Apple doesn't want both a HW and SW price war
on
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Dell said "offer to our customers", in that in the option box for some PC's you could select OSX instead of Windows.
The result would be lower winXP pricing, to price OSX out of the market and lower bundling prices of office, and of course no more Office for Mac. This would help kill OSX on Dells for PC buyers.
But Mac buyers would still shop Dells against Macs, killing Mac HW sales or profit margins.
Yep, I am sure Steve J. is just waiting to get into a price war on two fronts...
No Spyware?: Gator me once, screw you!
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No spyware?
I made the mistake of installing DivX once from their web site. Damn thing installed gator spyware that was a MAJOR hassle trying to get rid of even after removing DivX. Never will I support this crap compny again.
This was the only spyware that I ever had, and it was because DivX was so prevalent that I trusted them. Never again.
Having OSX run on low end junk would do Apple little good. The whole package buisness model makes sense for Apple and they should stick with it.
I still think they will expand their market share and increase appeal among former PC users even if the OS is locked against running on generics, and cruicually, is open for dual booting windows. It becomes the perfect migration path.
I have been a Wintel user for years, but if my next machine can be a mac OSX machine, that can also dual boot into windows, that will be a significant differentiator. So I will be considering Mac HW for my next computer.
I am so intrigued by this idea that all my PC HW purchase plans are off the table until the MacIntels appear. Not the Osborne Effect everyone was expecting eh. Macs announcement has me killing a Wintel purchase plans while I wait.
Ergonomics (esp noise) and design do matter to me, so I never buy crappy low end PC cases/junk power supplies etc, so it is not like I am getting $300 computers anyway.
That is $160 just for the case with no PS. Custom build choosing high quality components and you get close to Mac prices anyway. I strongly suspect Apple will have some really nice lower priced Mini type computers for those who are price sensitive.
IMO those who want junk commodity HW probably don't care that much about getting a high quality OS (if they actually even purchase it).
All those geeks who want to hack the OS to work on standard PC's are going to most likely need a compatible Intel chipset, and of course and Intel CPU to go with it.
Definitely this was a brilliant move on Intels part.
"It's hubris like this that caused the fall of Standard Oil.:) MS is starting to loose mindshare since people are getting tired of an insecure OS."
We can only hope, I am no MS fan and I would change to another OS if it supported everything I want to run. But in reality if you are reasonably carefull you really don't have to worry about the security issues with windows. Just don't use IE/Outlook, use a firewall and don't install crap unless you know it is spyware free. The only people likely to install another OS have the ability to manage the security issues.
"Most people don't really care what OS a computer runs, only that it will run what they want it to."
No disagreement. I just don't believe the theory that releasing OSX for generic HW is the panacea that most here make it out to be, like overnight everyone will format their HD and dump windows. Part of this reason is exactly that most people don't care and most people don't want to be bothered reinstalling their OS.
"For the vast majority of non-technocratic computer users, OS X does everything they need"
This hasn't changed with a move to x86. If the Mac OS is all they need, why didn't they all buy Mini's?
These non technocratic folks, as you put it, seem unlikely to install a totally new OS. You don't need to be a geek to use Linux, just to install it.
There is one simple critical fact that will never change. The vast majority of people will use the OS that ships with their computers and that will never change.
Windows succeeds on the sales of Dells, OSX will sink or swim on the sales of Macs.
Selling an OS that is not tied to HW is a doomed enterprise. A big part of the Microsoft push has always been about getting their OS bundled with Hardware.
Once enabling SW like an OS reaches critical Mass, like windows, it is virtually unstoppable, unmovable force. It becomes irrelavent which OS is technicaly better. The incumbent is now the recipient of a beneficial catch 22. It is the OS everyone must use because it has all the applications. Correspondingly it is where all the applications are being devopoped, because everyone is using it. Breaking this cycle is virtually impossible.
You could give OSX x86 away for free and it would not dent windows market share and would gain no development traction, because it would be second fiddle OS for geeks to play with, but everyone would stick with windows as their core. Since everyone would probably have Windows as well, developers would just keep targetting windows.
