As long as Apple ties the OS to its own hardware, it will not significantly reverse its share loss. Look at the numbers. Share has fallen for 10 or 12 years. Unit shipments even are lower than they were in 2000. Moving to Intel will not affect this. The problem is not the suppliers of the components. The problem is, not enough people want to buy closed source hardware/software. There are some, but not enough
The question started out as: will the move to Intel threaten Linux. The answer is no, it will not threaten anyone. It will make no difference to Linux, Windows or Amiga what component suppliers Apple uses.
One understands this is not very nice for Apple and its adherents, and that they would much rather focus on whether Linux is doing well or better, or is as good or better. That isn't the issue. The issue is, can you get to significant market share while being a unitary supplier of OS and proprietary hardware. The answer from history is no.
Now, if they were to release the OS, maybe they could be a threat, and not only to Linux. But if they are telling the truth, that is exactly what they do not intend to do. Amiga, here we come.
Well, I don't agree that Linux isn't in the running for the home, but was making a different point. That is, XP and X are not in the same league. Apple is simply not competition for MS, any more than Amiga is. Has not been for many years now. That war is over. The numbers speak for themselves. The question people need to answer is: how to get market share up, and to what level? I would say, to be viable, and to be a force in the market, you need to get to at least 20%. Now, does anyone really believe Apple is going to do that while reserving X for only Apple branded boxes? History is against them. I don't know whether selling the OS for use on generic hardware will work, but I'm sure its the only chance.
There is by the way a big difference between a few percent and rising, and a few percent and falling... But whether Linux is competition for XP is not the point here. The issue is that a tied X is not.
Yes, its true this is the strategy, and it has been executed successfully in the sense that there are no Mac clones. But it has been a commercial disaster. Market share at 2% and falling means the end of the business. The folks at Apple probably are trying to do their best for the shareholders, but their problem is, they can see the end approaching. Changing to Intel or making any other supply changes will not make any difference. The thing people who think they should stay closed have to explain is: do they really think 2% share and falling is viable? If not, what is going to change it? What sort of market share is viable, and how is Apple to achieve it? Why is changing to Intel going to make any difference to market share, and surely that is the key variable here? That in the end is what will drive them to selling the OS on whatever you want to run it on.
The real debate is, who cares, when you have less than two percent market share? Can Windows catch up with Amiga? Who cares? It is not about what you or I like, it is about what is selling. Apple is just not selling enough. And it is in decline. It is following a strategy of hardware/software lockin which only appeals to 2% of the market, and falling. It doesn't much matter what this 2% think - we know they think its wonderful, but they are not important to Apple's market power because there are too few of them. This is why Apple going to Intel is not a threat to Linux. It is not a threat at all. Not to Microsoft, not to Amiga, not to anyone. It doesn't matter to the industry at all. Yes, it matters to Mac people. But they are 2%. There is only one question for Apple at the moment: how do they avoid becoming Amiga? I don't know whether releasing the OS for any Intel machine you like will reverse the share decline. But nothing else is likely to, so its worth a try. The problem is, at the moment, if you believe them, its exactly what they intend NOT to do.
The problem Apple has is, it cannot make it as a hardware company. You either have to be the, or a, low cost producer, or you have to be differentiated. Apple can be neither. It has tried over the years to be differentiated, but gradually has had to use industry standard components assembled in industry standard ways. The move to x86 is just the last phase of this. Clearly it is never going to rival Dell as a low cost producer. So, it is not viable as a hardware company.
It has then attempted a variant: to lock something people wanted, the OS, to uncompetitive hardware they would rather not have. And for some period it has been able to persuade some people to buy overpriced and underperforming hardware in order to get the OS. The problem with this is that the market willing to make that compromise is very small, and the differentiation offered by the OS is decreasing. The time is coming when Aqua will not offer buyers anything over KDE or XP. So, we are seeing steadily declining market share, and essentially a strategy of selling the same thing over and over again to an aging user base on the basis of brand loyalty.
We now hear that this strategy is supposed to continue, and the loyal user base is applauding it. In fact, they claim to be reassured by the announcement that OSX will only run on "Apple Macintoshes", and they justify this by talking about their feelings. You find people getting very upset in case there is an Intel sticker on the box, but being reassured by the statement that they will still be "real macs". This is truly crazy. If Apple continues its present strategy, of selling locked software, only with its own hardware, its computer operation will be the Amiga of this decade. Its market share will slowly vanish, its aging user base will lose interest, sales will fall, and it will die.
