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



## Mikuro (Jan 21, 2007)

The Macworld keynote's announcements (and lack thereof) make me fear for the future of the Mac. At this point, I actually feel like Apple is phasing out the Mac OS.

PC journalists have been saying it since the 90s, and I've always just ignored them, simply assuming that they regularly enjoyed certain hallucinogenic substances. But at this point, I can't shake the feeling that the Mac OS is on its way out. The only difference is that unlike the pundits of the past, I don't think that the Mac OS will finally be killed by the market or by Microsoft or by the public's realization that Windows is better (ha!); I think it will be killed by Apple.

The signs have been coming for years, but I always felt like Apple was just "stretching", and that the heart and soul of the company would always be the Macintosh. Now I'm thinking "Apple's a business, and businesses don't even _have_ hearts or souls." That much seems obvious.

A *Mac*world keynote with zero news about *Macs* seems like a dark sign to me. With the expected push into the phone and movie markets, I had hoped Apple would take this opportunity to reinforce the importance and relevance of the Mac. Instead, they ignored it completely. That makes it look like Apple doesn't really care, and the Mac is getting less and less important to them.

Let's look at the signs of the Mac's diminishing importance, and the excuses/explanations/mantras the Mac faithful (myself included) made when they first appeared:

1. *Apple releases the iPod.*
_"There were no good mp3 players for Macs, so Apple made one. Apple's made peripherals before. It's a natural extension of their Mac business. *yawn*"_

2. *Apple adds Windows support to the iPod.*
_"Well, it only makes sense. As long as Mac support doesn't suffer, who cares? Besides, Windows users are still second-class citizens with their MusicMatch. It's a natural extension of their iPod business."_

3. *Apple makes iTunes for Windows.*
_"It'll give Windows users a little taste of the Mac. No harm there! It's just a natural extension of the iPod business. Apple doesn't want Windows users to feel like second-class citizens, they want them to love the iPod experience."_

4. *Apple launches the iTunes store.* At this point, the iPod was undeniably a HUGE part of Apple and their future, and arguably a bigger part than the Mac OS.
_"Music player, music delivery. It's just another natural extension. Apple is leading the way yet again!"_

5. *Apple announced the switch to Intel.*
_"It doesn't matter what chip is inside as long as it runs the Mac OS.  z0mg ibm is lamezorz and nevar got to 3GHz!!1!  Just because they use Intel chips doesn't mean they'll be 'PCs'."_

6. *Apple releases Intel Macs*, and they are indeed just 'PCs'. As proof, Apple releases Boot Camp to allow Macs to run Windows normally (kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?).
_"It just adds value to the hardware. Why NOT give people the option? Windows users might buy Macs now and stick with OS X after they use it."_

7. *Apple releases the AppleTV and iPhone* at a Mac show (no, THE Mac show), with *no Mac-related news* at all. They even drop the word "Computer" from their corporate identity and the word "Mac" from the name of OS X (in regard to the iPhone's OS, at least).
_"Just another natural extension! Natural extension, I say! That Mikuro guy is such an idiot. Shyeesh."_

Now go from #1 straight to #7. They've turned from "The Mac People" to a phone and media delivery company. That doesn't seem so natural. In the 90s, could anyone have expected Apple's biggest news at Macworld to be a freakin' _phone?!_ No way.

I could have gone further back with the signs, all the way back to the purchase of NeXT, the return of Jobs, and the birth of OS X. It ties in if you want to look at it that way, but it takes more stretching, so I left it at the iPod.


And now, let me propose some more likely "natural extensions" for Apple over the next few years:

8. *Apple releases Safari for Windows.*
_"Anything that wrests control away from IE is a good thing for Mac users. Safari is much more attractive to your average Joe than Firefox."_

9. *Apple releases Cocoa for Windows.* Now making cross-platform apps is just as simple as making a universal binary. This is how they got Safari working so easily.
_"Great! Now developers can write world-class programs that will run great on the Mac OS AND Windows! One less reason for companies to make Windows-only software."_

10. Apple offers a BTO option to have new Macs ship with *both OS X and Windows pre-installed*.
_"Some people do need Windows. They shouldn't need to pay the exorbitant retail price. This makes Macs more competitive. It'll help Apple push into the corporate world."_

11. *Apple releases iLife for Windows.*
_"As long as it turns a profit, why not? Remember, Mac users get this stuff for FREE. It'll make for a great 'halo effect'. It's a good example of the cross-platform power of Cocoa."_

12. *Apple starts offering "Macs" preinstalled with only Windows* (and perhaps iLife) in major channels. Hardware sales soar.
_"This makes Apple truly competitive with the rest of the market. A lot of Windows users like Apple's hardware as much as Mac users, so why shouldn't Apple take their money?"_

And unlucky #13:

13. *Apple announces the discontinuation of the Mac OS*. Most Mac developers are already making "obese" binaries that run on OS X and Windows anyway, so Mac users will be able to use most of their favorite Mac apps (including all of Apple's) on Windows. Other developers will have enough of a heads-up to adapt their Mac apps to run on Windows. The sales of Windows-only "Macs" are big enough to sustain Apple' hardware division, and the Mac OS is simply no longer needed to sell the hardware.
_"Well....uhh...The spirit of the Mac will live on! It was only natural. Apple makes luxury hardware and easy-to-use software. They don't need their own OS to do that. Yeah. The Mac OS is so 2000. It's time for the Next Big Thing! Apple realized that; they really have vision! The Mac OS didn't really fit with the Apple brand, anyway. They're a media and hardware company first and foremost."_

And there ya go. Apple has transitioned to Windows as smoothly as anyone could have imagined. They still call their luxury PCs "Macs".



Basically, the Mac OS has always sold Apple's hardware. Back in the mid-to-late 90s, nobody in their right mind would buy a Mac if they didn't want the Mac OS. Everything Apple did was tied to the Mac OS  without it, the company would have had nothing and would have died instantly. As long as Apple was on the PPC, this was still largely the case (maybe they COULD have survived on iPods, but their computer division was still reliant on the Mac OS and turned a great profit). Apple's transition to Intel goes a long way towards uncoupling their hardware business from the Mac OS, and as we all know the hardware is where they make their big profits. OS X has been vital in getting Apple to the position they're in today, making great hardware that everyone drools over. But soon that hardware will be able to stand on its own in the Windows world. Once that happens, and Apple no longer needs the Mac OS to sell hardware, they can easily dispose of it without even hurting the bottom line  in fact, it might be hard to justify supporting it, since a lot of money goes into OS X, and it's the hardware revenue that funds that. Once the hardware is self-sufficient, so to speak, the Mac OS will have fulfilled its ultimate purpose, business-wise.

Let me ask you this: if Apple were planning this move to Windows as I've outlined, is there anything you can point to in the past few years that they would have done differently? I don't think so. All their actions have been timed perfectly for such a transition. That's what scares me.

Tell me why I'm crazy. I'd love to be convinced.


