The Mac is doooomed (tell me I'm crazy)

[limike28]

Ok, I will bite on a couple of these questions.

Why would Apple never release Safari for Windows?
The Safari browser on Windows buys Apple nothing. There are a slew of good browsers for Windows already and there are no features in safari that would lead to an increase in Apple revenue. Now, if iTunes was to morph into a more web-based application than I could see this changing.

Why would Apple never pre-install Windows on their hardware?
Microsoft has been tenacious with it's licensing agreements with PC vendors. (one of the reasons you almost never see Linux pre-installed). I can't imagine these two companies would come to an easy agreement on this. Also, I can't imagine Steve Jobs going along with this, and too much is made over the release of Boot Camp.

[Sunnz]

Here's my opinions:

Originally Posted by Mikuro

Why would Apple never release Safari for Windows?
Why would Apple never pre-install Windows on their hardware?
Why would Apple never release Cocoa for Windows?

Safari - I can't see any advantage of doing this. iTune was ported to Windows to promote iPod, which generates a great profit for Apple, but what would Safari do? That little bit more of Apple recognition? Without first porting Cocoa, I could imagine porting Safari would be very difficult, and when Windows user already have IE7, FF, and Opera as other choices, I don't think the effort use to porting Safari would not be worth it when compared to iTunes/iPod.

Windows - Probably the most likely to happen. They already have MS Office in the stores, why not put a few copies of XP/Vista (for Mac) in the corner when they Leopard with Boot Camp? It'll be like buying additional memory when purchasing a Mac, where the sales person can install it for the customer on the spot.

Cocoa - I think the reverse it more beneficial... something for Wine for Mac. Porting Cocoa to Windows could be just a difficult as porting WinAPI/WINE to Mac. (Aside from perhaps patent/copyright issues.) IMHO a Mac that is able to run more applications in its native system is far better than making an alternative OS to the Mac to be able to do more. Err... I mean, when you can run Windows only program on OSX, it becomes another reason/motive for people to get a Mac; whereas if Windows can run Apple-only program, would make one less reason to get a Mac, since you don't need a Mac to run Mac programs anymore. Won't do much harm to Mac users, but certainly doesn't do any good for it neither.

[fryke]

Just to also add my comments to these three questions...

Why would Apple never release Safari for Windows? - It's been said above: There's not much to be won with it is the most simple reason. Safari's a good browser, but it's not like it'd bring anything to the table other browsers on Windows can't/wouldn't.

Why would Apple never pre-install Windows on their hardware? - It'd drive the costs of a Mac up. Licenses for Windows ain't free. They could do that, though. An add-on option, perhaps. No harm in that as far as I see. They _did_ sell "DOS Compatible" Macs for a time which had add-on cards with intel-compatible processors on them. Dunno whether those came with DOS licenses, though.

Why would Apple never release Cocoa for Windows? - They actually were ready for that a long time ago and didn't do it. When Rhapsody DR 2 (beta version of Mac OS X Server 1.0 so to speak) came out, there actually _was_ a YellowBox for Windows, which basically _is_ Cocoa for Windows. They even released it as part of WebObjects for Windows. The question probably is whether there's a real incentive for Apple to release current versions of such frameworks for Windows. And I simply say: There were times *much* worse for Apple and the Mac in the past, where a move away from the Mac would have made _some_ sense, although even then I'd have found a lot of arguments against it. But now and in the foreseeable future...? The Mac is on the rise. Sure: Apple's diversifying with iPods, iPhones, Apple TV etc. But those _success stories_ only bolster Apple! In a few years, Apple could even keep the Mac as a hobby just to entertain a small group of fans - but that won't be necessary, because _with_ those other products, Macs more and more come into the mainstream. The move to intel has done a great part in that strategy. If of a 100 Windows people who buy Macs just to run Windows on them even _one_ finds Mac OS X the better choice, it's a double win for Apple. Those people would otherwise have bought Dells or Sonys or whatever, but now they have given Apple money for the hardware, are counted as Mac users in statistics (although they're also counted as Windows users if they've actually bought a Windows license for that Mac) and are _already_ much closer to being a Mac user which'd include using Mac OS X. I think Apple's strategy is working well. And much better than to bet everything on one horse, i.e. taking MS on eye-to-eye by releasing OS X for PC Compatibles. If Apple can steadily grab market share in the next 10 years, what's _really_ to fear? Obviously, developing the Mac made sense 10 years ago when Steve came back, and I don't think things have changed for the worse in that aspect.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by Sunnz

