
--- but that does not negate the fact that Apple may not be releasing the specs ---
1. Read. 2. Download. 3. Extrapolate.
Just don't expect handholding from Apple's engineers.:>
Oh yeah, I know that - but there's a subtle difference. JLG was a proponent of taking the 'toaster' out of the 'toaster Mac' and turning it into something that can be opened up, toyed with, and upgraded.
However, he was definately of the mindset that cloning was a very bad idea. There were people within Apple pushing it for some time, but he wasn't one of them.
Oddly enough, Apple has definately moved toward open hardware in the way Gassee wanted. The G4 casing is very accessable, I/O has moved toward recognized industry standards (USB, Firewire, VGA, IDE, PCI), ROM in RAM, standard memory, etc. Sure, Apple is still wary of cloning (which will need to change eventually, IMHO) and isn't going to sell their computers without their OS, but there's no justification for them to withold secrets from Be. They could very well sell more hardware - but I don't think they should be expected to subsidize Be's R&D.
The real irony here is that Be's new focus, 'internet appliances', are pretty much the same kind of toasters JLG moved away from when he led the Mac II team. The only reason Be isn't a near clone of Apple is that they realized they weren't going to make money in hardware.
Because it's considered part of the same package. When you buy a car, you usually can't choose to remove certain components. If there were only one car company (having done away with its competition somehow), and it bundled a kick-ass stereo system, then it is harming 3rd party stereo dealers. In turn, this hurts consumers.
Only when this is done to unfairly drive competitors out of business is this a problem. That hurts consumers. Not good. In this case, though, I don't think the i-Opener is stopping anyone from coming up with a similar device at the same pricepoint. They're certainly not hurting the ISP industry.
That said, I think these guys are bozos. You don't retroactively charge people for something they didn't pay for in the beginning.
--- Why release the source to BeOS? So they can put it into Linux? ---
Not at all - I never said they should. I'm just saying that if someone is going to point fingers at Apple, they should take a look at whose side they are on. So far, Apple has been every bit as open as Be has been - even moreso, actually.
--- Would you please get your info before you speak out your ass...
Show me a free Linux distro that comes with... ---
I disagree - Be would offer the full install if they were truly going 'free beer' (BeOS 'lite' is crippled and you know it). Also, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a hardcore Linux user bashing BeOS - patently false. The BeOS is probably one of the cleanest OS implementations I've ever seen, and was my primary OS for some time. My issue isn't with the OS, it's with Be. Stop flaming me for a second and listen to what I'm saying.
Talking out one's ass, indeed.
--- Wanna bet? Jobs is scared. ---
Maybe, but not of Be. Once again, I am not flaming the BeOS - a great OS. I am just saying that Be does not pose a threat to anyone at this point. The apps aren't there, the developers aren't hanging on like they should be, Be keeps changing their damned mind on where they want to go, etc. It's not exactly a platform people are putting faith in. The buzz in the Be community (and from Be itself) is with their IA plans. They've pretty much given up their future on the desktop.
--- A lot of stuff is still closed. Why did the LinuxPPC team have to reverse engineer the G3 then? ---
Because they didn't have anyone spoon-feeding them information. I never said Apple has engineers helping these guys out - that's how Apple stays in business, by worrying about their own multitude of problems.
However, Apple hasn't done anything to stand in the way of alternative operating systems - they're just not going to do the work. After all, if Apple were so terrified of Be or the Linux/BSD people, where did MkLinux come from? How about Darwin? It just doesn't make sense.
--- They are hacked OSs. ---
MkLinux wasn't hacked. It was done with Apple's blessing and with help by paid Apple engineers. Darwin is not a hacked OS, it's the core of MacOS X.
And for a hacked OS, LinuxPPC works pretty damn well.
Seriously, though - what has Apple got to lose by letting Be sell an OS for their hardware? If you were an Apple stockholder, which would be best?
