1984 or Brave New World?

[LVzardoz]

Do you remember Apple's big ad campaign several years ago (from the book 1984) with Apple in the role of the hero breaking the supposed tyranny of big-blue IBM?

Isn't it ironic that so many Mac devotees are now praying for that same IBM to SAVE Apple from oblivion via the rumored adoption of IBM's PPC970 CPU?

If Apple were truly interested in bringing its superiority to the masses and smashing the mediocrity of that other platform, Windows, the path is very clear: bring OS X to x86 (AMD/Intel).

The truth, however, is that Apple is not all that different from IBM or Microsoft. They are not in it for altuism, they are primarily concerned with bottom line profits at the lowest corporate risk.

Apple has the opportunity to bring OS X to the masses and they choose not to simply because they don't need to. They're quite comfortable being the perennial high-margin niche player pandering to those still enamored with Apple's past glory instead of it's potential.

 

[adambyte]

Well, lest you forget, at the time, IBM was seen as the threat, not Microsoft.

Aside from that, I whole-heartedly agree. And I like Apple right where it is.

 

[toast]

Apple has the opportunity to bring OS X to the masses and they choose not to simply because they don't need to. They're quite comfortable being the perennial high-margin niche player pandering to those still enamored with Apple's past glory instead of it's potential.

That's a fragile living through the actual market. I don't think Apple loves marginalism so much. I'd rather say some of their attempts to widespread (such as OSX) have failed. OSX is good, but not enough to make Apple OSX gain significant markets such as the DTP industry or home computing (incl. gaming).

On a more conceptual level, I'd thought posting in the Opinions, Reviews & Open Letters implied having an Opinion, a Review or an Open Letter to make public. What's your Opinion ? Any Review ? Is this an Open Letter ?

 

[LVzardoz]

My opinion is that Apple should release Marklar (OS X for x86) and not be so complacent/elitist with its niche market standing.

My belief, however, is that Apple has become just another corporation that puts "safe profits" ahead of riskier ideals bringing its superior vision to the masses.

Basically, I don't thing Steve Jobs has the balls to compete again with Microsoft. Too risky to his aging ego.

 

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by LVzardoz
My opinion is that Apple should release Marklar (OS X for x86) and not be so complacent/elitist with its niche market standing.

My belief, however, is that Apple has become just another corporation that puts "safe profits" ahead of riskier ideals bringing its superior vision to the masses.

Basically, I don't thing Steve Jobs has the balls to compete again with Microsoft. Too risky to his aging ego.

So then you do not subscribe to the theory that coming out with a beige box version (important distinction between a beige box version and simply an x86 version) of OSX would destroy the market for their own hardware (and thus their primary source of income) and at best leave Apple competing head to head against the biggest gorilla in the jungle and at worst causing Apple to become the next Be (or next NeXT for that matter).

After all, when does "risk" become folly? Balls become brain dead? You want Steve to go toe to toe with Bill, is that a ballsy risky move, or is it just stupid? What are his chances for "success". Is this risk worth losing one entire segment of your business? I think your opinion makes the assumption that doing such a thing actually has a high probability of success, and that many people would not agree.

 

[LVzardoz]

I guess I have more faith in the quality and utility of OS X more than I do of Apple hardware.

Yes, I would anticipate that Apple's computer hardware sales might take a hit. Actually, that would be a good thing. If would give them plenty of incentive to make Apple more competitive in that area.

There are plenty of religiously loyal Apple fanatics that would be wary of jumping to cheaper generic x86 products, thus ensuring that Apple would keep at least half of its core hardware market intact. If Apple's hardware is as good as many here suggest, Apple should remain the "preferred" hardware for OS X and Apple's designer skills would still be a significant selling point.

The big plus for Apple could be a huge flood of new revenue from x86 OS X and software sales from those who thought about buying a Mac but were put off by inflated costs and underpowered performance.

For those Mac fanatics who blindly insist that "GHz" doesn't matter, OS X could prove whether that is true or not by competing on the same CPU platform. Furthermore, if the forthcoming PPC970/80 CPUs are supposed to so great for OS X then that CPU platform should still be the preferred high-end platform.

By putting OS X out there for the x86, Apple could demonstrate its move to greater openness and away from elitist, overpriced pretentiousness, which is how most non-Apple folks currently view the Mac.