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 21, 2007)

Yeah right, not going to happen.  Macworld got its name when Apple just made Macs.  Now they make other things so you can't expect them to just focus on the Mac every single one.  They have other venues for that.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 21, 2007)

One has to look to SGI to see what happens when a company abandons their primary platform and eventually goes the Windows route exclusively.  I don't think that Apple would be stupid enough to do that (or at least I would hope not).  I do think the possibility of Mac OS X for regular PCs and Apple's branded Macs is slowly becoming a reality (at least to me).  Here's what I think might happen. Take it with a grain of salt as it's only my opinion on the topic, especially when talking about Apple's name change (I pulled this from my blog entry on my website):


> Something tells me that the loss of the "Computer" moniker will mean that Mac OS X will finally be available legally for PCs from other computer manufacturers.  This version of OS X will initially be available as a separate purchase but the hope is to eventually have it preinstalled on non-Apple computers.  I don't think that Apple will stop making Macs, however, as they still have a charm all their own and are fully insured to work with Mac OS X.  However, PC manufacturers will have to adhere to Apple's "hardware compatibility list" in order to at least run Mac OS X on their systems (this is no different from what Microsoft already does with Windows).  I also believe that Apple's hardware sales will not be cannibalized because they will have something that the other PC manufacturers won't have, and that's the ultimate integration and transparency between Mac OS X, Apple Macs, and all of Apple's other devices.  You might want to try it with your non-Apple computers running Mac OS X (if this ever happens), but it won't ever be as elegant as it would with an Apple-branded Macintosh.
> 
> You're probably thinking to yourself "wouldn't that make every other computer a Mac?"  Yes and no.  Yes, it would become a Mac, per se.  However, the "Mac" or "Macintosh" name will become a model name, like we've seen with names like "iMac, "Mac Pro", "Macbook", etc.  It will be a trademarked name (if it's not already) and other PC manufacturers won't be able to use the name.  This isn't that much different than when the Mac OS was licensed during the 90s (Motorola called their Mac clones "StarMax" for example).  Remember that Steve Jobs' other computer company, NeXT, started out making their own computers and eventually dropped the hardware and made the NeXTSTEP operating system available for regular Pentium PCs as OPENSTEP.  Unfortunately for that company, it was too late.  Even the Mac OS licensing scheme during the 90s was unsuccessful, but remember that this was done during Apple's darkest years and they didn't have the market's mindshare...this is why Steve Jobs "killed the clones" when he returned to Apple...he needed to build the Apple brand before attempting something like this.  However, with Apple riding high on the Intel switch, the iPod, and Mac OS X, something like this would be a boon for increasing market share by getting those people who can't afford even the cheapest Mac to actually try out OS X on their PCs (software is cheaper than hardware).  They could later choose to stick with their current PCs running OS X or switch to a better-integrated solution from Apple that would work seamlessly with the iPhone, the AppleTV, the iPods, and everything else Apple makes.


Again, it's out there and I'm probably wrong (maybe even definitely).  But since we're talking about doomsday predictions, I thought I would include my thoughts. 

_*Flame on!*_


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 21, 2007)

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, Nixgeek, and it also fits in well with my reasoning. Either way (killing OS X or opening it up), Apple needs to detach their hardware from their software, so that they don't need OS X to sell their machines. To open up OS X, I think they will still need to start shipping "Macs" with Windows, otherwise they would not be able to compensate for the loss of hardware sales from people using OS X on other PCs (which is the main argument against 'cloning' you hear these days).

Captain Code: I would say that Apple has "other venues" for _non_-Mac-related news. Macworld didn't used to be about Apple so much as the Mac. Apple is already converting Mac fandom into "Apple" fandom very well. For instance, it's hard to find any site these days dedicated to Mac news; they all feature iPod news at the very least. That's exactly what makes my doomsday scenario possible &#8212; the Mac is slowly becoming unnecessary to Apple's success, even among die-hard Mac fans!


----------



## HeliAnimal (Jan 21, 2007)

I hope Apple gets their hands in as many electronic products as possible. I'm tired of companies making ugly, non intuitive products. Everything I spend money on I do it right. I hope Apple makes HDTVs!

Look at a MacBook pro next to a Dell or HP laptop. 50% of the reason I purchased a Mac was because it makes anything else look goofy, cheap and horribly designed. The other 40% at least is because it was my 1st Mac and I had the "windows" safety net. But you know what? It's only been 6 months and I deleted windows cause it was hogging hard drive space. I despise using windows on any computer now, I will never go back from OS X or whatever else OS Apple designs. I'm a "Mac Geek" now. And following me are probably 3-4 friends at least. All because of the "intel" switch. 

The iPhone is coming and I'm ecstatic. I KNOW it will be designed to the same high user expectations as all Apple's other products. I don't even need to use one. I will pre-order one as soon as possible. 

Steve Jobs is a very very smart guy. He knew what he was doing more so than people probably give him credit for. The MAC is going NOWHERE! Don't be paranoid because Apple is spreading into other products.


----------



## Johnny Blaze (Jan 21, 2007)

I just look at the comparative advantage mac OS has over Windows, and despite this fact Windows still holds a very large portion of the market share.  I would bet Microsoft has really emulated the mac style with Vista, focusing on a more fun and people friendly pc. Considering the mac os only holds 5-6%?? of the market share, how will they be able to keep this huge comparative advantage if Rockefeller microsoft is focusing on being more like them.  
The truth hurts.


----------



## Ifrit (Jan 21, 2007)

> 8. Apple releases Safari for Windows.
> "Anything that wrests control away from IE is a good thing for Mac users. Safari is much more attractive to your average Joe than Firefox."



No reason to release it for the PC. Safari is based on Konqueror rendering engine. Konqueror is available for "regular PCs" (although its current PC incarnation is part of Linux KDE Desktop manager) Remember in the past Apple included Internet Explorer as main browser in OS9 and early versions of OSX 10.0 - 10.2. Lots of people screamed "sellout" too, back then.

Believe me, Firefox (brand if you want to call it that) is very well known to most of the average Joe nowadays. There were lots of articles puplished - even in magazines which usually don't deal with IT tech. 



> 9. Apple releases Cocoa for Windows. Now making cross-platform apps is just as simple as making a universal binary. This is how they got Safari working so easily.
> "Great! Now developers can write world-class programs that will run great on the Mac OS AND Windows! One less reason for companies to make Windows-only software."



The cocoa framwork is more complex than a few dll files. 
The whole system and design strategy which is used to link the GUI and the background code together is really different from that which Windows offers.  

The main draw of buying a Mac or similar device is the operating system. OSX is the face of the mac. Would you buy the iPhone with *gasp* Windows Mobile on it? My planned purchase wouldn't be an imac with Windows and I probably won't use the bootcamp function at all. 

I like that there is a option to use Windows, because unfortunally we live in a Windows centric world. Actually my first plan was to purchase a Mac pro + a second screen just to have everything in one machine, but I realised that I wouldn't use the power the mac pro offered - at all. And a 20'' or 24'' imac does the same, provides a nice screen and has an operating system which is far more elegant compared to the product Microsoft offeres. I still have a Windows PC which runs all current games.

10. Apple offers a BTO option to have new Macs ship with both OS X and Windows pre-installed.
"Some people do need Windows. They shouldn't need to pay the exorbitant retail price. This makes Macs more competitive. It'll help Apple push into the corporate world."