I'd say #2 and #3 are far better than #1. Apple simply doesn't have any reason to block Be out. They make their cash from the hardware, and it's not like they're going to stock bundling the MacOS any time soon. At worst it'll lose them upgrade sales and maybe some 3rd party developers, but that's better than losing it all to the 'other' platform, no?
Think about it. Apple is more rational now than it has ever been. They wouldn't turn down a good thing, even if it isn't the best thing.
--- Well, we'll see. Right now there are literally hundreds of thousands of people trying out BeOS. ---
I hope they do well. The BeOS is simply too good to die - then again, the same has been said before of great technology...
This is the point that you turn off your little 'network appliance' and think things through.
1. Apple has provided two open-sourced operating systems. Be is 99% proprietary (the only open part being what they had to open-source due to licensing conflicts).
2. BeOS 5.0 is crippled, and just an attempt to get people interested so people will code for these supposed Be-powered toasters and set-top boxes. It's obvious Be is giving up on the OS front. Threat? Not likely.
3. JLG, head of Be, is largely responsible for Apple having been so closed in the past. He was one of the biggest critics of cloning back when he was at Apple. Read up on his history - he's a smart guy, but he's not perfect.
4. Be realistic. Jobs doesn't care about the BeOS one way or the other - he just knew that it wasn't Apple's job to subsidize Be's development. Should Apple pay Be's dev costs? Not now, and esp. not back when they were practically dead (ie. around when Be started backing away from PPC, coincidentally).
5. If the Mac platform is so closed, explain: LinuxPPC, MkLinux, Yellow Dog Linux, BSD, and Darwin. I'll wait.
6. Conveniently timed Intel investment? Hmm...
7. ROM in RAM architecture, move to industry standard components, etc. This is a platform being opened-up, not closed.
8. BeOS is very easy to use, and a great OS overall. But Be's whining about Apple has gotten very old, esp. as Apple has made their platform MORE open. It just doesn't stick.
All the while, Be has been switching business focus repeatedly, meaning (to me) that they just can't do it. Be is not a threat to anyone - if it was only judged on its technical merits, it'd be sharing the market with the MacOS and Linux, and Windows would not exist.
Face it: Be was tempted by the size of the Intel market, and bolted. Now, they've realized that they're screwed going that route, and are jumping into yet another market (so-called 'Internet Appliances'). Good luck, but I just don't see it happening...
True enough. When you get down to it, Linux is more or less a Unix lookalike.
The only thing that is really 'leading edge' is that it is extremely open (beer and speech-wise), which means it actually has a chance to take over a lot of marketshare.
Even cooler, while Linux still has a ways to go, it has improved at a very rapid pace. Give it a couple years and we'll see some cool stuff - after everyone is done reimplementing stuff done by other operating systems, at least.:>
Microsoft is also a monopoly, whereas these guys are neither preventing anyone from running an ISP or making cheap IA devices. Basically, they're not harming competitors by this practice, as there really hasn't been anyone else who has truly bothered with this market.
People need to understand that Apple doesn't need to overthrow Microsoft in order to survive. They can very comfortable survive as 'the other consumer platform'. Their marketshare now isn't too bad, and while I'd love to see it grow a few more percent, it's not hard to find anything I've needed for the MacOS (except for games, but that's improving as well).
If Apple can maintain 5-10%+ marketshare, then they'll be around for some time. If they can hit 15%, then things will be perfect. You don't have to have a monopoly to survive.
(BTW: People have been anticipating Apple's death for 25 years - I would hope that they'd learn by now that it's just not happening)
Actually, Microsoft owns a very small share of Apple right now. The investment which was heavily hyped at the time was nothing more than a token investment (and partially a settlement for some illegal acts Microsoft got caught in some time earlier).
That said, Microsoft has said in the past that they make more money per Mac than per PC, so it might be in their best interests to see Apple sell in the X86 product space. Really, what is Windows but a platform to get people to buy Office?
Their stock price, having multiplied over 10x their all time low of a couple years back and hitting an all-time high last week, would seem to indicate that they have recovered.
