octane
I have issues, OK!
Some clever guy talks up Apple opitons...
go for Microsoft's market, Apple told...
- Thread starter octane
- Start date
Ah, every now and then someone with 'business insight' tries to tell us what Apple should do. Let's just keep in mind that these 'suggestions' (which always go with the 'or else Apple is doomed' thingie) haven't been followed by Apple in the past, and Apple is still in the business as one of the most known brands and the maker of the best-known computer in the world.
octane
I have issues, OK!
I think the mac as a platform will.
I can see the Xserve moving in directions that the G5 desktop just couldn't go -- with the notable exception of the 1,100 G5 cluster .. which is now being moved over to the Xserve G5, incidentally.
I remember reading about lots of universities, colleges and pharmaceutical companies decrying Apple for the lack of 1U form-factor way back when the G4 shipped originally, long before the Xserve.
The feeling was, give us 1U with OS X and we'll put the money forward.
Apple have made good on this and I think it's going to pay dividends for them...
I can see the Xserve moving in directions that the G5 desktop just couldn't go -- with the notable exception of the 1,100 G5 cluster .. which is now being moved over to the Xserve G5, incidentally.
I remember reading about lots of universities, colleges and pharmaceutical companies decrying Apple for the lack of 1U form-factor way back when the G4 shipped originally, long before the Xserve.
The feeling was, give us 1U with OS X and we'll put the money forward.
Apple have made good on this and I think it's going to pay dividends for them...
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
What this Yoffie guy seems to fail to realize is that Apple is a hardware company first, and all else after that. They make awesome computers, and they develop their own OS for it to entice you to pay the premiums they charge for their computers (not that they aren't worth every penny, of course). The objective for Apple isn't selling OS X, it's selling Macs. Licensing for x86 would be far more detrimental to this goal than beneficial, not to mention far too niche (there would be absolutely no programs that could run on it when it came out).
octane
I have issues, OK!
Arden said:
That's not entirely true
Apple have gone to great lengths to trivialize the whole hardware abstraction as much as possible.
Granted, any software would require at the very least a re-compile, and then some other applications would fail if they relied on Velocity Engine.
Don't think in such straight lines!
Do you think Apple would launch a version of OS X on Intel without first having a portfolio of applications ready to hit the road running?..
TWRayer
Registered
A few thoughts:
If Apple released MacOS X on Intel, it would destroy their hardware sales. What if they could limit it to select Intel PCs?
What if a company, say Sony, wanted to have MacOS X compatible PCs? Could Apple and Sony make a Intel PC with a special 'security chip' which would allow the Sony PC to run MacOS X (Intel), while disallowing all other PCs?
We have Virtual PC, which allows a Mac to run Intel code. What if Apple developed Virtual Mac, which allowed Intel PCs to run Mac code and programs? Allow all of those Windows users to run Mac applications on their PCs?
If Apple released MacOS X on Intel, it would destroy their hardware sales. What if they could limit it to select Intel PCs?
What if a company, say Sony, wanted to have MacOS X compatible PCs? Could Apple and Sony make a Intel PC with a special 'security chip' which would allow the Sony PC to run MacOS X (Intel), while disallowing all other PCs?
We have Virtual PC, which allows a Mac to run Intel code. What if Apple developed Virtual Mac, which allowed Intel PCs to run Mac code and programs? Allow all of those Windows users to run Mac applications on their PCs?
octane
I have issues, OK!
TWRayer said:
I've covered this point a zillion times [well, almost!] and the answer is frighteningly simple, but not a answer your average computer buyer might want to hear, at least for now.
It's actually deceptively simple. Apple sells OS X on Intel directly into enterprise and corporate markets while at the same time resisting the temptation to run off a consumer version. Also, to get your hands on OS X, you have to buy it in units of at least ten.
That way, Apple preserve their hardware sales while at the same time, selling into new markets.
TWRayer said:
Feasible, but it would increase unit cost.
But why would they make their own Intel chip with any kind of security feature? Intel already provide this kind of functionality anyway.
How do you think Windows XP serializes itself to the hardware?
octane
I have issues, OK!
Cat said:
Well it makes very clear sense.
The server market along with the corporate enterprise are big new markets for Apple.
It they plan a foray into new territory, then this would be a good fit for them.
If Apple do move OS X onto a new platform, then IBM would be as good as any. And given that some of the IBM server systems run PowerPC chip, it wouldn't be such a huge leap for Apples engineers...
