Point taken. However, this doesn't make the profit on a copy of Mac OS X 100%. Some analysts claim that the revenue form standalone Mac OS X may not even cover the R&D costs. I generally don't believe analysts, so don't hold me to that, but it is possible that there is no profit on Mac OS per se. And as for the bundled copies with new Macs, it becomes a bit too complicated - one may argue that the profit is on the hardware, not the software.
Besides, how much will Apple be able to expand their market share in aggressive competition with the monstrous giant Microsoft is?
Did I say they don't deserve my product? Oooops, I didn't.
I said they don't deserve the additional effort I would have to put to support their particular system, only because Macs were too pricey or too fancy for them. And I stand firmly behind my words. If they buy my product they will expect me, and rightfully so, not to spare any effort to ensure what they payed for is up and running. However, they will pay just the same for my product whether I should support it only on Macs or on every possible combination of PC components. And it is unjustified to expect the later - the main gripe has always been that Macs are too pricey, but now you have the inexpensive Mac mini and the relatively inexpensive iMac, and with the switch to x86 Macs will become only cheaper. Therefore, no need for all the "Mac OS X for the masses" whining.
Oh, and by the way, it looks like chicks really love "raving loons", judging by how they fawn over the guys with Powerbooks in the local coffee shop.
Why? The profit on a $2000 workstation is around 10%. The profit on a $200 OS is around 100%[1]. And the $2000 workstation has a lot of associated costs (shipping of large things, warehousing of components that depreciate in value very quickly, etc.)
[1] Unit profit, ignoring R&D costs.
Yeah, and, ignoring manufacturing and logistic costs, the profit on the workstation becomes $2000 and Apple are evil bastards for charging me for something that is practically free.
By monopolizing the hardware Apple is just as evil if not worse than Microsoft. The one great thing about the x86 platform was that we could put what operating system we wanted on it.
Apple is bringing to the x86 world that it is okay to lock consumers into your own brand of hardware. This is not the direction we need to go.
too many people excuse Apple's actions just because they are Apple. After what Apple did to the original Mac clone makers it makes one wonder how anyone can excuse them. Perhaps its just "correct" to continue to excuse their obviously monopolistic activities because a lot of geeks think they are cool (and all so not Microsoft)
This moderated as +3 Insightful just blasted my brain in outer space! WTF?
Would you, Shivetya, or any of the brilliant moderators please care to define for me monopolizing the hardware? Did I miss the announcement that Apple are buying out both Intel and AMD?
I think it's high time you guys up your intelligence. Apple make the hardware. Apple make the software. Apple says this software runs (or should be used only on, it makes little difference) this hardware. Nothing illegal, immoral or evil. Moreover, Apple's Phil Schiller publicly declared that the company would not do anything to prevent you form running Windows Whatever on your next Powerbook (assuming it will be a x86 one). This is hardly monopoly in any sense.
Your whole reasoning sounds to me like one of a 12 year old or that of an extremely stingy person.
Mods, please read and think before you click on the drop-down menu.
I get the feeling that you're saying that you don't want to OSX on cheap computers because then, anyone could be working using it.
Your OSX system is a status symbol like Lexus.
I won't argue the status symbol part, because generally you are right about it.
But what's wrong with not wanting anyone and their grandma' to be using Mac OS X on some cheapshit of a computer form a nameless chinese manufacturer?
I don't want you to use Mac OS X like that for two reasons. One, Apple's OS is what it is because there were morons like me and, I presume, the grandparent who were/are buying Macs all those years, while you were whining how overpriced and crappy they are and touting the superiority of Windows base PCs. Two, Mac OS X on a myriad of "yellow" PCs may make my life as developer a living hell, something I were avoiding up to now, and I don't think you, being such a cheapskate and all, deserve such a sacrifice on my part.
All in all, EVERYBODY can use Mac OS X - just buy a Mac (be it a PowerPC or x86).
im surprised apple isnt loathed yet, being that they are the first company to actually USE Treacherous Computing in their computers. It is required to boot OSX. but of course, apple fanboys blindly follow their parent company.