I don't however think it is likely to happen this way, or even that Jobs believes it will. The pressure to license the OS and allow it to run on open hardware from multiple vendors, and yes, that does really mean Dells, will probably be irresistible. So, they will be drawn, like it or not, into a sort of head to head with MS and with Linux.
If you are a mac adherent, better pray that it happens, and also that it works. If it doesn't work, they've bet the company. If they don't try, you can see the alternative - its there on the Amiga bulletin boards any day. If you think about it, you will not want to go there.
Its not that it 'remains usable' longer. The Intel chip is also usable to exactly the same extent. Its just that the Mac cost more to start with, so you carry on using it longer. And replacing it also costs more, so you wait awhile before doing it Think about it. Was the Mac any faster than the Intel chip that you didn't buy, when you bought it? No. Well then, it didn't fall behind any faster or any slower than the Intel chip.
This is why Apple has a larger installed base in use than its present share of shipments. People do use them longer, because they cost more to start with, and they are more expensive to replace. Its not a plus about Apple, its a minus. And it doesn't carry on like that forever.
A friend of mine, a mac user, writing cross platform apps, was amazed to discover how much more slowly his code runs on the average mac than on the average Wintel. Realises with surprise that his problem is, the average mac is older, and slower. Its just a matter of price.
I would certainly be prepared to bet the future on it. The problem with business as usual is that they don't have enough sales to fund a separate stream of PPC processor R&D and investment in processor manufacturing. So, business as usual means leaving the OS and computer business within 5 years. The alternative is a chance, and a chance at something big. Of course you have to go for it. The key variable at the moment is that, unlike the days before OSX, now you have an industrial strength OS that can cut it. In the days of Classic, you didn't.
The thing that is amazing about this thread is that none of the posters seem to understand the benefits of open source. Open source hardware, in this case. Wake up, please wake up!
We must wait with interest to see if its real. But I think it would be smart.
Surely the point is, this is a last chance to move out of being the Louis Vuitton or B&O of computing - elegant designs, high prices, brand conscious well heeled clientele, no discernible benefit for the mass of buyers for the extra cost. x86 is as a matter of fact the platform you have to go for if you want any more than niche share. OS9 was never going to cut it against XP, so migrating with that was a non-starter. But X really can. There is probably a window of about a year to get going, before Linux becomes the alternative desktop automatic choice, and before MS fixes security. Do it now, and you could make Apple a player again. Wait a year or two, and its game over.
If you were to do this, there is no reason not to carry on making PPC machines either. There is a profitable niche for them, just as there is a profitable niche for LV. The question though is, do you want to go for the mass market. Its a big bet, but SJ probably has the guts, probably could take the company with him. Yes, he should go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
The question started out as: will the move to Intel threaten Linux. The answer is no, it will not threaten anyone. It will make no difference to Linux, Windows or Amiga what component suppliers Apple uses.
One understands this is not very nice for Apple and its adherents, and that they would much rather focus on whether Linux is doing well or better, or is as good or better. That isn't the issue. The issue is, can you get to significant market share while being a unitary supplier of OS and proprietary hardware. The answer from history is no.
Now, if they were to release the OS, maybe they could be a threat, and not only to Linux. But if they are telling the truth, that is exactly what they do not intend to do. Amiga, here we come.
There is by the way a big difference between a few percent and rising, and a few percent and falling... But whether Linux is competition for XP is not the point here. The issue is that a tied X is not.
Yes, its true this is the strategy, and it has been executed successfully in the sense that there are no Mac clones. But it has been a commercial disaster. Market share at 2% and falling means the end of the business. The folks at Apple probably are trying to do their best for the shareholders, but their problem is, they can see the end approaching. Changing to Intel or making any other supply changes will not make any difference. The thing people who think they should stay closed have to explain is: do they really think 2% share and falling is viable? If not, what is going to change it? What sort of market share is viable, and how is Apple to achieve it? Why is changing to Intel going to make any difference to market share, and surely that is the key variable here? That in the end is what will drive them to selling the OS on whatever you want to run it on.