There has been no shortage of desktop x86 OS contenders. OS/2, BeOS, Solaris x86, FreeBSD, Linux and yes NextStep.
Tell me which one has a market share to speak of, which one has comercial software being developed for it?
Apples best strategy is remain captive to it's HW and offering a premium HW/SW experience rather than becoming another Windows casualty on the desktop.
Geez, what makes more sense? a corporate conspiracy to have everyone pirate your sw and destroy your HW biz. Or some individual idiot working at a SW Dev looking for some notoriety.
And all those thinking this will benefit Apple, are smoking from the same Crack Pipe.
Those who pirate the OS to sit alongside windows are never going to buy it. It will always be second fiddle to their windows install that has all the applications. A curiousity to play with and if they decide to keep it around, well they will just look for a newer version to pirate.
Yes. Since I can't mod you up I will add my agreement.
I watched III and thought it was horrible, so afterwards I popped in ANH and found that it was much better because the actor natural charisma and character that comes across (Namely Guiness and Ford). That is only on the acting, but on a variety of other levels it is the better movie...
When I first saw the news, I thought, Apple is going to get nailed by the Osborne effect. Who wants to buy the old machines, I know my purchase decisions are on hold.
But there is one crucial difference. I am a PC user, and I wasn't really thinking about buying a Mac. Now all of a sudden I am thinking of this new Mac and I am putting off any PC purchase plan, because this is possibly a good migration case from PC's.
But what about Mac users? If they really want a Mac the more powerful ones may remain Altivec based G5s and they can expect support for quite a while. So maybe they are better off with PPC macs for a bit of time.
Is it possible that this will cause more "Waiting" among curious PC users like myself than actual committed Mac users??
There have been a multitude of slashdot stories posted all filled with angst ridden comments. But the simple fact is this move, while it may hurt in the short term simply had to be done, or the consequences would have been worse in the long term.
Quite simply IBM was not competetive, had very little driving it to be competetive with general desktop CPU's. To hang on in hopes of better days ahead would have been easy destructive way out.
Now Apple will NEVER again have to worry about having to fall behind on the CPU curve. It can tap the dominant x86 rivalry to always get the best chips going.
There are added bonuses of common architecture for code porters, and better migration paths (dual boot/wine) for windows escapees.
I have never purchased an Apple Product before, so I don't think I am subject to the reported Steve Jobs RDF, but I am keen on this move and the possability of getting an x86 Mac.
"Interesting point, however I'm not 100% sure if its true. Keep in mind the "Windows = OS/X" machines only count if the user bought Windows as well as MacOS/X."
I was talking about the case where OSX is offered for sale for use on generic HW. In which case most users are already running windows.
"In any case, i'm of the opinion that platform is quickly becoming irrelevant as far as software development goes, and Microsoft are aware of this. "
Completely disagree here. This is the cornerstone of the Monopoly. It is "THE" software development platform. MS has a a huge Horde of cash, so it can afford, octopus like, to challeng all markets from game machines to Cell Phones, and it is doing so, but that doesn't lessen the importance of the desktop market which it already owns. But that is the key, it already owns it all. Not much to pursue, but if challenged it will not give it up without a significant fight.
Just offerring the OS for the same price doesn't level the playing field. MS holds all the cards by being the incumbent. You could give OSX away for free and it wouldn't really be a threat.
If offered both here is what would happen. I would order the computer with OSX and when it arrived, I would then set it to dual boot with my current copy of Win2k.
In my opinion that is what the majority of OSX buyers would do as well. So even if there were massive market penatration by OSX it would quickly look something like this: (grossly oversimplified to make a point)
Windows Only Machines: 60% OSX + Windows Machines: 40%
Now can you does this 40% penetration lead to wonderfull goodness? NO! it leads to the end of OSX.
Because a SW Dev will look at the above an realize he only has to write Windows Apps to target 100% of the market. OSX can be ignored completely.
This is why it will never make sense to sell OSX for generic HW.