Now that Apple has moved to a highly-respected Unix core with OS X, Apple is given much greater credibility among influential tech-oriented Linux fans. Clearly OS X is a much better user experience for the average person than Linux. If the hardware price came down I have no doubt that many Linux fans would flock to OS X. Linux would likely become a server-only OS.

The move to OS X on x86 would undoubtedly garners tons of free publicity for Apple and a snowballing public awareness from influential favorable technical reviews. Its a big story when Apple's David seriously takes on Goliath Microsoft. If Apple was viewed as a more egalitarian entity, there would be plenty of writers that couldn't wait to take Microsoft down a peg or two.

Considering the increasing wariness of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, I would predict that OS X could grab a 25% share of desktop operating systems within three years of introduction of OS X on x86. That's a lot of cash.

A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.

 

[toast]

A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.

OSX sounds to me like a risk. It is, in my opinion, bringing as much benefit to Apple (eg: new image) than deficit (eg: disappointed DTP industry).

 

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by LVzardoz
I guess I have more faith in the quality and utility of OS X more than I do of Apple hardware.

Yes, I would anticipate that Apple's computer hardware sales might take a hit. Actually, that would be a good thing. If would give them plenty of incentive to make Apple more competitive in that area.

Considering that software (that's ALL software, not just OSX) accounts for about 7% of Apple's revenue, I think that saying their hardware sales will take a hit but that is a good thing is way optimistic. A four fold increase in software sales wouldn't come close to matching a halving of hardware sales. Don't you think that Steve learned something with NeXT? Apple can afford to "be innovative" and take chances specifically because their hardware margins give them the comfort to do so. I think you're missing the gestalt here. That and the lessons of NeXT and Be.

There are plenty of religiously loyal Apple fanatics that would be wary of jumping to cheaper generic x86 products, thus ensuring that Apple would keep at least half of its core hardware market intact. If Apple's hardware is as good as many here suggest, Apple should remain the "preferred" hardware for OS X and Apple's designer skills would still be a significant selling point.

Apple would get crushed. Apple with as small a market share it currently has can't afford to lose any appreciable amount, and they without a doubt would. If you can run OSX on a beigebox, why would you risk not likeing the OS and being "stuck" when you could buy the x86 and still have your cake and eat it too?

The big plus for Apple could be a huge flood of new revenue from x86 OS X and software sales from those who thought about buying a Mac but were put off by inflated costs and underpowered performance.

Again, even a quadrupling of revenue wouldn't make up for the drubbing they'd get from lost hardware sales.

...
By putting OS X out there for the x86, Apple could demonstrate its move to greater openness and away from elitist, overpriced pretentiousness, which is how most non-Apple folks currently view the Mac.

Well like seems to me that the "elitest/pretentiousness" is created more from the users themselves and not as much from Apple itself. I don't consider thinking "different" as Apple suggests as elitest. Overpriced, well many do consider Apple stuff "overpriced" while others consider it "you get what you pay for". Unfortunately for Apple, in either case price will always be one of the primary factors in a purchase decision. Apple is small, they can't compete against the Dell's of the world (not want to, can't, big difference), they have to charge more. Being "innovative" to differentiate yourself makes matters that much worse as you have to cover r&d costs as well.

...
A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.

In what regard. Apple continues to take major risks. The move to PPC, the acquisition of NeXT and the move to OSX, ditching adb/nubus/floppies/serial. I don't know what other risks your referring to? Apple does what they've always done (well post Apple II anyway), sell premium well integrated computers. Please explain how they are that much different now, what did they use to do that they are not currently doing?

 

[boneske]

I dont see how porting OSX to x86 will kill their hardware market. I honestly think they will only gain market not loose it. The people that buy Apple right now is because they prefer apple's OS and the hardware over x86. Now the people that only like the OS havnt spent the money because they think Apple's hardware is too over priced.

As for BeOS, what killed them over was giving away their OS. They had the most popular non-windows OS out there and their bank account wasn't showing that because they gave away their OS.

boneske

 

[Cat]

I think Panther and the PPC 970 may solve many problems. For instance the price performance ratio will improve a lot. Psychologically the MHz myth will also be resolved, since clockspeeds will scale very well with this new line.
People won't view Apple as overpriced anymore. Moreover, with the arrival of a new processor, current systems using the G4 probably will get a price drop, making them even more accessible. From the quite cheap eMac up to the Dual PowerMacs and the XServe, Apple has and will continue to have a very appealing line.
Unlike other computer manufacturers or software companies, Apple values some ideals besides the cult of money and profit: design, ease of use, open standards and open source. Moreover, in all these areas Apple still continues to innovate: look at the new iMac and at OS X. This sets Apple well apart from most other companies.