Interesting?!?! WTF? What are the mods smoking these days?
Unfortunately the site got slashdoted too fast and I couldn't RTFA, but if this is another "Mac OS X will beat the crap out of Windows if only Apple would release it for generic x86" kinda' rant, it is one too many.
I, for one, think Apple are better off being a "niche" OEM and having BIG profit margins from quality hardware, bought because of their quality software. They just can't win against Microsoft's huminguous financial (and marketing) power. On the other hand Apple are #4 in the US after Dell, HP, Gateway and before Lenovo. And are still growing. Sticking with their tried and tested marketing model is the best they can do now. One day, who knows, but not in the foreseeable future.
What's wrong with you people? Enough with all this conspiracy theories. Does this dude really expect us to believe that Apple got into all this trouble of switching CPU architectures because of some not-really-ready not-really-standard? He himself says:
Microsoft realized it couldn't force this down the manufacturers' throats, so it formed the TCG to give it the veneer of respectability and "open standards."
My dictionary sais that "open standard" is by definition platform independant!
Seriously, every reason beyond simple economics is complete nonsence. Apple switches to Intel x86 because thus they will get very, very cheap CPUs, which are just as fast as everybody else's, without investing huge sums in R&D, and geting nice chipsets as a bonus. That's it, period!
I don't want to dis the (obviously) pretty good designers of Art. Lebedev Studio, but do we have a proof that this is even a prototype? For all I see it may just as well be a great idea with a good design, created in Maya (or whatever). Prety picture != real (or even conceivable) product.
Keyboard design needed something like this for a long time now, but will it ever become a real market product?
Then why default to an obscure file system. THE WORLD USES ISO 9660 or Juliet. I haven't seen a system out there that can't read those systems. Oh wait, Apple has to be different, can't follow industry standards. No wonder they are such a niche player.
Although I'm not a mind reader, therefore I can't know exactly why Apple engineers chose to default to HFS+, this is my wild-ass guess - HFS+ has the ability to save "extended attributes" is a file stream attached to the file itself. These "extended attributes" range from ACLs and filetype information (aka Uniform Type Identifier) to arbitrary metadata (probably to be utilized in the next iteration of Spotlight). On non-HFS+ filesystems this extra stream is saved as additional "._file". I think that most people will be rather confused by these "._file"s (duh, they can happen to be visible on the system the CD is opened). So if you know that the disc you are burning will be used only on Macs (hence the "Burn for Mac") it is much better to write a HFS+ one and preserve the metadata in an (invisible) stream, no?
Not reading the options you choose is YOUR problem not Apple's.
Anyone who thinks the switch to Intel is not all about cheaper components has surely lost their mind...
If you are implying that the switch to Intel CPUs is because of Pentium's incredible performance, clock speed, superior design or whatnot, I can only say bullshit! IBM (and probably Freescale) are perfectly capable of pushing the very flexible PPC architecture beyond anything Intel can come up with (just like they are able to make POWER5 better performer than Xeon, and even than Itanium). The problem with PowerPC (and every other esoteric CPU architeture) is that there is no generic, fit-all chip, and therefore anything Apple uses will be custom tailored for them, therefore being produced in relatively small batches, therefore being very expensive. And it seems IBM wants (probably rightfully so) to be payed even only for the development of a new chip.
Both of these downsides are not present for x86 - Intel makes a living of developing and selling chips, hence finances the R&D, and because they build huge amounts of those, they are able to sell them very cheaply. Not to mention the competition of AMD.
If not this, what would be the reason for the switch then?
That is a 25+% profit margin on computer sales. To think this is going to chance is pure fantasy.
Do you think Apple will be able to keep such big profit margin once the switch is made? Do you think Joe Average, Jane Average and their grandmother will be willing to pay $500 premium on their 3.6GHz Macintel to a seemingly equal 3.6GHz Dell? Up to now Apple systems' prices were justified by the exotic hardware (i.e. PowerPC CPUs) inside. Once they start using off-the-shelf Intel chips many people (especially business customers) will ask themselves why are they paying more.