The Chip in the dev platform is reportedly: Nntel Pentium 4 660 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T Again note the EM64T
>Question 3: Where the heck is AMD? To me this is the lamest question people ask. There are so many reason that it would be a much bigger surprise if it were AMD. Want some:
0: Better deal, simpler engineering if you stick with one. 1: Intel provides the whole platform from a single vendor. Massively simplifying engineering the new platform 2: The myriad of reasons that Dell does the same. Most of them Dollars. 3: Pentium-M Laptop platform. 4: Truly massive Fab capacity, vs AMD history of production problems.
>Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers? As said before Developers. Because there is no other way you can give ALL the developers a heads up and keep it a secret.
As I said we are in the territory of Opinion and gauging how the buying public will behave.
The exception is drivers.There are thousands of drivers out there and MS doesn't write them. Manufacturers write them to ensure that there stuff works with windows. Apple will not have that luxury. Until HW vendors are forced to write them(never), there will be largely no Mac HW Support for the installed base.
"They want to switch. You need only look at the growth of Firefox to see that once users have had enough crap and a viable alternative exists, they use it."
Then why don't they use Linux? Do you use Linux? Here is why I think going on open HW will fail. Note: it is highly driven by my opinion on how the human psyche works.
First I am one of those would be switchers fed up with Windows. I have installed Linux twice. Naturally as a dual boot.
Each time it went something like this:
I need to keep windows for games and Apps X, Y, and Z. So I end up in a dual boot maintaining two OS's. Eventually I realize that while I can surf in Linux and do some things, I do more with windows and I use windows more, so why bother maintaining two OS's. So out goes Linux.
And I think the exact same thing would happen if I installed OSX in a dual boot arrangement, it would remain a curiousity used very little.
But I think a psychological shift occurs when you buy a Mac. I think that Mac needs to be a Mac and really dual boot should be made difficult, provide win apps support only on the OSX destop through some virtual framework only. That way you get more buy in on it being your primary.
Bottom line, I don't think any OS can really compete against Windows on open generic HW, the deck is just too heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent.
I have owned ~10 computers in the last 20 years, but never a Mac, but I am now looking forward to getting one. My viewpoint on this differs:
"Now comes the day when they finally can attack Microsoft on their own turf... But instead, they limit their ability to expand their OS YET AGAIN, and choose to build it only on their box."
They are better off selling the complete package. If apple can't create a compelling package who can? Their own HW gives them a wedge to sell their OS. You are also neglecting that they don't have the drivers to run on the majority of PC's out there, it will be narrow release running on their own machines under their control that keeps them reliable and slick. Manageable support burden. All very smart.
"Yes, I know, they're a hardware company... but you know what? If they build hardware competetive with the other makers in price/performance, they have nothing to worry about."
Margins are shot in the PC market even dell want to move upmarket. Apple is already there and next year they get much lower in price without affecting margins. And possible they will have a significant differentiator as the only HW that can run OSX and Windows.
"Or maybe (perish the thought) they just get out of the hardware business if it doesn't work out. The boys over at MS seem to have found a way to make it in the computer world without their own hardware platform."
There is only one MS. Witness the x86 success of Solaris,BeOS, NeXT:-), OS/2 etc... If you try to compete on generic HW agaisn't MS you have to try to fight the bundling deals, the overwhelming market inertia, etc...
"So let me get this straight, you're NOT going to take the opportunity to take installed base from your competition on their own hardware, but you will let them do it to you?!?"
For the same reason you don't want to take MS on its backyard, you don't have to worry about taking them on in yours. Do you really think people are going to buy Macs just to run Windows? Even if they did, who cares, you sold they HW and SW already.
Think about it this way. 2 years from now when you are looking to upgrade, you can buy a high end Dell that runs Windows, or you can buy a Mac for a similar price that runs OSX and Windows. Tell me that is not a competetive advantage. Throw in that Apple has pretty much always had the nicest HW and it is hard to imagine why anyone considering a premium PC would consdier anything but a Mac. This all presupposes that Windows will be easy to get running though.
The generic cheap PCs with no margin will still go to Windows, but I expect Apple will offer Mini like solution to compete here as well. A mini based on Pentium-M with dual boot and Apple quality would again be worth the small premium.