Apple's marketshare, growth, etc. have all actually gone up in the last 2 years as well. All of the major players have commented on this, and raised their ratings in the process.
Take a look here and tell me Apple hasn't recovered. Even if you don't believe the charts, read the newsitems at the bottom and tell me Apple hasn't recovered. At worst you can state that Apple isn't going to take over Microsoft's position (for that, I'd probably agree).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is not the anti-Microsoft in that they are both companies, and not charities. It's within the realm of capitalism that Apple should be judged. From that aspect, they're very much not Microsoft.
They'd have to gain around 8X the marketshare for that to happen.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Then turn it off.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
You miss the point. IE actually is a good browser in comparison to Netscape - potentially even better.
The point is, I want the be the one to choose which browser I use. I want to be able to choose not to have a browser at all. It's not an 'integral part of the operating system', and I should be able to dump it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Yeah! Features like conformity with W3C standards. Who needs em?!?
---
Conforming to W3C standards is all well and good, but it'd be nice to have a halfway native UI. This is the main thing that is bugging me with Mozilla...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Fair enough. Maybe I don't think it will happen because I really, really don't want it to happen. :>
Seriously though, couldn't have Microsoft done this far far earlier? I'm not sure how easy it would be to integrate BeOS into the rest of Microsoft's offerings.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
It's there, but not as usable.
:>
Being supported isn't the same as being usefully supported.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, there's a kernel of truth to this. While there are still a lot of Mac users (and, erm, some zealots) out there, Apple has definately changed their direction.
:>
As far as UI is concerned, I'm talking about the MacOS from '84 up until recently. Apple has demonstrated a disregard for its own UI design recently that is more than a little bit disturbing. Witness QuickTime 4, Sherlock 2, and much of MacOS X.
For the record, I run LinuxPPC on my Mac hardware, but still end up switching back to the MacOS to get stuff done. The Gnome/KDE UI just isn't there yet (given a year or two, though, it may very well pass Windows in that regard).
[watches as this message, like the previous, is marked as flamebait for no reason whatsoever]
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Of course, this is all based on the assumption that software surrounded by a box is somehow more stable and efficient than software lacking a box.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I don't know about the rest, but the Windows version of Perl currently has some non-trivial problems compared to its Unix/Linux cousin.
That may be solved sooner or later, but you still have to use Windows.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Um, AOLers are inferior*. Have you ever actually tried communicating with one? It's usually a lesson in futility.
I'm surprised nobody told you.
*('inferior' in the sense that many are really, really annoying. This is not all-inclusive - occasionally there are non-annoying AOLers that pop up. As a group, though, they rank somewhere around the WebTV and MSN factions)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
You can go right on admitting that, too. It does one thing, and only one thing, well, and that is user interface.
---
[Insert fits of laughter from the Mac crowd here]
Sorry, had to be said. Windows does not have a good user interface by any stretch of the imagination.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Someone needs to re-moderate this to something else. It is very much not a troll.
Misguided? Perhaps - I don't agree with the original poster. But it's obvious that the intent was not to 'troll' this forum.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, I doubt they'd mind.
Now, if you somehow stripped out their advertising, they might have a problem.
You probably wouldn't get enough traffic to make it worth complaining about though.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
It's hard to say. Apple almost bought Be when it was shopping around (ended up going with NeXT instead), but Be's asking price was too high - around 400 million.
At this point, their OS is far more mature in the sense that many of the main services work well and are in a useful state. From the sounds of it, R5 is pretty good as well (last version I used was 4.5).
On the other hand, someone buying Be wouldn't be gaining a large number of users with it. It's possible that Free-Be will change this, but from what I've heard there are only 100-150 thousand people having tried it out (I'm sure there are a number who tried it and eventually went back to something else due to lack of apps).
That's another issue - good 3rd party apps are tough to find. There are some decent contenders, but Be's 3rd party developer community makes the Mac dev community look positively enormous in comparison. The apps are usually quite good, but they've been looking for a 'tractor app' for around 4 years now. Not good. I imagine that might make a difference in what Be's going price is.