The real debate is, who cares, when you have less than two percent market share? Can Windows catch up with Amiga? Who cares? It is not about what you or I like, it is about what is selling. Apple is just not selling enough. And it is in decline. It is following a strategy of hardware/software lockin which only appeals to 2% of the market, and falling. It doesn't much matter what this 2% think - we know they think its wonderful, but they are not important to Apple's market power because there are too few of them. This is why Apple going to Intel is not a threat to Linux. It is not a threat at all. Not to Microsoft, not to Amiga, not to anyone. It doesn't matter to the industry at all. Yes, it matters to Mac people. But they are 2%. There is only one question for Apple at the moment: how do they avoid becoming Amiga? I don't know whether releasing the OS for any Intel machine you like will reverse the share decline. But nothing else is likely to, so its worth a try. The problem is, at the moment, if you believe them, its exactly what they intend NOT to do.
It has then attempted a variant: to lock something people wanted, the OS, to uncompetitive hardware they would rather not have. And for some period it has been able to persuade some people to buy overpriced and underperforming hardware in order to get the OS. The problem with this is that the market willing to make that compromise is very small, and the differentiation offered by the OS is decreasing. The time is coming when Aqua will not offer buyers anything over KDE or XP. So, we are seeing steadily declining market share, and essentially a strategy of selling the same thing over and over again to an aging user base on the basis of brand loyalty.
We now hear that this strategy is supposed to continue, and the loyal user base is applauding it. In fact, they claim to be reassured by the announcement that OSX will only run on "Apple Macintoshes", and they justify this by talking about their feelings. You find people getting very upset in case there is an Intel sticker on the box, but being reassured by the statement that they will still be "real macs". This is truly crazy. If Apple continues its present strategy, of selling locked software, only with its own hardware, its computer operation will be the Amiga of this decade. Its market share will slowly vanish, its aging user base will lose interest, sales will fall, and it will die.
I don't however think it is likely to happen this way, or even that Jobs believes it will. The pressure to license the OS and allow it to run on open hardware from multiple vendors, and yes, that does really mean Dells, will probably be irresistible. So, they will be drawn, like it or not, into a sort of head to head with MS and with Linux.
If you are a mac adherent, better pray that it happens, and also that it works. If it doesn't work, they've bet the company. If they don't try, you can see the alternative - its there on the Amiga bulletin boards any day. If you think about it, you will not want to go there.
Its not that it 'remains usable' longer. The Intel chip is also usable to exactly the same extent. Its just that the Mac cost more to start with, so you carry on using it longer. And replacing it also costs more, so you wait awhile before doing it Think about it. Was the Mac any faster than the Intel chip that you didn't buy, when you bought it? No. Well then, it didn't fall behind any faster or any slower than the Intel chip. This is why Apple has a larger installed base in use than its present share of shipments. People do use them longer, because they cost more to start with, and they are more expensive to replace. Its not a plus about Apple, its a minus. And it doesn't carry on like that forever. A friend of mine, a mac user, writing cross platform apps, was amazed to discover how much more slowly his code runs on the average mac than on the average Wintel. Realises with surprise that his problem is, the average mac is older, and slower. Its just a matter of price.
I would certainly be prepared to bet the future on it. The problem with business as usual is that they don't have enough sales to fund a separate stream of PPC processor R&D and investment in processor manufacturing. So, business as usual means leaving the OS and computer business within 5 years. The alternative is a chance, and a chance at something big. Of course you have to go for it. The key variable at the moment is that, unlike the days before OSX, now you have an industrial strength OS that can cut it. In the days of Classic, you didn't.
The thing that is amazing about this thread is that none of the posters seem to understand the benefits of open source. Open source hardware, in this case. Wake up, please wake up!
We must wait with interest to see if its real. But I think it would be smart. Surely the point is, this is a last chance to move out of being the Louis Vuitton or B&O of computing - elegant designs, high prices, brand conscious well heeled clientele, no discernible benefit for the mass of buyers for the extra cost. x86 is as a matter of fact the platform you have to go for if you want any more than niche share. OS9 was never going to cut it against XP, so migrating with that was a non-starter. But X really can. There is probably a window of about a year to get going, before Linux becomes the alternative desktop automatic choice, and before MS fixes security. Do it now, and you could make Apple a player again. Wait a year or two, and its game over. If you were to do this, there is no reason not to carry on making PPC machines either. There is a profitable niche for them, just as there is a profitable niche for LV. The question though is, do you want to go for the mass market. Its a big bet, but SJ probably has the guts, probably could take the company with him. Yes, he should go for it.