Whoa, I don't believe Apple would pull a "Palm" there. Steve would be really embarrassed too because for hundrets of Keynotes he teached us that OSX is faaaar superior. Now imagine him standing on the stage starring into space and mumbling into his microphone: "Hm, maybe OSX wasn't to great after all." Despite this, it would be to much trouble and to much cost to support an additional operating system out of the box IMO. (a operating system Apple doesn't have any control over)

Concerning your iTunes statement. iTunes is a frontend for quicktime - a pretty one, but still a frontend nonetheless. Its currently the only Windows program besides Quicktime because Apple wants to push its own media format into other platforms and markets. (the iPod worked well, now they try with a own phone)

Imagine the iLife suite without the backings and features of OSX. No or lesser support for scripts, inferior drag and drop support combined with the quirks and issues of the Windows OS - just to name a few examples. It would not make sense at all. Vista - to some extent already has reworked media management applications. iLive without OSX doesn't seem to be very attractive at all on another OS.

Why would Apple consider getting rid of MacOSX? In your post you wrote they are shifting away from OSX. Even if they do this doesn't necessary mean they'll go the Windows route. 

Maybe its true that IBM and other PowerPC manufacturers didn't get their things together to make a decent offering. There are not many more platforms left to jump over than x86 and the "64bit equivalent".


----------



## HeliAnimal (Jan 22, 2007)

I see all the cross migration a good thing for Mac.. not windows. Can you imagine how many people would dump windows and PC if through Wine or Crossover in the future you could run any windows game inside OS X? The ONLY reason I still need windows is to play RealFlight G3. If Parallels offers GL support they will be getting $79 of my money. (with a bootleg windows =)

I see Apple's share of the computer market jumping greatly over the next year. I have a BOLD prediction that if things keep moving forward and developers create complete game and software mesh inside OSX.. Apple's market will go from 7-10% to 50% over the next 3+ years. Very bold prediction I know. I'm talking MAC computers running OSX.. not some shameful Mac running windows or PC running OSX. 

It seems all the NEW Mac guys are the excited pumped ones about Apple's future. All you tried and true Mac historians all seem pretty upset over the past year.


----------



## macbri (Jan 22, 2007)

When OS X on Intel was announced, IIRC, it was added that every release of OS X had been ported to Intel.  Seems like an awful lot of work for an operating system that's going to get the chop.  Would've been a lot easier to announce Intel Macs running Windows in the first place, doncha think?

Relax.  I imagine OS X will be around for a while yet.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 22, 2007)

Ifrit, I'm glad you think my predictions are impossible. But I disagree.

Remember that Cocoa began life as a cross-platform API. You may say it's technically infeasible, but then people said the same thing of moving OS X to Intel, and it turned out Apple had it running in their labs all along. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has similarly been developing Cocoa with cross-platform compatibility in mind all along.

Vista has equivalents of all the core features of the OS X GUI  Quartz Extreme, Core Image, Quartz Compositor, etc.  so it would certainly be possible to use OS X's APIs to build Windows GUIs. Apple could even make Cocoa-Windows apps look like Aqua if they wanted! (That'd be dumb, but hey, they did it with iTunes for a while.)

As for iLife, so much of the interface is self-contained that I think it would be fairly easy. Again, Vista has all the underlying technologies already.



macbri said:


> When OS X on Intel was announced, IIRC, it was added that every release of OS X had been ported to Intel.  Seems like an awful lot of work for an operating system that's going to get the chop.  Would've been a lot easier to announce Intel Macs running Windows in the first place, doncha think?


No, I think that would have been suicide for Apple, because they had no weight in the PC world at that time (they still don't, really). Right now, Apple still relies on OS X to sell Mac hardware. As long as they do, it not only makes sense to keep Mac OS X, but it would be suicidal to abandon it. They can't just cut the cord and switch to Windows overnight. It would leave Mac users completely stranded, and Windows users would not embrace Apple's machines quickly/fully enough. They would have no market penetration, and the PR alone would destroy them! If Apple is to succeed as a PC maker, they need to move very gradually  which, as I outlined, they've been doing for years (if you want to look at it that way).

It seems backwards and almost pardoxical, but I really think Apple has made all the right moves for a company that's moving that way. That doesn't mean they _are_, of course. I included the Mac-centric justifications for each of Apple's stept in my first post, and I believe they're all valid (well, with an obvious exception or two). But each of these actions still fits with the theory of Apple moving to Windows.


----------



## Tommo (Jan 22, 2007)

I have to agree with Mikuro on ost of this, but in the end as with all business decisions it will come down to money. Apple has been moving away from the computer as a computer. and more to the computer as a media centre, as have Microsoft for the last few years.

I don't think this will necessarily spell the death of OSX, but I would not be surprised if in 10 years time Apple no longer manufactured computers. They have a small, but significant market share but that is not based on its hardware, but its software because to run OSX you have to have a Mac, if that tie is broken then OSX may flourish and eat into the various Linux distros that abound in the computing world not to mention some Windows systems.

I happily run both a Mac and a Windows PC, but when it comes to replacing them, I will have to think long and hard about the Mac mainly due to cost, they are still more expensive than equivalent non-Apple hardware. Unlike some of the other posters to this thread I do not have enough disposable income to choose something expensive just because it looks better.


----------



## limike28 (Jan 22, 2007)

The sky is falling for sure.   I think if Apple was going to kill off Macs, or OS X there would have been other times that they would have been more likely to it.    

Macworld may not have had any new macs, but considering what was released I think that's ok.  The appleTV and iPhone were interesting and compelling announcements.  Would a new macbook that's a speed bump release been a better keynote?  I doubt it.  

I have no doubt that Apple will continue to branch out into more areas, and I think you will see the traditional "computer" will evolve.

As for long term predictions, 10 years down the road, who knows?  Personally, I think Apple gets what is important to consumers;  a system that works as designed, is easy to use, and let's the consumer get to the data and information that they want in a format that works and is suitable for the device at hand. 

Apple gets that where we need to be going is most people want to be consumers.  They don't want to be users, programmers, or their own IT support.


----------



## g/re/p (Jan 22, 2007)

Mikuro said:


> Tell me why I'm crazy. I'd love to be convinced.



You're crazy!.........


----------



## jacobdol (Jan 22, 2007)

Apple did not announce the OS X release because:
1. It's not quite ready.
2. It's waiting for Vista push to the consumers
3. It's waiting for Vista upgrades to start creating all kinds of problems on PCs
I think we will have to wait for a few more months before OS X is being released.


----------



## Ferdinand (Jan 22, 2007)

I agree somehow with Mikuro. The main point is and stays:

* Long ago without  Mac OS (mostly 9 and X) Apple wouldn't have survived. Now this changed. *

Now, they don't need it anymore to stay alive! They have iPhone, iPod, iTunes, AppleTV and more. Of course it's a great thing. But Apple isn't centered about Mac OS anymore, rather about mobiles, set-top boxes, mp3 players, soon TVs and who knows what else!


----------



## ScottW (Jan 22, 2007)

Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.