Then again, back when Be was selling, they didn't have shareholders. I don't know the general makeup of its investors, but in theory the company could be overruled by those who pay the bills if a suitor came along.
So far, they're not making any cash, and after about 10 years in existance are moving into uncharted territory (internet appliances). Some companies have at least survived with this idea, but that road is covered in the corpses of those who have tried. My guess is that gaming consoles will be the first to do it, with WebTV and things like the i-Opener maybe hanging around as a distant second. Be has a good point in that they can fill a niche market and survive just fine (Apple has done okay with this), but the company is too damned fickle to tell for sure. As it is now, they're still in the red.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
/. story of a few days back. Not certain of all of the details, but it sounds pretty interesting. Note that as of yet even Apple's own OS doesn't natively support AltiVec.
:>
LinuxPPC - lead engineer in a hospital bed (/. story a few days ago)
---
I'm not sure what this has to do with the viability of the distribution (which rocks), or with Apple (do you think they were behind the wreck?).
---
YellowDog - no idea
---
Just announced full AltiVec support in their distribution - see the
---
BSD-Open/NetBSD. The dead ArchBSD.
---
BSD is not dead on PPC.
---
MkLinux-Apple pulled out a few years ago...not much happening there, unless someone has piked it up.
Darwin - Up until a few days ago, there was no bootable disk.
---
Apple dumped MkLinux - you would do the same if your company had lost ~700 million dollars in that timeframe. The project itself lives on, though. How many open-source operating systems has Be provided, let alone abandoned?
As for Darwin - it is hardly dead. In fact, it is not just a derivative of OSX, it is the core of OSX. Sure, it's not the part that most regular Mac users are interested in (or would pay much for - I'm talking about the GUI here), but it's plenty full enough of Unixy goodness for hackers to bite into and positive changes to the codebase to be made. Darwin is very much alive and kicking.
Either way, the source has survived in both Darwin and MkLinux. Darwin obviously boots on G3s and I believe G4s. No reverse engineering required - paid Apple employees are responsible for this stuff.
---
Can you get under NDA or not the hardware specs from Apple?
---
I don't see what you really really want Apple to do. I seriously doubt they have an OS implementation booklet that they pass out to anyone and everyone. Someone there would probably have to work with Be for a while. Did Be offer to pay for that engineer's time? Hard to say. Apple - especially at the time - didn't exactly have much spare cash to spread around on things like this, and Be probably didn't care to justify that kind of expenditure.
---
Gasse may be as big a windbag/asshole as Jobs
---
I wouldn't say either of them fit that description perfectly. Both are, shall we say, somewhat driven. You can take that however you mean. On the other hand, Jobs has never been afraid to say it how he means it (and get himself in trouble in the process). Despite the reputation of his RDF, it's usually limited to overly optimistic benchmarks and colored plastics. Gassee on the other hand, well... He's similar - but I really don't see his argument with regards to the G3/G4 specs. That just seems like a convenient excuse that has since not panned out. Apple's actions haven't lived up to this reputation Be has indicated.
---
but that does not negate the fact that Apple may not be releasing the specs
---
1. Read.
2. Download.
3. Extrapolate.
Just don't expect handholding from Apple's engineers.
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Oh yeah, I know that - but there's a subtle difference. JLG was a proponent of taking the 'toaster' out of the 'toaster Mac' and turning it into something that can be opened up, toyed with, and upgraded.
However, he was definately of the mindset that cloning was a very bad idea. There were people within Apple pushing it for some time, but he wasn't one of them.
Oddly enough, Apple has definately moved toward open hardware in the way Gassee wanted. The G4 casing is very accessable, I/O has moved toward recognized industry standards (USB, Firewire, VGA, IDE, PCI), ROM in RAM, standard memory, etc. Sure, Apple is still wary of cloning (which will need to change eventually, IMHO) and isn't going to sell their computers without their OS, but there's no justification for them to withold secrets from Be. They could very well sell more hardware - but I don't think they should be expected to subsidize Be's R&D.