Does this mean that Xgrid may also hit the Windows side of the moon?
I don't have too much knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Xgrid, but ZeroConf networking seems to me the first step to porting it on Windows. After all, it is not too much different than distributed number crunching projects (e.g. SETI@Home), or is it?
I'm pretty sure I had enough of this CoreImage_on_a_Mac mini!
I don't see anyone in their right mind using mini for hadcore image or video manipulation! No one!
And as far as iLife'06 will utilise CoreImage the performance of the mini will be just fine - not too much of realtime effects but enough to make a christmass DVD to send to your grandma.
It is the other innovations in Tiger (i.e. Spotlight, Automator, etc.) that are to make a difference, not the ripple in Dashboard!
Re:I just need to post my comments.
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
I know im going to get flamed, but it really pisses me off when people complain and complain about windows, yet I bet almost 75% of them are compaining about it, on a windows machine. If you dont like windows, dont use it, dont bitch about it. Your statement of simply not using it is more then enough.
I, for one, most certainly am (on a windows machine) and most certainly will (switch to another OS, namely Mac OS X). But you saying all this that you said is just as pointless and redundant as me saying I don't really like Windows.
BTW there are some flaws i your arguments:
If a user thinks they can buy a world-wide, huge market piece of product and simply plug it in and be totally secure, your sadly mistaken. If you dont have a firewall, its your fault, not the OS.
You are terribly wrong here. Linux and *BSD (including Mac OS X) do come with a firewall integrated in their kernels. In most (sadly not all) cases they also come with a pretty good, robust and secure configuration for the firewall OUT OF THE BOX. And those are minor players, with niche markets. If you are a "world-wide, huge market piece of product" you can definitely expect to be a target of attacks and so, if you value your customers, you should make sure they get the best security OUT OF THE BOX. Microsoft didn't.
Of course I may have gotten ad-ware/spyware, but when your the biggest player in the market these virus/adware/spyware writers are going to target your product. If OSX was as big as Windows is, there would be just as many problems.
People don't write viruses and malware for *NIX because it is dificult enough not to be worth the effort. On the contrary, Windows is like leaving your front door open, throwing the keys on the front lawn, and putting all your valuable possessions on a trolley in front of the garage. And all this when Microsoft KNOWS they are the biggest player on the market and WILL most probably be the prime target!
I know you'll be happy using Windows and I'm fine with it. I also know I'll be happily using Mac OS X and I'm fine with it. But please, DO NOT THROW AROUND THE USUAL MIROSOFT FUD AS A FACT. It is not! And there are others that may be influenced in their decisions by that.
Oh, give me a break! Better Web apps? More access to local resources? Developpers with more freedom to expand their sites?
Microsoft don't want to implement someting as simple as CSS2 in their next version of IE and you honestly believe they will be willing (or able for that matter) to make Windows a good, robust Web app platform. Besides, with their history of extremely *stable and secure* software, giving more power to remote apps is just a cry for being bitchsplapped with the next generation of malware.
Beware, 'cause this may turn out to be a big flop like Active Desktop!
The problem is, I have yet to see an interface for *nix that does as good as job as windows does of 'packing everything under the hood' and making an operating system that (as a friend of mine, the chief sysadmin for Connectiv would say) "protects users from their own stupidity".
Apple's Aqua for Mac OS X does a fairly good job in that respect. It is not for Linux, nor it does the same job as Windows, but it's for *nix (BSD) and is pretty "user-friendly" (i.e. you do not have to get your hands dirty if you don't want to).
Such a setup is so insanely great! (except for the mutilation of the DVI connector, ouch...)
If only this guy can also tell me how to find the insanely huge sum for two 30" Cinema HDs.
Personally, I would rather see five hours of genuine H2G2 movie, than an hour and a half of soup.
The review (short version)left me with the impression that the problem is not in the amount of stuff left out of the movie, but rather in the lack of consistency in the plot and, even more importantly, the absence of Adams' witty, edgy humor. If this is true, it doesn't matter how long (or short) the movie is. There is simply no H2G2 without humor.