Apple should stay a HW company. There really is no compelling case for them to ditch HW and go SW only especially not at this time when they have no hope of competing on generic HW.
The premium will now be much smaller when they can now leverage the economies of scale of the whole PC industry. Their premium can now be mostly profit margin rather than increased component and engineering costs.
I will gladly pay the premium for a quality engineered, reliable, quiet running, secure platform. By maintaing some control, Apple can ensure a better overall quality/reliability of product.
I would also pay a premium for is painless migration and support of my old windows apps. Either virtualization or dual boot. Something that lets me continue to run my favorite apps/freeware/games without pain.
That would be a machine I would snap up in a second. Very likely this move will get me into a Mac.
I built my last 3 PC's but I am getting tired of sorting HW issues and dealing with windows explosions.
"But couldn't Apple sell their OS to PC users and take on Microsoft in the software realm? Wouldn't this be a lot more profitable to them than just selling their tiny marketplace share of Mac's?"
Problem 1: Massive support problem. NO DRIVERS. There is no way for them to support all these PC configurations. And of course the question remains how many would actually really "purchase" the OS as a second OS, rather than just copy it to play with.
Problem 2:
This part gets more into the realm of opinion. But many OS's try to take on MS in this realm and dissapear. BeOS, OS/2, NextStep:-). Heck Linux is free, what is it's market share on the desktop?
The problem is most people buy their computer with their OS and because of critical mass that OS is windows.
If Apple went open, I think it would be a downward spiral to oblivion. HW buisness would be killed by cheap clones. The OS would blow up all over the place on unsupported HW and Windows would reign supreme and Apple would have no market.
I believe Apple is doing the right move by remaining an integrated complete platform seller. By keeping control, they can sell a slick premium, reliable, package and command a price premium. They have me thinking about getting my first Mac. If the story is good for running my legacy PC apps, I am there. Apple HW engineering, slick reliable, secure OS and support for my legacy PC apps. Hello!
If they go open, they lose the HW biz, they will lose reliability on the SW side, because of the vast wasteland of Legacy PCs they can hope to support and they will join BeOS in the dustbin of history.
That is not to say they never go open, over the next few years they can add support for new HW that comes on the market gradually.
Then if they decide condition are in their favor, in say 5 years, they can go open, and support most of the recent HW without pain.
But frankly, if windows App support is flawless, and with no speed hit. Macs will be in high demand as the safe reliable machine that you can migrate to, but still run windows stuff if you must.
I never owned a Mac, but I am very interested in this development.
"The BIOS is easy to bypass though: the O/S can be hacked not to call it."
This Bios may contain primitive driver code etc. It is hard to say how difficult it will be. It will be the domain of hackers.
Also you are forgetting what it is like to have an OS without drivers. Are you going to also write the missing drivers for any non standard HW you have.
It may be done but it won't lead to widespread installation of OSX on generic PC's.
Once people find out what chipset and MB components are, they may be able hack running the OSX on a generic using the same components.
Also consider that Intel is getting into DRM, they could apply some of that tech to the chipset and bios to make it unique.
Also count on Apple being very vigorous with the C&D letter with DMCA worded in there.
I agree it will be broken, but I don't think it will be widespread at all.
Either way it will be an intersting year on many fronts.
The bios will almost certainly be Unique to Apple, possibly encrypted and locked down with DMCA.
Could be other architecture changes to make it unique as well.
But I would bet they stay pretty close to mainstream to take full advantage of economies of scale. Might even get Intel to deliver the whole package. CPU + Chipset + motherboard + some intel DRM and a custom DRM'd bios = no clones.
Slashdot Mirror
Dell said "offer to our customers", in that in the option box for some PC's you could select OSX instead of Windows.
The result would be lower winXP pricing, to price OSX out of the market and lower bundling prices of office, and of course no more Office for Mac. This would help kill OSX on Dells for PC buyers.
But Mac buyers would still shop Dells against Macs, killing Mac HW sales or profit margins.
Yep, I am sure Steve J. is just waiting to get into a price war on two fronts...
No spyware?