 

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by boneske
I dont see how porting OSX to x86 will kill their hardware market. I honestly think they will only gain market not loose it. The people that buy Apple right now is because they prefer apple's OS and the hardware over x86. Now the people that only like the OS havnt spent the money because they think Apple's hardware is too over priced.

I think many "common" folk who buy a Mac do so because it is presented as a superiour "solution", i.e. hardware and software. If OSX were available for x86 and other manuf. can also ship custom solutions around it, then that would hurt Apple (imagine Dell selling a couple of configs targeted specifically towards OSX, 2.5ghz proccies with 17" lcd displays for $899, it'd be aweful tough for Apple to compete with that).

As for BeOS, what killed them over was giving away their OS. They had the most popular non-windows OS out there and their bank account wasn't showing that because they gave away their OS.

Chicken/egg here. They gave away their OS to try to get the critical mass of market share required to get isv's to start developing software for it. One of the biggest mistakes they made was not offering free development tools (you had to buy CodeWarrior), if you wanted to play, you had to pay. After all, its the apps that drive the sales right, not the OS.

But my point about Be was that they started off as a hardware/software company, ditched hardware, couldn't figure out if they wanted to face M$ head to head, and then just whithered away. NexT sold innovative hardware and software, couldn't sell enough hardware, became a software company, and would have whithered away had it not been for Apple.

 

[boneske]

It's always good for consumers for businesses to compete. The x86's are so much cheaper because they are competing with other x86 companies. Also what comes with that cometition is speed, Intel and AMD processors boosted their speed in such a short amount of time because they are competing for the same market.

Just think what Apple could come up with if they actually start competing with other companies. Anyways that's my 1.5 cents.

boneske

 

[Arden]

Apple is competing with other companies. They are competing with Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, in some ways Adobe, and a host of other companies. However, they have to compete on a platform basis vs. scores of hardware manufacturers and Microsoft, instead of just Microsoft. Remember, Apple sells more computer than anyone else.

If Apple released OS X for the Wintel platform, they would have to optimize it for a long time to get it to work well. If it worked well on x86-based hardware, however, Apple's hardware sales would drop, which is where they get their money. If they made it work poorly on x86 hardware, they'd be in the same boat as they are now because nobody would want to use a PC to run OS X, and they would be scorned for doing a crappy port job.

IBM had the chipset and the hardware base, and they lost it because they allowed other companies to license their technology, forcing IBM out of the personal computer industry and into chipmaking and whatever else they do. Remember the Apple Clone Wars of 6-8 years ago? If Apple had not dissolved their clone licenses, they probably would have gone under from lackluster hardware sales. Anyway, in IBM's case Big Brother turned into, basically, Dewey (from Malcolm in the Middle).

Do you think Apple wouldn't love to have a 25-40% market share? Just because they are basically the underdog of the platform market doesn't mean they prefer to be in that position. I'm sure Apple would love to be able to expand their market share, they just have to figure out a way to do it that involves perhaps some risk but not as much as, say, rock climbing with no equipment or safety gear.

 

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by arden

...
If Apple released OS X for the Wintel platform, they would have to optimize it for a long time to get it to work well. If it worked well on x86-based hardware, however, Apple's hardware sales would drop, which is where they get their money. If they made it work poorly on x86 hardware, they'd be in the same boat as they are now because nobody would want to use a PC to run OS X, and they would be scorned for doing a crappy port job.

Actually you point out one of the most important distinctions when talking about Apple going 'x86', are we talking about simply building a Mac around an x86 processor (and keeping the proprietary MB and firmware), or are we talking about targeting beige boxes. Because if we're talking about the latter (which I assume the original poster was) then the whole issue of hardware support rears its ugly head. One of the biggest problems Be had when they moved to beige boxes was getting decent hardware support. OSX would suffer from the same issue. Could the OS hold out long enough to actually get a decent critical mass of drivers to support the equipment that people are running. Remember NeXTStep x86, it ran on a severly limited set of hardware configs. BeOS was better, but still limited. Add to that the support issues raised by all the problems that will arise and it quickly becomes a big mess.