Look at Apple's financial numbers, the Mac is growing like crazy, 48% of those who buy a Mac at an apple store are NEW owners.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.

The lack of new Macs at MacWorld just means that Steve had something more exciting to announce... and I am sorry to say, that a bump in the processor speed is not going to dazzle the crowd. We all know that, we Apple fanatics like to be dazzled!

I *would* like to see some new form factors for the different models, but quite honestly, I think the Intel transition took up more than a few spare cycles of peoples time. Changing the design was probably not the best way to come out with new hardware. But, the MacBooks are different, and I bet we will see some transition to new form factors in the next 12 months for one ore more systems.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 22, 2007)

Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.

Look at Apple's financial numbers, the Mac is growing like crazy, 48% of those who buy a Mac at an apple store are NEW owners.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.

The lack of new Macs at MacWorld just means that Steve had something more exciting to announce... and I am sorry to say, that a bump in the processor speed is not going to dazzle the crowd. We all know that, we Apple fanatics like to be dazzled!

I *would* like to see some new form factors for the different models, but quite honestly, I think the Intel transition took up more than a few spare cycles of peoples time. Changing the design was probably not the best way to come out with new hardware. But, the MacBooks are different, and I bet we will see some transition to new form factors in the next 12 months for one ore more systems.


----------



## Qion (Jan 22, 2007)

I understand all the logical sequences behind your argument, Mikuro. However, the entire time I was reading your post, I couldn't help but to hear the PC guy say "..and you guys are selling like *hotcakes*, it's time to pull out all the stops..." 

Apple will NEVER drop the Mac. Remember the 80's?; Apple is not about to tear out their heart and run along with the PC market because of _money_. They already have an exorbant amount of that stuff. 

I wouldn't believe for a second that Steve Jobs would drop the very basis of creation, the very machine that fueled his passion and his career. He wouldn't drop each one of us on our asses, leaving us nothing but the bitter taste of whatever MS gives us after Vista. There will be a Mac OS as long as there are supporters of the Mac OS; hasn't that been proven before? I know the success of Apple is no longer tied to their hardware, but why the hell would they stop tying the incredibleness of their UI to the machines they've set their souls in for the past 20 years? 

The change from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple Inc is nothing more than what ITMS was to ITS. While we can eliminate sylables because of expansion, we cannot eliminate basis because of expansion.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 22, 2007)

ScottW said:


> Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.


As far as the advertising goes, that's more the hardware. As I've outlined, Apple's hardware ("Macs") will continue to be a vital part of Apple's business even if OS X ("the Mac") is killed. When was the last time Apple advertised the Mac OS itself? I can't remember.

Of course, I can't blame them; an OS is not an easy thing to advertise. You can show the genie effect or exposé all you want at Macworld and geeks will scream like little girls over a boy band, but that kind of thing won't sell on a TV spot aimed at the general public. I get that.

But the fact remains that the things they've been advertising are not so much the Mac as A) Their hardware, B) iLife, and C) iPod/iTunes. None of these are dependent on the Mac OS in the course I described.

In fact, the advertising of their hardware would be vital to the transition, because it increases their brand recognition, and that's what it will take to get Windows users to buy WindowsMacs if/when Apple starts shipping them.



> If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.


What would they have done instead? That's the key question here, and I can't think of a good answer.



limike28 said:


> I think if Apple was going to kill off Macs, or OS X there would have been other times that they would have been more likely to it.


Again, what would they have done instead? WHEN would have been a better time? (And if there were a better time in '97 or earlier, I don't think that matters, because I certainly don't think Apple had any intention of dropping the Mac OS back then. If that's what they're planning, I believe it's a Jobs-era strategy.)


----------



## ScottW (Jan 22, 2007)

Well, unlike Windows, the Mac and the operating system are one in the same. iLife doesn't run on anything but OS X. The ease of use they promote, isn't just the applications, it is the operating system.

They don't have two products to sell, the have one... the Mac. OS X is worthless without a Mac. If you want to sell someone something, you have to sell them the whole thing, not just one. If you promoted OS X and people went in buying it... and then return it because it doesn't install on a PC? Thats lame. People would be mad.

To me, they are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Also remember, while the OS is great, it's not the OS people are concerned with.

When people ask me about if Macs can do things, they don't ask me, "Can you double click and open folder?", "Does it have drop down menus?", Does it have icons?", "Does it include COPY/PASTE?".

The questions I hear is, "Does it run Office?", "Does it manage photos?", "Its virus free right?". Granted, the last question does apply to the OS, but guess what... Apple talks about that in their commercials. So, that is one example of the OS at work in the advertising.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 23, 2007)

Corporations, like most people, are pretty much all about self-interest. If you wouldn't do something that would hurt your income, why would you think Apple would?

Lets run the numbers here guys... which we will keep pretty simple for the sake of argument.

Lets set some easy boundaries... like
 The average cost of an Apple computer is $2000 (easy number to work with, and about the middle of the prices for all of Apple's computers).
 Apple's profit margin is 30% for it's computers (it averages about $600 for each computer sold).
 Mac OS X would cost $130 for PCs, and Apple makes $100 on each copy sold.
 Apple's market share is 6%.
Given these numbers, would Apple start selling Mac OS X for PCs?

Lets see... basically what we have here is that for every computer not sold because someone bought a PC and Mac OS X, Apple loses $500. The only way to make this up is to sell 5 more copies of Mac OS X for PCs for each Apple computer not bought because of a copy of Mac OS X.

What if half the people who would have bought Apple computers bought Mac OS X and another companies PC instead?

Market share is the amount of new systems sold within a quarter by a given company (and often times with a given OS). If half of Apple's market share stopped buying Apple computers to buy Mac OS X and another companies PC, Apple would see a drop in profits of about 42%.

But people have always said that Apple's market share would jump if you could put Mac OS X on any PC... right?

What if the market share of Mac OS X on computers jumped to 12% because of this? Apple would still be seeing a 25% drop in profits compared to when they were selling Mac OS X only on their own hardware. In fact, Apple would have to jump to 21% to brake even with the profits they had at 6% if half of those sales were lost to Mac OS X on PCs.

What would happen if everyone bought Mac OS X for PCs and no Apple computers? How much market share would Apple need to brake even?

Apple would need to hit 36% market share to be *as profittable* selling only Mac OS X for PCs as they are currently selling Mac OS X on only Apple hardware. And since almost 35% of Windows installations are pirated (and there is no reason to think that Apple would fare any better), Apple would have to hit 49% in order to make what they are making right now with their 6%. But if only the same people who were buying Apple computers before continued to buy Mac OS X for PCs (so that original 6%), Apple would see a drop in profits of 83%.

But here is an even bigger problem... Mac OS X for PCs wouldn't be counted in market share unless it is pre-installed on hardware. So even if 49% of PC hardware ended up running Mac OS X, only the systems sold with it already on them would be counted as Mac OS X market share and the rest would still be Windows market share numbers.



*People who bring up NeXT*
I'm not going to name names, but someone brought up the fact that NeXT went to PCs.