I made the mistake of installing DivX once from their web site. Damn thing installed gator spyware that was a MAJOR hassle trying to get rid of even after removing DivX. Never will I support this crap compny again.
This was the only spyware that I ever had, and it was because DivX was so prevalent that I trusted them. Never again.
Spyware me once, then screw you forever.
Having OSX run on low end junk would do Apple little good. The whole package buisness model makes sense for Apple and they should stick with it.
m l.
I still think they will expand their market share and increase appeal among former PC users even if the OS is locked against running on generics, and cruicually, is open for dual booting windows. It becomes the perfect migration path.
I have been a Wintel user for years, but if my next machine can be a mac OSX machine, that can also dual boot into windows, that will be a significant differentiator. So I will be considering Mac HW for my next computer.
I am so intrigued by this idea that all my PC HW purchase plans are off the table until the MacIntels appear. Not the Osborne Effect everyone was expecting eh. Macs announcement has me killing a Wintel purchase plans while I wait.
Ergonomics (esp noise) and design do matter to me, so I never buy crappy low end PC cases/junk power supplies etc, so it is not like I am getting $300 computers anyway.
If I don't get a MacIntel next, I am thinking this will be my next case:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article249-page1.ht
That is $160 just for the case with no PS. Custom build choosing high quality components and you get close to Mac prices anyway. I strongly suspect Apple will have some really nice lower priced Mini type computers for those who are price sensitive.
IMO those who want junk commodity HW probably don't care that much about getting a high quality OS (if they actually even purchase it).
Go MacIntel.
All those geeks who want to hack the OS to work on standard PC's are going to most likely need a compatible Intel chipset, and of course and Intel CPU to go with it.
Definitely this was a brilliant move on Intels part.
Easier/cheaper to use the standard architecture rather than re-invent the wheel.
They may also see the dual booting to windows as an advantage that brings in former windows users (like me).
"It's hubris like this that caused the fall of Standard Oil. :) MS is starting to loose mindshare since people are getting tired of an insecure OS."
We can only hope, I am no MS fan and I would change to another OS if it supported everything I want to run. But in reality if you are reasonably carefull you really don't have to worry about the security issues with windows. Just don't use IE/Outlook, use a firewall and don't install crap unless you know it is spyware free. The only people likely to install another OS have the ability to manage the security issues.
"Most people don't really care what OS a computer runs, only that it will run what they want it to."
No disagreement. I just don't believe the theory that releasing OSX for generic HW is the panacea that most here make it out to be, like overnight everyone will format their HD and dump windows.
Part of this reason is exactly that most people don't care and most people don't want to be bothered reinstalling their OS.
"For the vast majority of non-technocratic computer users, OS X does everything they need"
This hasn't changed with a move to x86. If the Mac OS is all they need, why didn't they all buy Mini's?
These non technocratic folks, as you put it, seem unlikely to install a totally new OS. You don't need to be a geek to use Linux, just to install it.
There is one simple critical fact that will never change. The vast majority of people will use the OS that ships with their computers and that will never change.
Windows succeeds on the sales of Dells, OSX will sink or swim on the sales of Macs.
Selling an OS that is not tied to HW is a doomed enterprise. A big part of the Microsoft push has always been about getting their OS bundled with Hardware.
Once enabling SW like an OS reaches critical Mass, like windows, it is virtually unstoppable, unmovable force. It becomes irrelavent which OS is technicaly better. The incumbent is now the recipient of a beneficial catch 22. It is the OS everyone must use because it has all the applications. Correspondingly it is where all the applications are being devopoped, because everyone is using it. Breaking this cycle is virtually impossible.
You could give OSX x86 away for free and it would not dent windows market share and would gain no development traction, because it would be second fiddle OS for geeks to play with, but everyone would stick with windows as their core. Since everyone would probably have Windows as well, developers would just keep targetting windows.
There has been no shortage of desktop x86 OS contenders. OS/2, BeOS, Solaris x86, FreeBSD, Linux and yes NextStep.
Tell me which one has a market share to speak of, which one has comercial software being developed for it?