The real irony here is that Be's new focus, 'internet appliances', are pretty much the same kind of toasters JLG moved away from when he led the Mac II team. The only reason Be isn't a near clone of Apple is that they realized they weren't going to make money in hardware.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Because it's considered part of the same package. When you buy a car, you usually can't choose to remove certain components. If there were only one car company (having done away with its competition somehow), and it bundled a kick-ass stereo system, then it is harming 3rd party stereo dealers. In turn, this hurts consumers.
Only when this is done to unfairly drive competitors out of business is this a problem. That hurts consumers. Not good. In this case, though, I don't think the i-Opener is stopping anyone from coming up with a similar device at the same pricepoint. They're certainly not hurting the ISP industry.
That said, I think these guys are bozos. You don't retroactively charge people for something they didn't pay for in the beginning.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Why release the source to BeOS? So they can put it into Linux?
---
Not at all - I never said they should. I'm just saying that if someone is going to point fingers at Apple, they should take a look at whose side they are on. So far, Apple has been every bit as open as Be has been - even moreso, actually.
---
Would you please get your info before you speak out your ass...
Show me a free Linux distro that comes with...
---
I disagree - Be would offer the full install if they were truly going 'free beer' (BeOS 'lite' is crippled and you know it). Also, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a hardcore Linux user bashing BeOS - patently false. The BeOS is probably one of the cleanest OS implementations I've ever seen, and was my primary OS for some time. My issue isn't with the OS, it's with Be. Stop flaming me for a second and listen to what I'm saying.
Talking out one's ass, indeed.
---
Wanna bet? Jobs is scared.
---
Maybe, but not of Be. Once again, I am not flaming the BeOS - a great OS. I am just saying that Be does not pose a threat to anyone at this point. The apps aren't there, the developers aren't hanging on like they should be, Be keeps changing their damned mind on where they want to go, etc. It's not exactly a platform people are putting faith in. The buzz in the Be community (and from Be itself) is with their IA plans. They've pretty much given up their future on the desktop.
---
A lot of stuff is still closed. Why did the LinuxPPC team have to reverse engineer the G3 then?
---
Because they didn't have anyone spoon-feeding them information. I never said Apple has engineers helping these guys out - that's how Apple stays in business, by worrying about their own multitude of problems.
However, Apple hasn't done anything to stand in the way of alternative operating systems - they're just not going to do the work. After all, if Apple were so terrified of Be or the Linux/BSD people, where did MkLinux come from? How about Darwin? It just doesn't make sense.
---
They are hacked OSs.
---
MkLinux wasn't hacked. It was done with Apple's blessing and with help by paid Apple engineers. Darwin is not a hacked OS, it's the core of MacOS X.
And for a hacked OS, LinuxPPC works pretty damn well.
Seriously, though - what has Apple got to lose by letting Be sell an OS for their hardware? If you were an Apple stockholder, which would be best?
1. BeOS + Intel hardware = 0% profit
2. BeOS + (MacOS + Mac hardware) = 100% profit
3. MacOS + Mac hardware = 100% profit
I'd say #2 and #3 are far better than #1. Apple simply doesn't have any reason to block Be out. They make their cash from the hardware, and it's not like they're going to stock bundling the MacOS any time soon. At worst it'll lose them upgrade sales and maybe some 3rd party developers, but that's better than losing it all to the 'other' platform, no?
Think about it. Apple is more rational now than it has ever been. They wouldn't turn down a good thing, even if it isn't the best thing.
---
Well, we'll see. Right now there are literally hundreds of thousands of people trying out BeOS.
---
I hope they do well. The BeOS is simply too good to die - then again, the same has been said before of great technology...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
This is the point that you turn off your little 'network appliance' and think things through.