NeXT never (not once) had a profitable quarter making hardware. They were never able to sell enough systems to pay for the resources that they invested to make those systems. As most people should know, the more of an item you make (and sell), the less costly it becomes to produce and the more profitable that item becomes. NeXT hardware never even approached profitability. They only sold (in the full run of NeXT hardware) about 50,000 units (from 1989 to 1993).

Further, NeXT was about to drop OPENSTEP as a product when Apple acquired them. They had worked with Sun to port the NEXTSTEP look and feel to Solaris and were about to drop their OS line in favor of just selling Enterprise Objects and WebObjects. There was no profit in selling their OS.

Why... and how, can anyone compare that to Apple today?


Additionally, Apple has wanted to drop _Computer_ from their name since the early 90s. It was the Beetles that had forced them to stay _Apple Computer_ for this long (about 15 years longer than they wanted to).


There is no reason for Apple to stop making computers because it is a massively profitable business for them. There is no reason for Apple to release Mac OS X for PCs because it directly undercuts a massively profitable business for them.

You guys may throw away money for no reason, but don't expect Apple to do the same. Until there is a plus for Apple's bottom line to any of these scenarios, it just isn't going to happen.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 23, 2007)

the whole theory behind the mac commercials is that the mac os is better than windows.  what those adverts are actually saying is "hi, I'm the Mac OS", "and i'm Windows"

plug that new digital camera in; "oh it just works".  "I have no virus's".  "My upgrade cycle is problem free", "i can make a studio quality home movie really easily", "i don't crash".

these are all attributes of the Mac OS working _with_ the closed environment Macintosh, not independently of each other. 

the Intel Switch, this aggressive ad campaign, even the iPod are all designed to help Apple ship more macs.  iPod started out at $499.  now the full fat iPod is less than $250, with better parts.  apple are selling these with a very small profit margin - they make far more profit off a full mac - and they are selling more than ever.  the apple stores, they way they are laid out even, use the iPod to entice people in, the iPods always being on the front tables, with macs further back.


i think the name name change is a way of saying to people "look you can trust our products.  we aren't a computer company that doesn't know anything aobut phones - we are a diverse electronics company"


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 23, 2007)

Whoah whoah whoah, RacerX, you have it all backwards. I'm not saying Apple should or will sell OS X for regular PCs. That would be crazy for even more reasons than you described. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Apple could (and I fear will) focus solely on their hardware (and a few apps like iLife).

However, if they get to the point where they can sell their hardware _without_ OS X, as I outlined, then perhaps it would make sense. It would certainly be preferable (from my perspective if not Apple's) to killing OS X entirely.



> Well, unlike Windows, the Mac and the operating system are one in the same. iLife doesn't run on anything but OS X. The ease of use they promote, isn't just the applications, it is the operating system.
> ...
> To me, they are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Also remember, while the OS is great, it's not the OS people are concerned with.


I agree, you can't have the Mac OS without a Mac. That much is obvious. But the reverse is not true (or at least, it doesn't need to be). You can use a Mac without the Mac OS. There are a lot of Windows users who would love to do just that. At some point, I think Apple will sell to them. That's one step in the process.

iLife could easily run on Windows, and would be another necessary step in the transition.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that Apple is moving (whether deliberately or not) to the point where their hardware can stand without the Mac OS. Once that happens, OS X can easily disappear. That won't happen tomorrow. No way. It won't happen in a year, either. But in 2-5 years, Apple could easily complete the necessary steps, as I outlined.

Someone mentioned the advantages to the Mac OS. Many of these advantages could disappear in that timeframe. I doubt Vista will be so virus-prone, for example. (And the whole virus issue has only been relevant for a short time, anyway. It's certainly not a reason why _I'm_ a Mac user.) But ultimately, it doesn't matter; profit matters. If they can make a bigger profit selling Windows machines, they will. Again, business-wise, the Mac OS exists to sell hardware. If it's not needed for that, it's just not needed.



Actually, I should probably revise my original outline a bit. I forgot to mention Boot Camp 1.0 (i.e., the one that will ship with Leopard). I expect this to allow for Classic-like compatibility with Windows apps, just like the new version of Parallels does. With that in place, Apple can justify shipping Macs with Windows _in addition to_ OS X much more easily (not immediately, but at some point).


----------



## RacerX (Jan 23, 2007)

Mikuro said:


> Whoah whoah whoah, RacerX, you have it all backwards. I'm not saying Apple should or will sell OS X for regular PCs. That would be crazy for even more reasons than you described. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Apple could (and I fear will) focus solely on their hardware (and a few apps like iLife).
> 
> However, if they get to the point where they can sell their hardware _without_ OS X, as I outlined, then perhaps it would make sense. It would certainly be preferable (from my perspective if not Apple's) to killing OS X entirely.


And Apple could fold the iTunes Music store and start installing Zune's software on all new iPods. 



But not in Jobs' life time.

Actually, Apple would not only lose the advantages their hardware currently has by dropping Mac OS X... they would lose the profit margins as well.

Apple sells closed systems so that they can't have their advantages used against them.

It should be noted that had people not found a way to install Windows on Intel Macs, Apple would not have released Boot Camp. Boot Camp was strictly in response to the successful hacking of the hardware. Boot Camp was released within days of a successful solution to installing Windows on Macs.

As it stands, Windows on Macs is the worse thing that we (the Mac community) currently face... and the same is true for Apple. Apple used to be able to count on Mac users to be return customers for years to come (because Apple is the only maker of Macs). What has currently happened is that people are buying Macs for the first time and then using Windows on them. Windows on a Mac is no better than Windows on a PC... hence, there is no reason for those people to buy a Mac the next time they need a new computer.

That loss of dedicated users is very troubling for Apple. Mac OS X adoption has slowed while hardware sales have increased. Once the _fad_ factor of hardware is gone (usually within a few days of purchase from what I've seen), these Windows users using Mac hardware start asking why they paid so much for the hardware (and a separate installation of Windows).

Apple has never tried to make money on software. It is a hardware company. It sells hardware with the best software on the planet to differentiate itself, but that is it. This holds true for Apple Computers as much as for iPods.

The day Apple starts selling iPods using WinCE or Zune's software, then you can start the _sky is falling_ dance about Apple dropping Mac OS X. Odds are this would happen only after Jobs is dead (and even then I'll put money on the ghost of Jobs terrorizing any Apple Executive that tries to do this).

Seeing as Mac OS X is the foundations of the iPhone, you couldn't be further from reality of what is happening at Apple right now if you tried.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 23, 2007)

It's OK, RacerX.  You could say it was me....I don't have a problem with it. 

I did say that my theory was a crazy one and obviously you do know more about NeXT history than I do (from what I've seen anyways).  I did mention, however, that it was too late for NeXT when they went that route.  From what I've found out (before your information was given), they tried to do OPENSTEP but because they were in such trouble financially already, it was too-little, too-late.  I only suspected that since Apple has more name recognition now (or in the near future) that might contemplate a move like that in the near future.  Again, I'm most probably wrong an many counts, but it was just a suspicion...nothing more.


----------



## Yesurbius (Jan 23, 2007)

Heads up - I read the first page and then decided I had to post 

At MacWorld - on of the first things Steve said is that 2007 is going to bring a lot of great things to the Mac .. but they weren't talking about them today.