Apples best strategy is remain captive to it's HW and offering a premium HW/SW experience rather than becoming another Windows casualty on the desktop.
No OS can take on windows on the desktop and survive, let alone thrive. Apple is much better off sticking to their own HW.
Geez, what makes more sense? a corporate conspiracy to have everyone pirate your sw and destroy your HW biz. Or some individual idiot working at a SW Dev looking for some notoriety.
And all those thinking this will benefit Apple, are smoking from the same Crack Pipe.
Those who pirate the OS to sit alongside windows are never going to buy it. It will always be second fiddle to their windows install that has all the applications. A curiousity to play with and if they decide to keep it around, well they will just look for a newer version to pirate.
Yes. Since I can't mod you up I will add my agreement.
I watched III and thought it was horrible, so afterwards I popped in ANH and found that it was much better because the actor natural charisma and character that comes across (Namely Guiness and Ford). That is only on the acting, but on a variety of other levels it is the better movie...
When I first saw the news, I thought, Apple is going to get nailed by the Osborne effect. Who wants to buy the old machines, I know my purchase decisions are on hold.
But there is one crucial difference. I am a PC user, and I wasn't really thinking about buying a Mac. Now all of a sudden I am thinking of this new Mac and I am putting off any PC purchase plan, because this is possibly a good migration case from PC's.
But what about Mac users? If they really want a Mac the more powerful ones may remain Altivec based G5s and they can expect support for quite a while. So maybe they are better off with PPC macs for a bit of time.
Is it possible that this will cause more "Waiting" among curious PC users like myself than actual committed Mac users??
Something to think about.
There have been a multitude of slashdot stories posted all filled with angst ridden comments. But the simple fact is this move, while it may hurt in the short term simply had to be done, or the consequences would have been worse in the long term.
Quite simply IBM was not competetive, had very little driving it to be competetive with general desktop CPU's. To hang on in hopes of better days ahead would have been easy destructive way out.
Now Apple will NEVER again have to worry about having to fall behind on the CPU curve. It can tap the dominant x86 rivalry to always get the best chips going.
There are added bonuses of common architecture for code porters, and better migration paths (dual boot/wine) for windows escapees.
I have never purchased an Apple Product before, so I don't think I am subject to the reported Steve Jobs RDF, but I am keen on this move and the possability of getting an x86 Mac.
"Interesting point, however I'm not 100% sure if its true. Keep in mind the "Windows = OS/X" machines only count if the user bought Windows as well as MacOS/X."
I was talking about the case where OSX is offered for sale for use on generic HW. In which case most users are already running windows.
"In any case, i'm of the opinion that platform is quickly becoming irrelevant as far as software development goes, and Microsoft are aware of this. "
Completely disagree here. This is the cornerstone of the Monopoly. It is "THE" software development platform. MS has a a huge Horde of cash, so it can afford, octopus like, to challeng all markets from game machines to Cell Phones, and it is doing so, but that doesn't lessen the importance of the desktop market which it already owns. But that is the key, it already owns it all. Not much to pursue, but if challenged it will not give it up without a significant fight.
Just offerring the OS for the same price doesn't level the playing field. MS holds all the cards by being the incumbent. You could give OSX away for free and it wouldn't really be a threat.
If offered both here is what would happen. I would order the computer with OSX and when it arrived, I would then set it to dual boot with my current copy of Win2k.
In my opinion that is what the majority of OSX buyers would do as well. So even if there were massive market penatration by OSX it would quickly look something like this: (grossly oversimplified to make a point)
Windows Only Machines: 60%
OSX + Windows Machines: 40%
Now can you does this 40% penetration lead to wonderfull goodness? NO! it leads to the end of OSX.
Because a SW Dev will look at the above an realize he only has to write Windows Apps to target 100% of the market. OSX can be ignored completely.
This is why it will never make sense to sell OSX for generic HW.
>Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
2 E16819116198
Dissapearing as we speak and that is part of the reason for the move.
>Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
intel Pentium 4 630 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
$289 NOTE the EMT64T.