Arden said: "What this Yoffie guy seems to fail to realize is that Apple is a hardware company first, and all else after that."
I think _that's_ the thing he wants Apple to change. And Apple positions itself differently in the past few years. We see more and more application development at Apple, and they've also bought several packages (audio and video).
But what those people don't seem to grasp is that Apple wants to be _SO_ good in apps that people switch to the Mac for the apps AND the hardware. If Apple would release every software they're making for the PC (including Mac OS X), of course some people would "switch to the Mac", but not to the hardware. They'd make money in software, but lose money in hardware, since in hardware, the Mac (at least for desktops) is still quite expensive. A short list:
- Consumer desktop: You can get much cheaper hardware in the PC world.
- Professional desktop: You can get cheaper hardware in the PC world.
- Consumer notebook: More or less the same, but more choice on the PC side.
- Professional notebook: PowerBooks are actually cheaper, but more choice on PC side.
This doesn't mean that Macs are generally too expensive, but the _choice_ is far wider in the PC world. While many of us would still choose a Mac, many more would opt for PC hardware. And even most of us would seriously consider a PC as a second station, wouldn't we?
And as Apple just can't be sure enough that their software sales would skyrocket (enough), Apple sees a safer way in staying PowerPC-only.
There's also the question of third-party applications. Would Adobe _again_ rewrite (or recompile) for Mac OS X/PC? And Macromedia? Quark would quite surely take another 5-10 years. ;-)
And Microsoft Office? Would Microsoft allow the 'new platform' of Mac OS X on Intel to have Microsoft Office? I don't think so. And because of that _alone_, that platform could fail.
Now, let's see. Apple's at it. Apple is closing the gap of the need of MS Office. Slowly, but steadily. We've seen Keynote. We've seen TextEdit support the Word-format. Still: With PowerPC taking the lead in speed once more (since the introduction of the G3 processor), Apple sees a light at the end of the tunnel. And if Apple has the choice, Apple stays alone. That's how I see Apple seeing it.
I think _that's_ the thing he wants Apple to change. And Apple positions itself differently in the past few years. We see more and more application development at Apple, and they've also bought several packages (audio and video).
But what those people don't seem to grasp is that Apple wants to be _SO_ good in apps that people switch to the Mac for the apps AND the hardware. If Apple would release every software they're making for the PC (including Mac OS X), of course some people would "switch to the Mac", but not to the hardware. They'd make money in software, but lose money in hardware, since in hardware, the Mac (at least for desktops) is still quite expensive. A short list:
- Consumer desktop: You can get much cheaper hardware in the PC world.
- Professional desktop: You can get cheaper hardware in the PC world.
- Consumer notebook: More or less the same, but more choice on the PC side.
- Professional notebook: PowerBooks are actually cheaper, but more choice on PC side.
This doesn't mean that Macs are generally too expensive, but the _choice_ is far wider in the PC world. While many of us would still choose a Mac, many more would opt for PC hardware. And even most of us would seriously consider a PC as a second station, wouldn't we?
And as Apple just can't be sure enough that their software sales would skyrocket (enough), Apple sees a safer way in staying PowerPC-only.
There's also the question of third-party applications. Would Adobe _again_ rewrite (or recompile) for Mac OS X/PC? And Macromedia? Quark would quite surely take another 5-10 years. ;-)
And Microsoft Office? Would Microsoft allow the 'new platform' of Mac OS X on Intel to have Microsoft Office? I don't think so. And because of that _alone_, that platform could fail.
Now, let's see. Apple's at it. Apple is closing the gap of the need of MS Office. Slowly, but steadily. We've seen Keynote. We've seen TextEdit support the Word-format. Still: With PowerPC taking the lead in speed once more (since the introduction of the G3 processor), Apple sees a light at the end of the tunnel. And if Apple has the choice, Apple stays alone. That's how I see Apple seeing it.
octane
I have issues, OK!
Arden said:
Arden, you're totally missing the point, here. The issue isn't servers, I'm talking about desktop systems.
But the same rules apply to servers as they do to desktops.
We're talking about organizations who have a huge investment in pc hardware.
So to turn your argument back at you: why would these businesses want to buy new Apple hardware? Or any other hardware for that matter.
But you're still wrong, you cannot dilute a market you have no presence in. You can only grow that market _through_ your presence...