IBM had the chipset and the hardware base, and they lost it because they allowed other companies to license their technology, forcing IBM out of the personal computer industry and into chipmaking and whatever else they do. Remember the Apple Clone Wars of 6-8 years ago? If Apple had not dissolved their clone licenses, they probably would have gone under from lackluster hardware sales. Anyway, in IBM's case Big Brother turned into, basically, Dewey (from Malcolm in the Middle).

Just a point of clarification, I don't think IBM actually licensed their stuff to clone makers (in the ISA era), correct me if I'm wrong here. They simply made the mistake of providing excellent docs on the system (including a full BIOS listing in the tech ref manual) allowing others to effectively copy how the PC worked. They didn't try to license the tech until the PS/2 and microchannel. By then it was too late, the other major players at the time revolted and the rest is history. I do agree about the Mac clones, the whole program was ill conceived and had Steve not nixed it, it would have been an overall loss for the Mac community.

 

[Arden]

Originally posted by binaryDigit
Actually you point out one of the most important distinctions when talking about Apple going 'x86', are we talking about simply building a Mac around an x86 processor (and keeping the proprietary MB and firmware), or are we talking about targeting beige boxes. Because if we're talking about the latter (which I assume the original poster was) then the whole issue of hardware support rears its ugly head. One of the biggest problems Be had when they moved to beige boxes was getting decent hardware support. OSX would suffer from the same issue. Could the OS hold out long enough to actually get a decent critical mass of drivers to support the equipment that people are running. Remember NeXTStep x86, it ran on a severly limited set of hardware configs. BeOS was better, but still limited. Add to that the support issues raised by all the problems that will arise and it quickly becomes a big mess.

Either way, Apple would have quite a hard time getting their cats to run on all the "beige box" hardware. As it stands, PC makers and hardware makers have to optimize their stuff for Windows because that is what their customers use, and since Windows is so prevalent Microsoft can't possibly optimize for everything. That's one of the problems with software programming: getting it to run correctly on all systems.

However, Apple would have to rewrite OS X to be compatible with all manners of PC hardware. Considering the problems they have optimizing it for only one platform, all the different Macs out there, porting X to Windows and getting it to run correctly would be a massive undertaking, and almost impossible to make run correctly on every system, since it is much more of a low-level process than games or other applictations. I could be wrong; other OS's, including all the *NIX's, run well on most PC hardware. However, that's the problem I see Apple confronting in porting to x86.

Just a point of clarification, I don't think IBM actually licensed their stuff to clone makers (in the ISA era), correct me if I'm wrong here. They simply made the mistake of providing excellent docs on the system (including a full BIOS listing in the tech ref manual) allowing others to effectively copy how the PC worked. They didn't try to license the tech until the PS/2 and microchannel. By then it was too late, the other major players at the time revolted and the rest is history. I do agree about the Mac clones, the whole program was ill conceived and had Steve not nixed it, it would have been an overall loss for the Mac community.

Whether they licensed it originally or not, I don't know; they lost control nonetheless. My original point still stands; if Apple were to lose control what their OS ran on, they would become either software-only (like Microsoft) or they would fade into the background on hardware (like IBM has).

 

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by arden
...
However, Apple would have to rewrite OS X to be compatible with all manners of PC hardware. Considering the problems they have optimizing it for only one platform, all the different Macs out there, porting X to Windows and getting it to run correctly would be a massive undertaking, and almost impossible to make run correctly on every system, since it is much more of a low-level process than games or other applictations. I could be wrong; other OS's, including all the *NIX's, run well on most PC hardware. However, that's the problem I see Apple confronting in porting to x86.
...

Basically the development effort is to port Quartz (since Darwin is already ported). The effort to support the various hardware configs falls upon the device drivers. Usually you get the manuf. of the device to write the driver. Apple will probably be forced to do some of this themselves (most likely they'll end up paying the manuf to come out with an OSX driver). These drivers are everything and are the key to hardware compatibility (much more so than any other aspect of the OS). Apple should be able to leverage the existing *BSD and Linux drivers (to varying degrees) to jump start this effort.

As for other *nix systems running "well" on "most" PC hardware, well yes and no. None support the incredible breadth of hardware available and that Windoze supports. If you have "common" devices and don't mind drivers that may not fully exploit "special" features, then the state of support on these systems isn't bad.