The Chip in the dev platform is reportedly:
Nntel Pentium 4 660 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
Again note the EM64T
>Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
To me this is the lamest question people ask. There are so many reason that it would be a much bigger surprise if it were AMD. Want some:
0: Better deal, simpler engineering if you stick with one.
1: Intel provides the whole platform from a single vendor. Massively simplifying engineering the new platform
2: The myriad of reasons that Dell does the same. Most of them Dollars.
3: Pentium-M Laptop platform.
4: Truly massive Fab capacity, vs AMD history of production problems.
>Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
As said before Developers. Because there is no other way you can give ALL the developers a heads up and keep it a secret.
This guy comes across as someone who slipped off his meds and he gets paid for it.
Is there somewhere I can apply to work in this racket, it seems like more fun than my day job.
As I said we are in the territory of Opinion and gauging how the buying public will behave.
The exception is drivers.There are thousands of drivers out there and MS doesn't write them. Manufacturers write them to ensure that there stuff works with windows. Apple will not have that luxury. Until HW vendors are forced to write them(never), there will be largely no Mac HW Support for the installed base.
"They want to switch. You need only look at the growth of Firefox to see that once users have had enough crap and a viable alternative exists, they use it."
Then why don't they use Linux? Do you use Linux? Here is why I think going on open HW will fail. Note: it is highly driven by my opinion on how the human psyche works.
First I am one of those would be switchers fed up with Windows. I have installed Linux twice. Naturally as a dual boot.
Each time it went something like this:
I need to keep windows for games and Apps X, Y, and Z. So I end up in a dual boot maintaining two OS's. Eventually I realize that while I can surf in Linux and do some things, I do more with windows and I use windows more, so why bother maintaining two OS's. So out goes Linux.
And I think the exact same thing would happen if I installed OSX in a dual boot arrangement, it would remain a curiousity used very little.
But I think a psychological shift occurs when you buy a Mac. I think that Mac needs to be a Mac and really dual boot should be made difficult, provide win apps support only on the OSX destop through some virtual framework only. That way you get more buy in on it being your primary.
Bottom line, I don't think any OS can really compete against Windows on open generic HW, the deck is just too heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent.
I have owned ~10 computers in the last 20 years, but never a Mac, but I am now looking forward to getting one. My viewpoint on this differs:
:-), OS/2 etc... If you try to compete on generic HW agaisn't MS you have to try to fight the bundling deals, the overwhelming market inertia, etc...
"Now comes the day when they finally can attack Microsoft on their own turf... But instead, they limit their ability to expand their OS YET AGAIN, and choose to build it only on their box."
They are better off selling the complete package. If apple can't create a compelling package who can? Their own HW gives them a wedge to sell their OS. You are also neglecting that they don't have the drivers to run on the majority of PC's out there, it will be narrow release running on their own machines under their control that keeps them reliable and slick. Manageable support burden. All very smart.
"Yes, I know, they're a hardware company... but you know what? If they build hardware competetive with the other makers in price/performance, they have nothing to worry about."
Margins are shot in the PC market even dell want to move upmarket. Apple is already there and next year they get much lower in price without affecting margins. And possible they will have a significant differentiator as the only HW that can run OSX and Windows.
"Or maybe (perish the thought) they just get out of the hardware business if it doesn't work out. The boys over at MS seem to have found a way to make it in the computer world without their own hardware platform."
There is only one MS. Witness the x86 success of Solaris,BeOS, NeXT
"So let me get this straight, you're NOT going to take the opportunity to take installed base from your competition on their own hardware, but you will let them do it to you?!?"
For the same reason you don't want to take MS on its backyard, you don't have to worry about taking them on in yours. Do you really think people are going to buy Macs just to run Windows? Even if they did, who cares, you sold they HW and SW already.
Think about it this way. 2 years from now when you are looking to upgrade, you can buy a high end Dell that runs Windows, or you can buy a Mac for a similar price that runs OSX and Windows. Tell me that is not a competetive advantage. Throw in that Apple has pretty much always had the nicest HW and it is hard to imagine why anyone considering a premium PC would consdier anything but a Mac. This all presupposes that Windows will be easy to get running though.