Cocoa - I think the reverse it more beneficial... something for Wine for Mac. Porting Cocoa to Windows could be just a difficult as porting WinAPI/WINE to Mac. (Aside from perhaps patent/copyright issues.) IMHO a Mac that is able to run more applications in its native system is far better than making an alternative OS to the Mac to be able to do more. Err... I mean, when you can run Windows only program on OSX, it becomes another reason/motive for people to get a Mac; whereas if Windows can run Apple-only program, would make one less reason to get a Mac, since you don't need a Mac to run Mac programs anymore. Won't do much harm to Mac users, but certainly doesn't do any good for it neither.

Not necessarily.

First of all, porting Cocoa to Windows would be a lot easier than something like WINE, because the WINE folks need to first reverse-engineer Microsoft's APIs. Apple has full access to Cocoa, obviously, so that's not an issue for them.

Now, what would it do for Mac users? Well, it would give developers a good way to make cross-platform apps. Currently, there are no powerful, flexible cross-platform APIs that don't produce hackish/slow/bloated/fugly apps on some or all platforms. Even some of the best cross-platform apps feel like cross-platform apps. A lot of new Mac users don't care, and love their Firefoxes and their VLCs to death, but apps like those — as useful as they are — compromise the entire Mac experience, because they're made to be cross-platform first and foremost. Imagine if Firefox were written in Cocoa. Ahh, I can dream...

This would make Cocoa appealing to currently Windows-only developers, which would in turn mean more cross-platform programs (that Don't Suck™). No level of Windows support is going to make Windows apps run as well as Mac apps on OS X. Ever. In fact, that could discourage Windows developers from bothering with Mac ports at all. Even as things are now, I've had developers tell me "well, you can run it on Macs if you use your Windows partition". (Yes, they believe Windows apps are "Mac compatible" because they run on Mac hardware.) Heck, some developers used to use Virtual PC as an excuse! That sentiment will increase with things like the new Parallels or possibly Leopard's Boot Camp. It's likely that anything that makes OS X more compatible with Windows software will result in less Mac software. Apple needs to make it easy to make real Mac apps, and not just for people who are already Mac fans.

(As you may have noticed, the dynamic here for developers is exactly the opposite as for users. Obviously each group is influenced heavily by the other. It's hard to say what the short-term and long-term effects of a move in either direction would be.)

When a developer has to choose between Windows and Mac, they choose Windows unless they're Mac fans. It's just good business, unfortunately.

Porting Cocoa would make the Mac more appealing even Mac developers. Even for Mac fans, it can be difficult to justify using Cocoa when it basically means ignoring the vast Windows-Linux market. Cocoa for Windows would let Mac developers write awesome Mac apps without sacrificing potential profits and portability.

As a developer myself, I have to say that it sucks to know that when I use Cocoa, I'm making something that's about as non-portable as can be. For some projects, I use other tools, which results in worse Mac apps, but at least I can deploy them on Windows or Linux. It's a tradeoff I really wish I didn't need to make.

[Lt Major Burns]

with regards to firefox, have you used Firefox 2.0? it feels a lot more cocoa in it's ways now. it's a proper OSX app now, it feels a lot less crossplatform. context menus look and behave like they should, sheets use OSX guidelines, webpages use aqua widgets, it's a much more mature application.

it's like a more powerful version of Safari without the silly brushed metal. which only looks silly when you've got used to not looking at it.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

with regards to firefox, have you used Firefox 2.0? it feels a lot more cocoa in it's ways now. it's a proper OSX app now, it feels a lot less crossplatform. context menus look and behave like they should, sheets use OSX guidelines, webpages use aqua widgets, it's a much more mature application.