Apple's stock is falling.  My guess is it will continue to fall until April, in which I think Steve will announce some good news for us.  Why is it falling?

1) I noticed the push away from 'Mac' and more to their iTunes franchise.  Incase anyone didn't 'clue in', Steve reiterated it with the company name change.

2) The lawsuit that was filed the moment Steve said, "... and we're calling it iPhone"

3) The fact that shortly after all this Apple partnership details came to light, Cingular started changing their name... Cingular reps answer "Welcome to Cingular, the new At&t"  ..  and word is - they'll be saying "Welcome to the new AT&T" shortly, followed by "Thanks for calling AT&T".  Cingular is phasing out - going away.  Buh-Bye.  Customers don't like this one bit.

Take a look at my city here.  A lot of graphic design departments .. this time last year, were running Macs exclusively.   Today, they can't get the software they want on the Macs anymore, and are moving over to Windows - where they can.   I'm assuming this has a lot to do with Adobe.

Yeah - so in short ... I think Apple has really dropped the ball in the last year, focusing on their iPod franchise instead of their computer franchise.  I agree with the SGI comment ..  never forget your primary line of business.

As for predictions - I can't say.   History is plagued with great ideas and great products that were destroyed by a few bad decisions.   In my mind however - this would be the mostly successful scenario:

1) New iPods only work with new versions of iTunes.. and Mac OS X gets the new version of iTunes a month ahead of Windows.   

2) Leopard has full Virtualization of Windows, allowing you to run Windows Apps within Mac OS X at near-native speeds.

3) Apple does a lot of horizontal expansion as a company - gets more involved in the production of their own products - quality control - etc etc.  We already see this happening in some degree with the Apple stores .. it needs to happen on the manufacturing side as well.

4) Apple broadens their hardware line considerably.  Product families: Mac Mini, Mac Home, Mac Office, and Mac Pro.  Each family will focus on different areas, but essentially you have 3 models in each family.  Model 1 will be low-price centric, Model 2 will be mid-range, and Model 3 will be quite capable systems.  Mac Home will essentially have features that are people want at home, where Mac Office will cut back on the Home features, and focus more on Office functionality.  Mac Pros will be available in desktop or rackmount and will be the high end machines / servers.

5) Apple cracks down on Darwin - puts more money into their Unix team to do massive re-writes, code audits and changes to ensure that Darwin is fully-functional as a Unix, and is maintained very well for security patches.  (I'm thinking the OpenBSD team's track record)

6) Apple gets REAL serious about Mac OS X Server.  Does massive deployments in K-12 school environments and ensures that it does everything businesses, schools, etc needs it to do.  Why K-12??  School uses Apple - kids want apple - parents get apple - parents advocate at work for apple.  Not to mention that when those kids grow up - it'll only help Apple.

7) Apple releases Mac OS X to the world.  For the best experience - run it on Apple hardware.  Apple continues to innovate their hardware, and program the OS to use those innovations.  Other PC manufacturers will always be a step behind Apple's brand of machines.  More motivation to buy a Mac.  

8) Lastly - STOP COMPETING WITH WINDOWS.  Apple doesn't need to compete - just release their own products and people will move over on their own - quickly.  Apple has a very loyal userbase - if they turn it into a Good vs Evil type scenario - they are alienating those group of people that want or need to run Windows.  Stop doing it!

That's it.  Steve referenced a quote at the last MacWorld - if you are really passionate about making software, then you have to make your own hardware too (or maybe it was other way around)...  but the message is still there.  Innovate and lead ... don't follow.

EDIT: Something to add in response to RacerX's comments.  Your numbers are flawed.  Apple would never just up and release Mac OS X to the world just so it could compete on the market without having some way to make themselves money.  Windows sells for $300 per copy - you'd bet your butt that Mac OS X would sell for the same amount if not more.  Lastly, Apple is at 6% market share - selling Macs.  Mac OS X gets released to the world .. do you really thing people would buy PCs to run Mac OS X on it, if they've already owned a Mac?  I don't think so.  I'd say they'd keep the 6% market share of Mac users, and then gain additional Market share.  They would essentially be penetrating the market faster, with a lower profit margin.  Now - think also of the effects.  Mac OS X on more machines = larger market share = more attention = larger developer audience specific to Mac OS X.   That improves the entire Mac experience on a whole - and adds value to the entire franchise.  That 6% they have now in Mac Hardware sales would only go up.  You are also forgetting that Apple could require a DRM system in the computers OS X runs on - and the licensing costs could yield quite a bit of money as well.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jan 23, 2007)

The Mac OS is more likely to die if Apple doesnt branch out.

A much wider range of Apple products provide a buffer for limited market take-up of Mac OS. 

Furthermore, healthy product sales of iTunes and iPhone (for example) bring in more cash for R & D.

P.S. I predict the next Windows incarnation will be unix-based.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 23, 2007)

rhisiart said:


> P.S. I predict the next Windows incarnation will be unix-based.



....And for hilarity's sake, I predict that UNIX will be more Windows-based....

...Hell, I could be right on this one, considering the state of desktop environments on UNIX/Linux nowadays.  Mac OS X is in fact one of them (Unix being "windows" based...as in the WIMP term....just in case it went over someone's head....).


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 23, 2007)

but in all seriousness, MS will never base anything for the mass market on UNIX.  microsoft licences, not the other way around.


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 23, 2007)

Windows is only $300 for retail. They don't charge that much to Dell, it's only about $60.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jan 23, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> but in all seriousness, MS will never base anything for the mass market on UNIX.  microsoft licences, not the other way around.


I'm just thinking outside the box... blue sky thinking... looking for the Goldilocks effect (not too hot, not cold etc...).

I think you guys are trying to boil the ocean.....


----------



## Qion (Jan 23, 2007)

rhisiart said:


> I think you guys are trying to boil the ocean.....



I did that once.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 23, 2007)

that's a very big kedgeree.


----------



## Ifrit (Jan 23, 2007)

Actually IMO the Windows support isn't necessary a bad thing.

Look at it from a customer's perspective:

What do you do, if you get a new computer which comes with preinstalled software/OS? Of course you turn it on and boot it up, just to see if it works. Its most unlikley that you plunge the install CDs in and reinstall away.

Secondly what do you have to do in order to install Windows on a Mac? 
Usually you have to boot up OSX and select the bootcamp app and run it. So the customer gets at least a glimpse of OSX, because he has to interact with the interface just to reach said application.
Windows installs and the configuration afterwards are long, ugly and usually not something you would do instandly. Humans are curious. I expect that most people play at least a few minutes til they make changes to the system. 

My last point is that people usually like backup or fallback plans. Having the option to install Windows will usually lessen the fear of the new machine. "If everything fails or if there is no substitute for application YX I could still install Windows". This will give people confidence in the new purchase.

Compared to me and other people on this board buying a new computer is a huge thing for certain persons. (I could easily spend my money on the latest imac and live the next 2 months from ramen without a problem, but not everybody has this freedom of choise  ) They invest in a computer just like someone would invest into a some house or whatever and will use it beyond the products life-cycle.


