Wwdc 2008

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Gotta agree with Qion -- Apple moved to Intel because the processors were better and the roadmap was more defined and aggressive than the PowerPC architecture. They didn't change their business model; they just "upgraded" their computer offerings, like they always have. It just happened to change from RISC-based processors to CISC-based processors, much like RAM changed from PC-100 to PC-133 to PC2100 and so on, and like hard drives changed from 5400rpm to 7200rpm, from SCSI to ATA to SATA.

Apple's business model has always been (with a small hiccup under different management) to control the software and the hardware for the best user experience and tightest control over the system. This hasn't changed, and probably won't for some time to come, if ever.

Hardware progression/changes are not indicative of, nor correlated to, business model changes.

[nixgeek]

Originally Posted by Qion

Maybe it's just me, but it seems changing the processors in your computers is a lot less radical than changing your entire machine/software philosophy. Mac OS X didn't change because of the Intel transition; it merely became faster. Leasing OS X to PC vendors puts an entirely new face on Apple.

It sure seemed radical to the Mac faithful in 2005 when Apple made the announcement. Many cried blasphemy and said that they would leave the Mac....until they realized that their fears were unfounded (yes, I am aware of the clone "fiasco' of the mid 90s, but Apple and the computing arena is much different now). I know I was floored when they decided to do it. This is when I finally came to the realization that I should never discount the inconceivable from Apple. Like I said, I'm sure I'm dead wrong. However, it is still a VERY remote possibility in the back of my mind.

Yes, leasing OS X to PC manufacturers would put a new face on Apple. But if you haven't noticed, Apple already has a new face since the release of the iPhone and the AppleTV. And let's not forget that Apple did drop the "Computer' from its name. Since the 2006 switch, there has been more exposure with running OS X on standard PCs than back in the day.

Again, let's see what happens during the keynote. I'm about 95% sure that I'm wrong on this, but that 5%.....

[Qion]

Originally Posted by nixgeek

Again, let's see what happens during the keynote. I'm about 95% sure that I'm wrong on this, but that 5%.....

...I've put into words what I felt when I read nixgeek's quote...

"Today, we are announcing something monumental. It is something that all of us have seen coming all these years, but never fully accepted. It will be the most polarizing decision Apple has ever made." Steve Jobs warily thumbs his presentation clicker, unveiling a slide that forebodingly tells "It's true... again!"

"Today, we change the world. Today, we announce OS X for the PC."

The expectant Moscone audience tentatively chuckle, expecting a welcome, relieving next slide to their idol's historically humorous presentations. Alas, there is but one slide, and it does not change. A tangible feeling of uneasiness passes the crowd over, tormenting the faithful and intriguing the interested. Instead of cheering, instead of booing, there is silence, only broken by the splattering teardrops of current Apple shareholders.

[Captain Code]

Apple had a financial reason to switch to Intel. If we were still with PPC now then Apple would probably be tanking and they knew it. Right now they are gaining market share in the consumer space and if they released a generic version of OS X for any grey box they would either sell it as it is now without any copy protection or they'd have to put some copy protection on it. I can't think of any financial benefit that would have for the company. They'd inevitably loose out on hardware sales and people would just download OS X for free of illicit websites.

[Satcomer]

Apple is a hardware company. OS X is made for Macs and you kids are speculating WAY to much. Apple stock is going to take a hit because of you kids, thanks a lot.

[nixgeek]

Satcomer, you've got to admit that speculating like this always makes the event that more interesting. You've got to have some wild and crazy speculations, otherwise it just takes the fun out of it all.

Captain Code, you are correct in that it was a good decision for them to move to Intel just as it was for Apple to move from 68K to PPC. But again, remember....back when the announcement was made in 2005, everyone said much of the same thing (along with griping at how Apple could make such a blatant about-face after years of telling us that Intel was crap...which it was until the Core series, let's be honest ). People said that it would be the beginning of the end of Apple and that people would just find a way to get them installed on their generic PCs. For the most part, they were right. However, look at what Microsoft has to deal with. Their operating systems are pirated more than anything all around the world. Don't you think MS knows that this is happening? Of course, they're going to go after the businesses that are running or selling pirated software...but what about the end user? Don't you think that as bad as it is for MS to have their operating systems and software pirated, that it in a sense is good for them as far as penetration? It sure has done them a world of good in many countries, so much so that even FLOSS is having some trouble in shaking people out of the Microsoft grip.

Now consider that people today are doing their darnedest to get OS X to run on their PCs, more so than ever now. So assuming that Apple were to make a version for generic PCs, the penetration (even through piracy means) would skyrocket because people would not have to recompile the kernel to support their own hardware (and pray that it actually does). Now remember that there was some news early this year about Apple patenting a way to run checks on the hardware to make sure that the software being run was on genuine hardware. I don't know if this necessarily has anything to do with Macs at all, but it is something that might come into play don't you think? Right now, the only OS that requires a serial key is OS X Server. The worst that Apple could do is have it so that standard OS X does the same thing. Now, I'm sure this could easily be circumvented by plucky hackers as has been done on the Windows side, but would it really matter? It might be enough to keep the copyright police away since they are actively trying to prevent piracy, but the reality of it is that it may not and said piracy would in fact help in getting Apple some more market share. I'm not saying that this would be the best way, but sometimes even any kind of publicity (or exposure) is good, no?

Again, these are just wild thoughts of a tired man who needs his 40 winks. But stuff like this is what makes it fun before the keynote actually happens. Now my next question is who will bite on the whole "missing mid-range Mac" speculation....any takers?

[chevy]

What would be the business model for an OS-X on any PC ?

[Qion]

Originally Posted by chevy

What would be the business model for an OS-X on any PC ?

www.microsoft.com