The generic cheap PCs with no margin will still go to Windows, but I expect Apple will offer Mini like solution to compete here as well. A mini based on Pentium-M with dual boot and Apple quality would again be worth the small premium.
Apple should stay a HW company. There really is no compelling case for them to ditch HW and go SW only especially not at this time when they have no hope of competing on generic HW.
The premium will now be much smaller when they can now leverage the economies of scale of the whole PC industry. Their premium can now be mostly profit margin rather than increased component and engineering costs.
I will gladly pay the premium for a quality engineered, reliable, quiet running, secure platform. By maintaing some control, Apple can ensure a better overall quality/reliability of product.
I would also pay a premium for is painless migration and support of my old windows apps. Either virtualization or dual boot. Something that lets me continue to run my favorite apps/freeware/games without pain.
That would be a machine I would snap up in a second. Very likely this move will get me into a Mac.
I built my last 3 PC's but I am getting tired of sorting HW issues and dealing with windows explosions.
"But couldn't Apple sell their OS to PC users and take on Microsoft in the software realm? Wouldn't this be a lot more profitable to them than just selling their tiny marketplace share of Mac's?"
:-). Heck Linux is free, what is it's market share on the desktop?
Problem 1:
Massive support problem. NO DRIVERS. There is no way for them to support all these PC configurations. And of course the question remains how many would actually really "purchase" the OS as a second OS, rather than just copy it to play with.
Problem 2:
This part gets more into the realm of opinion. But many OS's try to take on MS in this realm and dissapear. BeOS, OS/2, NextStep
The problem is most people buy their computer with their OS and because of critical mass that OS is windows.
If Apple went open, I think it would be a downward spiral to oblivion. HW buisness would be killed by cheap clones. The OS would blow up all over the place on unsupported HW and Windows would reign supreme and Apple would have no market.
I believe Apple is doing the right move by remaining an integrated complete platform seller. By keeping control, they can sell a slick premium, reliable, package and command a price premium. They have me thinking about getting my first Mac. If the story is good for running my legacy PC apps, I am there. Apple HW engineering, slick reliable, secure OS and support for my legacy PC apps. Hello!
If they go open, they lose the HW biz, they will lose reliability on the SW side, because of the vast wasteland of Legacy PCs they can hope to support and they will join BeOS in the dustbin of history.
That is not to say they never go open, over the next few years they can add support for new HW that comes on the market gradually.
Then if they decide condition are in their favor, in say 5 years, they can go open, and support most of the recent HW without pain.
But frankly, if windows App support is flawless, and with no speed hit. Macs will be in high demand as the safe reliable machine that you can migrate to, but still run windows stuff if you must.
I never owned a Mac, but I am very interested in this development.
"The BIOS is easy to bypass though: the O/S can be hacked not to call it."
This Bios may contain primitive driver code etc. It is hard to say how difficult it will be. It will be the domain of hackers.
Also you are forgetting what it is like to have an OS without drivers. Are you going to also write the missing drivers for any non standard HW you have.
It may be done but it won't lead to widespread installation of OSX on generic PC's.
Once people find out what chipset and MB components are, they may be able hack running the OSX on a generic using the same components.
Also consider that Intel is getting into DRM, they could apply some of that tech to the chipset and bios to make it unique.
Also count on Apple being very vigorous with the C&D letter with DMCA worded in there.
I agree it will be broken, but I don't think it will be widespread at all.
Either way it will be an intersting year on many fronts.
Someone posted this previously. In there it mentions 32bit.
o nceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C
The bios will almost certainly be Unique to Apple, possibly encrypted and locked down with DMCA.
Could be other architecture changes to make it unique as well.
But I would bet they stay pretty close to mainstream to take full advantage of economies of scale. Might even get Intel to deliver the whole package. CPU + Chipset + motherboard + some intel DRM and a custom DRM'd bios = no clones.
The market is very fickle and driven by short term results.
PPC Mac sales are going to get crushed for the next few quarters, so look for a stock dip, plus there is risk, the market hates risk.
I believe this is a good move long term, but short term it will be messy.