----------



## fryke (Jan 23, 2007)

Phew. Don't have the time to read it all. Just here to say: Apple is a _guest_ at the MacWorld show(s). It's MacWorld magazine's gig AFAIK.


----------



## bubbajim (Jan 24, 2007)

Can't wait to you see what's coming out this year in regards to hardware.  OSX will be zipping along on new desktops and laptops running the latest and greatest OS.

Apple employees do not get secret information about new products, but we did get very big nod from the big guy on how wonderful this year will be! Even after the iPhone, there will continue to be some very impressive new equipment coming from Infinite Loop**.

OSX is not going anywhere.  Innovation will continue.  Mac hardware is definitely not going anywhere.  There just was not enough room to in the keynote for both new hardware AND the iPhone.  When you want one start to shine more than the other, you don't put them both out at the same time.  That's marketing suicide.  New hardware will come and it will knock your socks off.

** Yes I work at Apple.  No I have no secret information to give out.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 24, 2007)

> It should be noted that had people not found a way to install Windows on Intel Macs, Apple would not have released Boot Camp. Boot Camp was strictly in response to the successful hacking of the hardware. Boot Camp was released within days of a successful solution to installing Windows on Macs.


Why do you say that? Apple certainly did not whip up Boot Camp in a few days. More likely, they'd been working on it from the start. If third-party hacks influenced them at all (which is just speculation), it was probably only in the timing of their beta release.



> Actually, Apple would not only lose the advantages their hardware currently has by dropping Mac OS X... they would lose the profit margins as well.


How? (Keep in mind that I keep saying Apple could NOT pull this off in their current state, but rather in the future. So any reasons much take into account the possible future changes I proposed, or else debunk those changes convincingly.)

I think you underestimate the appeal of Apple hardware. Apple _does_ differentiate themselves, even when you just consider hardware. Even now, when Apple can pretty much dictate their own market (since only they make Macs), they limit themselves to fancy/luxury machines. That's what they'd do if they sold Windows machines, and I think they'd sell well. Apple makes good, appealing hardware, and better yet, Apple has a great brand image. They have cachet. Half the reason so many people buy Macs now is just because Apple is sexy and cool. That would not change.

And that appeal has increased steadily over the past few years.

Apple's image as a company that makes "solutions" would not die, either, as they would still be selling iLife. As has been said many times by all sides of this discussion, the general public doesn't care so much about the OS as the specific apps. iLife would still be Apple's thing. In a sense, they would still be using their software to sell their hardware &#8212; just not OS X. They'd be more "tying things together" the instead "making the whole widget".

I don't think iPhone is relevant, since it is closed and pretty much separate from the desktop Mac OS. It's not like the future of the iPhone is tied to the Mac OS. It's just a phone.

I like your comments about Steve Jobs, and part of me agrees, but that's really just faith. I had that faith for a while, but...not anymore.





Ifrit said:


> Actually IMO the Windows support isn't necessary a bad thing.
> <snip>


I agree. In fact, I mentioned that briefly in my first post, in the mantras the Mac faithful have been using. I do think that's a valid way to look at it, but it's not the only way. Certainly, the current situation is not PROOF that my predictions are right. What I'm looking for is proof that they're wrong...




> There just was not enough room to in the keynote for both new hardware AND the iPhone. When you want one start to shine more than the other, you don't put them both out at the same time. That's marketing suicide. New hardware will come and it will knock your socks off.


I never expected new hardware at Macworld. I did expect at least some mention of Leopard. If not an extended preview (might steal iPhone's thunder, as you said), at least some word on the progress and expected release date. But that's not really the point. If Leopard had actually been released at Macworld, the theory would still stand. It would just be a lot easier for me to tell myself it's ridiculous.


----------



## Timotheos (Jan 24, 2007)

I just dont understand your reasoning. Yeah, sure, if apple do get a huge percentage of the market which may or may not happen but why would they want to change their OS? 

If you answer that then you have taken the first step to convincing me...

At this point, Mac's have the best operating system and the way things are going I cant see windows becomeing a greater OS, if anything it would have to be a next generation OS other than mac os or windows or linux that works in ways no one has thought of, and if someone was going to do that I would put my money on apple anyway.

Mac os works near perfect and I can only see the design team at apple improving on that, why would they throw it all away for something that isnt half decent?!?!

Another thing I dont understand is why you (and alot of Mac fans) have lost faith in jobs, if you lose faith in him you might aswell forget about apple 'cause hes the heart and soul...

A man make a great product and company... he gets kicked out of his job as CEO, the company goes down hill... he comes back, tries all the things apple had failed with in the 90's and pulls starts to pull them off... why would you lose faith in that? (apart from the fact that Jobs didnt give a release date for leopard, woop de do, i can tell you now, its in spring)


----------



## Johnny Blaze (Jan 24, 2007)

I think they need to allow leopard to work on pc's. This would give them a huge amount of exposure, and could easily double their software market share within a year.  I would say a solid 90% of people would never even consider using macintosh software just because you have to buy a whole new, rather expensive computer and theres a chance you might not like it.  But if you give them the option of trying it out for $200?,MANY MANY people will try it out. And then they'll tell two people how great it is, and they will tell two people, and they will tell two people, and so on and so on.

The majority of Apples marketing campaign for the past few months is "we are better than microsoft. Their product is boring and our product is fun and easy to use". 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. Yes you can run windows on it, but the masses of people won't take this into consideration. 

It is a great product and it deserves much more of the market share than it holds.  The intel switch gives them the prime opportunity to skyrocket their success.  They have had a far superior product for ten years, but why do they still only hold 5-6% of the market share? (a seriously low number)  It is because people aren't willing to shell out the money to buy a new computer and try it out, THEY WEREN'T THEN AND THEY STILL AREN'T GOING TO NOW. But trust me, with the success of the ipod, the stylish macbooks you see going around campus, and their fantastic marketing campaign, people are very intrigued by Apple.  Intrigued enough to spend a $1000 on a product they have never used before (and has a bad game collection)? NO. Intrigued enough to spend $200 on a product they can try out on a computer they already own? Most definitely.

After their software catches on with the pc crowd, which it certainly will, people will begin to have brand loyalty towards apple. I think initially apples hardware sales may take a hit (which might not even happen), but after everyone tries out leopard they will want to buy a mac computer. They won't mind shelling out a little more money for a stylish and reliable machine. Even so, a $200 software sale is money in the bank with very little materials cost.

And this is how Apple will take down Rockefeller Microsoft.


----------



## Sunnz (Jan 24, 2007)

Yesurbius said:


> That's it.  Steve referenced a quote at the last MacWorld - if you are really passionate about making software, then you have to make your own hardware too (or maybe it was other way around)...  but the message is still there.  Innovate and lead ... don't follow.



I think was "people who are serious about software should make their own hardware".

I think it pretty much applies to everything Apple is making - the Mac, iPod, iPhone... they had great ideas on how to make useful softwafe, like OSX, and design their own hardware, the Mac to run them.

People can actually run OSX on any 386 capable system now... but the integration just isn't as good as a Mac running OSX. Apple could release OSX for the generic PC, it would give exposure to the market, but would it be the best exposure?