1. Apple has provided two open-sourced operating systems. Be is 99% proprietary (the only open part being what they had to open-source due to licensing conflicts).
2. BeOS 5.0 is crippled, and just an attempt to get people interested so people will code for these supposed Be-powered toasters and set-top boxes. It's obvious Be is giving up on the OS front. Threat? Not likely.
3. JLG, head of Be, is largely responsible for Apple having been so closed in the past. He was one of the biggest critics of cloning back when he was at Apple. Read up on his history - he's a smart guy, but he's not perfect.
4. Be realistic. Jobs doesn't care about the BeOS one way or the other - he just knew that it wasn't Apple's job to subsidize Be's development. Should Apple pay Be's dev costs? Not now, and esp. not back when they were practically dead (ie. around when Be started backing away from PPC, coincidentally).
5. If the Mac platform is so closed, explain: LinuxPPC, MkLinux, Yellow Dog Linux, BSD, and Darwin. I'll wait.
6. Conveniently timed Intel investment? Hmm...
7. ROM in RAM architecture, move to industry standard components, etc. This is a platform being opened-up, not closed.
8. BeOS is very easy to use, and a great OS overall. But Be's whining about Apple has gotten very old, esp. as Apple has made their platform MORE open. It just doesn't stick.
All the while, Be has been switching business focus repeatedly, meaning (to me) that they just can't do it. Be is not a threat to anyone - if it was only judged on its technical merits, it'd be sharing the market with the MacOS and Linux, and Windows would not exist.
Face it: Be was tempted by the size of the Intel market, and bolted. Now, they've realized that they're screwed going that route, and are jumping into yet another market (so-called 'Internet Appliances'). Good luck, but I just don't see it happening...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
True enough. When you get down to it, Linux is more or less a Unix lookalike.
:>
The only thing that is really 'leading edge' is that it is extremely open (beer and speech-wise), which means it actually has a chance to take over a lot of marketshare.
Even cooler, while Linux still has a ways to go, it has improved at a very rapid pace. Give it a couple years and we'll see some cool stuff - after everyone is done reimplementing stuff done by other operating systems, at least.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Microsoft is also a monopoly, whereas these guys are neither preventing anyone from running an ISP or making cheap IA devices. Basically, they're not harming competitors by this practice, as there really hasn't been anyone else who has truly bothered with this market.
That's the theory at least.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
People need to understand that Apple doesn't need to overthrow Microsoft in order to survive. They can very comfortable survive as 'the other consumer platform'. Their marketshare now isn't too bad, and while I'd love to see it grow a few more percent, it's not hard to find anything I've needed for the MacOS (except for games, but that's improving as well).
If Apple can maintain 5-10%+ marketshare, then they'll be around for some time. If they can hit 15%, then things will be perfect. You don't have to have a monopoly to survive.
(BTW: People have been anticipating Apple's death for 25 years - I would hope that they'd learn by now that it's just not happening)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Actually, Microsoft owns a very small share of Apple right now. The investment which was heavily hyped at the time was nothing more than a token investment (and partially a settlement for some illegal acts Microsoft got caught in some time earlier).
That said, Microsoft has said in the past that they make more money per Mac than per PC, so it might be in their best interests to see Apple sell in the X86 product space. Really, what is Windows but a platform to get people to buy Office?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Right. People need to remember that the 'X' in 'MacOS X' is not an X as in X Windowing system. It's just a funky latin way to state a version number.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Their stock price, having multiplied over 10x their all time low of a couple years back and hitting an all-time high last week, would seem to indicate that they have recovered.
Apple's marketshare, growth, etc. have all actually gone up in the last 2 years as well. All of the major players have commented on this, and raised their ratings in the process.
Take a look here and tell me Apple hasn't recovered. Even if you don't believe the charts, read the newsitems at the bottom and tell me Apple hasn't recovered. At worst you can state that Apple isn't going to take over Microsoft's position (for that, I'd probably agree).
http://biz.yahoo.com/n/a/aapl.html
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)