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken. However, this doesn't make the profit on a copy of Mac OS X 100%. Some analysts claim that the revenue form standalone Mac OS X may not even cover the R&D costs. I generally don't believe analysts, so don't hold me to that, but it is possible that there is no profit on Mac OS per se. And as for the bundled copies with new Macs, it becomes a bit too complicated - one may argue that the profit is on the hardware, not the software.
Besides, how much will Apple be able to expand their market share in aggressive competition with the monstrous giant Microsoft is?
Did I say they don't deserve my product? Oooops, I didn't.
I said they don't deserve the additional effort I would have to put to support their particular system, only because Macs were too pricey or too fancy for them. And I stand firmly behind my words. If they buy my product they will expect me, and rightfully so, not to spare any effort to ensure what they payed for is up and running. However, they will pay just the same for my product whether I should support it only on Macs or on every possible combination of PC components. And it is unjustified to expect the later - the main gripe has always been that Macs are too pricey, but now you have the inexpensive Mac mini and the relatively inexpensive iMac, and with the switch to x86 Macs will become only cheaper. Therefore, no need for all the "Mac OS X for the masses" whining.
Oh, and by the way, it looks like chicks really love "raving loons", judging by how they fawn over the guys with Powerbooks in the local coffee shop.
I think it's high time you guys up your intelligence. Apple make the hardware. Apple make the software. Apple says this software runs (or should be used only on, it makes little difference) this hardware. Nothing illegal, immoral or evil. Moreover, Apple's Phil Schiller publicly declared that the company would not do anything to prevent you form running Windows Whatever on your next Powerbook (assuming it will be a x86 one). This is hardly monopoly in any sense.
Your whole reasoning sounds to me like one of a 12 year old or that of an extremely stingy person.
Mods, please read and think before you click on the drop-down menu.
But what's wrong with not wanting anyone and their grandma' to be using Mac OS X on some cheapshit of a computer form a nameless chinese manufacturer?
I don't want you to use Mac OS X like that for two reasons. One, Apple's OS is what it is because there were morons like me and, I presume, the grandparent who were/are buying Macs all those years, while you were whining how overpriced and crappy they are and touting the superiority of Windows base PCs. Two, Mac OS X on a myriad of "yellow" PCs may make my life as developer a living hell, something I were avoiding up to now, and I don't think you, being such a cheapskate and all, deserve such a sacrifice on my part.
All in all, EVERYBODY can use Mac OS X - just buy a Mac (be it a PowerPC or x86).
Unfortunately the site got slashdoted too fast and I couldn't RTFA, but if this is another "Mac OS X will beat the crap out of Windows if only Apple would release it for generic x86" kinda' rant, it is one too many.
I, for one, think Apple are better off being a "niche" OEM and having BIG profit margins from quality hardware, bought because of their quality software. They just can't win against Microsoft's huminguous financial (and marketing) power. On the other hand Apple are #4 in the US after Dell, HP, Gateway and before Lenovo. And are still growing. Sticking with their tried and tested marketing model is the best they can do now. One day, who knows, but not in the foreseeable future.
Seriously, every reason beyond simple economics is complete nonsence. Apple switches to Intel x86 because thus they will get very, very cheap CPUs, which are just as fast as everybody else's, without investing huge sums in R&D, and geting nice chipsets as a bonus. That's it, period!
I don't want to dis the (obviously) pretty good designers of Art. Lebedev Studio, but do we have a proof that this is even a prototype? For all I see it may just as well be a great idea with a good design, created in Maya (or whatever). Prety picture != real (or even conceivable) product.
Keyboard design needed something like this for a long time now, but will it ever become a real market product?
Oh, right, not due the Rosetta stuff, due the universal binaries.
Anyone who thinks the switch to Intel is not all about cheaper components has surely lost their mind...