I think not. Installation an OS isn't always straight forward, on a generic PC. If you have been following 'desktop linux' like Ubuntu, you would hear a consistent cry on why installation is so difficult, sometimes doesn't not work at all without any reasonable Linux knowledge. In most cases Ubuntu does install with ease though. But if Apple does the same thing, it is going to give bad experience to some people, so staying on the Mac would guarantee the best Mac experience - after all, they design the Mac to run OSX!!!

So if Apple are really serious about software, then why would they sell Macs without OSX? I mean, if the above quote were true, then whole point of of making Macs is to run OSX... making computers to run Windows isn't making Macs... anyway, OSX is going pretty strong, Leopard being sent to Open Group for UNIX certification and... if they really want to ditch OSX, they could always release it to the open source, like netscape, java, right?


----------



## fryke (Jan 25, 2007)

The idea of Apple ditching the Mac or Mac OS X when it's becoming more and more successful is just that: Really, really stupid, if you think about it.  I hope _this_ helps to put your mind at ease.


----------



## Veljo (Jan 25, 2007)

To be honest I think Apple are slowly beginning to lose the plot with their computers. They seem to be focusing a lot on the iPod and other media related things rather than the Mac (as shown at the recent conference). The dropping of 'computer' from their name really worried me.


----------



## fryke (Jan 25, 2007)

I didn't think so. 2006 started with the MacBook Pro and the intel iMac. Month after month they introduced new intel Macs. Very Mac-centric first half year it was, and the Mac Pro certainly put yet another "Mac" badge on the year. Then came the Core 2 Duo iMac, MacBook Pro and MacBook. So I'd say _apart_ from this year's MWSF keynote, there's not much proof of them "losing the plot with their computers" at all. There have been _much_ longer periods with no big new Mac announcements in the past decade.


----------



## Sunnz (Jan 25, 2007)

Vista has already implemented a little bit of 'Time Machine' in their Windows Explorer with word documents, which they call it 'Shadow Copy', is supposedly to be 'better than going back in time', as they said in CES 2007.

Remember how Jobs said there were 10 secret features in Leopard in WWDC2006 that he just want you to know they are there?

They don't want Vista to steal more stuff, and having to introduce iPhone at the same time, it is understandable that they didn't talked about Leopard.


----------



## Captain Code (Jan 25, 2007)

Veljo said:


> To be honest I think Apple are slowly beginning to lose the plot with their computers. They seem to be focusing a lot on the iPod and other media related things rather than the Mac (as shown at the recent conference). The dropping of 'computer' from their name really worried me.



How can you say they're not focusing on their Mac hardware when they just completely replaced every Mac in a year?


----------



## Yesurbius (Jan 25, 2007)

I crave new designs.  New Blood.  new Toys

I can't imagine a different iMac look ...

Deliver Steve!


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 25, 2007)

Again I'd like to stress the difference between "Macs" (the computers) and "the Mac" (the OS and platform in general). Macs can run Windows. The Mac is the opposite of Windows (more or less). There's a big difference.


----------



## fryke (Jan 25, 2007)

They didn't say "10" IIRC. They just said that the 10 things they talked about today weren't _all_ the new features.


----------



## hennessymac (Jan 25, 2007)

Interesting analogy   "can {a} Leopard change its spots"   lol 

;-)


----------



## Sunnz (Jan 25, 2007)

Just to make things more interesting...

Microsoft Norway, has been showing off Microsoft's latest OS, Vista...
http://atvs.vg.no/nyheter/7334-slik-blir-vista.html











... on an iMac...


----------



## eric2006 (Jan 25, 2007)

Sunnz said:


> Just to make things more interesting...
> 
> Microsoft Norway, has been showing off Microsoft's latest OS, Vista...
> http://atvs.vg.no/nyheter/7334-slik-blir-vista.html
> ...



I guess they couldn't use that good-looking PC, the.. 

umm..

something.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 26, 2007)

That's no surprise. Bill Gates and Microsoft have always had something of an Apple fetish. Apple's release of Boot Camp probably gave their lives new meaning.


----------



## Sunnz (Jan 26, 2007)

Well, it was said that Vista only runs the well on the latest and greatest hardware available...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 26, 2007)

Mikuro said:


> Again I'd like to stress the difference between "Macs" (the computers) and "the Mac" (the OS and platform in general). Macs can run Windows. The Mac is the opposite of Windows (more or less). There's a big difference.



yes, but i think Steve Jobs has far too much of a deep-seated vendetta against windows to let his child die to it.  it won't happen in his life-time, and there are far too many blood-thirsty mac fans, who, like you say love 'THE' Mac, not macs in general.

no one on this board, with it's thousands of memebers would ever willingly choose windows over mac os ever again.

it's this community that will ensure the mac stays alive.  it's the the only example in the world of a technology company with a cult status.


----------



## fryke (Jan 26, 2007)

cult status does _not_ help the platform when it's dying. so i'm glad it's not. can't we just tell him he's crazy and that the mac isn't doomed and move on?


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 26, 2007)

fryke said:


> cult status does _not_ help the platform when it's dying. so i'm glad it's not. can't we just tell him he's crazy and that the mac isn't doomed and move on?


Case closed! 

Seriously, though, it's heartening that so many people think the idea is crazy, but...can you point to any one step along my path that you think will never happen and explain why? Specifically:

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?

As for iLife, they would obviously not do that _unless_ they were definitely planning to move away from the Mac OS. At that point it would be fairly obvious, so they could only do that very shortly before the switch. All the others I would not be at all surprised to see one way or another.

I'm not saying I _expect_ this to actually happen. It's just something that's been in the back of my mind for...well, since shortly after Steve Jobs's return to Apple and the infamous "1984" keynote with Big Brother Bill on screen and Steve Jobs happily announcing that the OS wars were over (and Apple lost). Back then I just felt dirty for a little while and didn't worry about it anymore, because I knew that there was no way in hell they could switch to Windows even if they wanted to. But at this point, that really could change. The question isn't so much "could they" (they could, within a few years) as "would it ever be profitable to do so, and would they care even if it were" (...I'm not sure it wouldn't, and I definitely think they would).

I don't think the sky is falling just yet. When Apple starts shipping machines with Windows preinstalled or releases iLife for Windows, I will take that as my cue to get comfortable with Linux. Until then I'll stick with OS X. I'd even look at the bright side of Cocoa for Windows if they released it (actually, as a developer I've always wished they would).


----------



## limike28 (Jan 26, 2007)

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 (Jan 26, 2007)

Here's my opinions:



Mikuro said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2007)

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 (Jan 28, 2007)

Sunnz said:


> 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 &#8212; as useful as they are &#8212; 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&#8482. 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 (Jan 28, 2007)

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 (Jan 28, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> 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 (Jan 28, 2007)

Johnny Blaze said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 28, 2007)

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)


----------



## Qion (Jan 28, 2007)

zynizen said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



All very true statements. I agree that Apple has a million avenues for it's computer market to flow into, especially since they are gaining popularity, and like you said, being recognized as that which puts MS to shame.

As for the naming system, I believe that Apple should follow Microsoft's path of little-known nouns. Here comes Mac OS ineXorability!


----------