Yeah, I use FF2. I use it daily, in fact. (I'm a two-browser man, except for some days when I'm a three-browser man.) I could go on and on about how un-Mac-like it still is, but that would be going too far off topic. And I'm sure I've ranted about it in any number of other threads!

I'd say that the fact that FF2 feels "a lot less crossplatform" than FF1 is proof of my point: it's not easy to make good cross-platform apps. It's taken them a long time to get to where they are now in terms of Mac-ishness. It's a shame it takes so much effort.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by Johnny Blaze

While a great campaign, many people simply will not spend over a $1000 on a macintosh computer when they never had the chance to try it out, regardless of even the most influential marketing campaign.

Some of us wouldn't spend $1000 on a Mac even being life long Mac users.

My fastest system is a Sawtooth G4 with a G4 running at 1.2 GHz (256k of L2, 2 MB of L3), nVidia GeForce2 MX video card (32 MB of VRAM), 640 MB of memory (should be up to 1 GB in a few weeks), with 60 GB and 30 GB drives on the logic board's UltraATA/66 bus and a 400 GB drive on a Serial ATA card. My total investment in this system (since I got it last month) is $245.

My second fastest system is a Beige G3 Mini Tower with a G4 running at 533 MHz (1 MB of L2), ATI Radeon 7000 video card (32 MB of VRAM), 640 MB of memory, 80 GB drive on an UltraATA/66 card, a CD-ROM drive (first ATA/33 bus on logic board), DVD-ROM drive (second ATA/33 bus) and a 2 port USB card. That system was free (I put none of my own money into building that system).

The third fastest system I own is my PowerBook G3 Wallstreet (which I've been using since 2001). It has a G4 at 500 MHz (1 MB of L2), 512 MB of memory, 40 GB and 20 GB hard drives, CDRW drive and a USB 2.0 card. My total investment in that system over about 6 years has been about $650.

My main mobile system is a PowerBook G4 Lombard. It is using it's original G3 at 400 MHz (1 MB of L2), has 512 MB of memory, an 11 GB hard drive, wireless card and battery life of about 1.5 hours. I bought that system last summer for $100.

That is four Macs acquired over six years to reach a total hardware investment of $995. And that is only four of my 24 Macs (the total investment of the other 20 would most likely not exceed $1800 since 1997).

And this is how Apple will take down Rockefeller Microsoft.

And this is where bad ideas come from.

Why does Apple need to take down Microsoft? Why do we need to see Apple pitted against Microsoft?

Thankfully Apple doesn't make it's business choices based on trying to play out some form of Reality TV or Shock TV concept.

I'm sure people would love to see you step into a cage with an 800 pound gorilla and take it down. But if you are smart (and plan on having a long life) I'd think you would want to steer clear of a confrontation like that.

[zynizen]

I'd just like to put my two cents in,

I agree with this last comment, I'm a PC technician, have been for many years, and always hated fixing all windows problems and having things crap out for no reason at all. So, I switched jobs, and now I am an avid mac user on my new MacBook Pro.

CrossOver and Parallel's are making the possibility become reality! It's just a matter of time before Apple Develops their own release of these apps or something similar to fully run pc apps at native speeds without even using "bottles" in crossover, or a VM.

I couldn't be happier with the success of Apple since its full transition to intel. Everyone is realizing that Apple really does put microsoft to shame..

Reasons:

1) Microsoft copies all features of OSX in Vista, why? because they cant think of something better., microsoft has always been a bully and buys everyone out or copies them., just selling half assed products, and letting customers fix their issues, its a waste of time, whether they lose business or not they keep writing crap software...

2) microsoft tries to compete with the ipod by releasing a zune. what the hell is a zune?????

3) the further integration of a mobile device with an Apple Computer product, just pushes the envelope for all corporate users. ex: I have a MacBook Pro, and a BlackBerry Pearl 8100. Do they work together? LOL.

- Apple's iPhone + Mac (running Parallel's/CrossOver) = THE perfect solution for any corporate user, and its more secure.

SO... its just natural that the company has many more avenues to follow.. Steve Jobs himself said they have big plans for the future, and it doesn't stop there..

I'm just curious which cat name will come after Leopard? or will they switch to Bears? Apple Mac OS X 10.9 (Grizzly)