If you are implying that the switch to Intel CPUs is because of Pentium's incredible performance, clock speed, superior design or whatnot, I can only say bullshit! IBM (and probably Freescale) are perfectly capable of pushing the very flexible PPC architecture beyond anything Intel can come up with (just like they are able to make POWER5 better performer than Xeon, and even than Itanium). The problem with PowerPC (and every other esoteric CPU architeture) is that there is no generic, fit-all chip, and therefore anything Apple uses will be custom tailored for them, therefore being produced in relatively small batches, therefore being very expensive. And it seems IBM wants (probably rightfully so) to be payed even only for the development of a new chip.
Both of these downsides are not present for x86 - Intel makes a living of developing and selling chips, hence finances the R&D, and because they build huge amounts of those, they are able to sell them very cheaply. Not to mention the competition of AMD.
If not this, what would be the reason for the switch then?
Back in the good old times, we were much more agitated by, say, Miss October. And you nowadays...
There are plenty of ways (not involving Hell) to make h.264 capable iPod - from Connexant, Broadcom, STMicroelectronics, Sigma Design and probably many others.
:)))
Not that I can come up with a reason why Apple would want to do such a thing, but there are definitely ways to do it.
And, since you are a lunatik, I don't think you are in position to tell others whether they are dreaming or not!
Does this mean that Xgrid may also hit the Windows side of the moon?
I don't have too much knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Xgrid, but ZeroConf networking seems to me the first step to porting it on Windows. After all, it is not too much different than distributed number crunching projects (e.g. SETI@Home), or is it?
I'm pretty sure I had enough of this CoreImage_on_a_Mac mini!
I don't see anyone in their right mind using mini for hadcore image or video manipulation! No one!
And as far as iLife'06 will utilise CoreImage the performance of the mini will be just fine - not too much of realtime effects but enough to make a christmass DVD to send to your grandma.
It is the other innovations in Tiger (i.e. Spotlight, Automator, etc.) that are to make a difference, not the ripple in Dashboard!
BTW there are some flaws i your arguments: You are terribly wrong here. Linux and *BSD (including Mac OS X) do come with a firewall integrated in their kernels. In most (sadly not all) cases they also come with a pretty good, robust and secure configuration for the firewall OUT OF THE BOX. And those are minor players, with niche markets. If you are a "world-wide, huge market piece of product" you can definitely expect to be a target of attacks and so, if you value your customers, you should make sure they get the best security OUT OF THE BOX. Microsoft didn't. People don't write viruses and malware for *NIX because it is dificult enough not to be worth the effort. On the contrary, Windows is like leaving your front door open, throwing the keys on the front lawn, and putting all your valuable possessions on a trolley in front of the garage. And all this when Microsoft KNOWS they are the biggest player on the market and WILL most probably be the prime target!
I know you'll be happy using Windows and I'm fine with it. I also know I'll be happily using Mac OS X and I'm fine with it. But please, DO NOT THROW AROUND THE USUAL MIROSOFT FUD AS A FACT. It is not! And there are others that may be influenced in their decisions by that.
Oh, give me a break! Better Web apps? More access to local resources? Developpers with more freedom to expand their sites?
Microsoft don't want to implement someting as simple as CSS2 in their next version of IE and you honestly believe they will be willing (or able for that matter) to make Windows a good, robust Web app platform. Besides, with their history of extremely *stable and secure* software, giving more power to remote apps is just a cry for being bitchsplapped with the next generation of malware.
Beware, 'cause this may turn out to be a big flop like Active Desktop!
Such a setup is so insanely great! (except for the mutilation of the DVI connector, ouch...) If only this guy can also tell me how to find the insanely huge sum for two 30" Cinema HDs.
Personally, I would rather see five hours of genuine H2G2 movie, than an hour and a half of soup.
The review (short version)left me with the impression that the problem is not in the amount of stuff left out of the movie, but rather in the lack of consistency in the plot and, even more importantly, the absence of Adams' witty, edgy humor. If this is true, it doesn't matter how long (or short) the movie is. There is simply no H2G2 without humor.
Have you seen this good movie called "The Terminal".
Well, if you lose your US passport in Canada, you'll feel like Tom Hanks' character is a lucky son of a b...
You get my drift.