Ready?

Apple would never release OS X for Intel. The only reason that Apple might (I say "might" because I don't know if they have this or not) have a port of OS X for Intel is just in case Motorola and the PowerPC goes up in smoke, and Apple has no other alternative. I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon, but I think that it's kind of nice to have a backup plan in case that happens.

But unless that happens, OS X on Intel will never see the light of day, and all of those PC users that want Mac OS X can go out and buy a Mac.
 
The day Steve jobs lets his pretty Aqua baby get molested by a pentium, Satan will go to work in a snow-plough.

Bernie :eek:)
 
Originally posted by simX
and all of those PC users that want Mac OS X can go out and buy a Mac.

Damn Straight! Increase market share up to 10% at least! Then Motorola will light a fire under their asses and get to work on the G6!
 
and another thing - I think the thing that scares me most about the prospect of OSX on a £400 PC box is that I might buy one. This would never doo. I need saving from my inner tight-fistedness.

Bernie :eek:)
 
Originally posted by BlingBling 3k12
<img src="images/attach/jpg.gif" width="16" height="16" border="0" alt="">Attachment: easier.jpg

mmmmm... PS6 Layer styles make imaginary products soo tastey looking...

Bernie :eek:)
 
Please read this rewrite of your article as if you were living in, lets say, 1991. Tell me how the this turn out (because NeXT and Steve Jobs did all the things you are asking Apple and Steve Jobs to do now). No other argument could be better than your own words and a god understanding of history.

Rewrite:



Jon Shirley, the only CEO of Microsoft to be universally identified as a grown-up, told me during his last week at the helm that the best thing that had ever happened for Microsoft's language business was Borland International and its language business. Borland, under the wacky Philippe Kahn, gave Microsoft fits. Borland languages were often better than Microsoft's, and always cheaper. The result was that Microsoft, even though it continued to be the larger player in that business, couldn't coast. Borland forced Microsoft to be a better company for its customers, which is exactly what Jon Shirley was talking about. Now look at the problems Microsoft has today, and you'll see that they all come down to a lack of credible competition. Netscape was good and made Internet Explorer better, but today nobody at Microsoft even pays attention to Netscape, just as they no longer pay attention to Novell in networking or, alas, even Borland in languages. Microsoft has killed all the competitors, or at least cowed them to the extent that there is now plenty of excess bandwidth in Redmond for megalomania. This is bad for Microsoft and for its customers. Jon Shirley knew that, but I don't think that Gates or Ballmer do. So the best thing for Microsoft would be a formidable competitor. This kinda sorta exists in Linux, except that Linux isn't organized in any sense, and Linux attacks only Microsoft provinces, not the homeland itself. What is needed is competition for the desktop, and for that, there is really only one other game in town. I think NeXT should market a version of NEXTSTEP for Intel computers.

What I'm talking about a version of NEXTSTEP intended to run on regular PCs. So there would be no NeXT ROMs and no head-to-head competition with NeXT hardware. Most of the required middleware could be bought or licensed by NeXT from Abacus Research and Development Inc. (ARDI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In a few months, NeXT could have a perfectly fine Intel port of NEXTSTEP ready for market.

Let me point out here that I have no idea that such an Intel port of NEXTSTEP even exists. I have no inside information. This is just what I would like to happen.

For those who aren't familiar with NEXTSTEP, it is a full implementation of BSD Unix with a Macintosh-like front end, which is to say world class inside and out. NEXTSTEP is faster, smarter, prettier, and easier to use than any version of Windows. In short, it is exactly the competitor Microsoft needs. And the timing couldn't be better. Microsoft's settlement with the Department of Justice, no matter which version finally sticks, will make it easier for competitive operating systems. While Microsoft will still dominate, it will likely not be in its old position of being able to threaten with death hardware companies that take a divergent path. In fact, Microsoft's lawyers at least would love a credible NEXTSTEP for Intel because it would make it appear as though Microsoft actually has competition.

There simply is no technical problem with porting NEXTSTEP to alternate hardware. Where there is a problem is in getting everyone to see what a great idea it really is. Steve Jobs of NeXT has to worry that the new version would hurt NeXT hardware sales. But I don't believe that would be the case. Let's say someone started a sports car company using engines and transmissions bought from Porsche. How many people would buy that new car, the Belchfire 400, over a Porsche with similar power and performance? None. Porsche buyers buy Porsches for the brand as much as for the engine. Belchfire 400 buyers would come from the ranks of Corvette and Viper owners, not Porsche owners. Same with OS X on Intel. Dell, Gateway, and Compaq users are the target market. NeXT users will always buy NeXTstations. This is what Steve Jobs has to come to understand.

The other thing Steve has to accept is that NEXTSTEP on Intel has to be just as modern as any other NEXTSTEP. He'd be tempted to keep the Intel code one version behind to give NeXT a built-in advantage, but that wouldn't be good. It would hobble the product and hobble the marketing at the same time. For NeXT to sell a crappy product on Intel would be like Disney selling porno movies in Thailand. It would change how NeXT defines itself. That would result in a lot of unhappy customers that either NeXT would have to spend a lot of time listening to, or NeXT would have to change its culture to tune out all those customers and become just like Microsoft. Go back to the last paragraph and read it again, Steve. NEXTSTEP on Intel is no threat to NeXT hardware.

And while it might be easy to throw a shrink-wrapped version of NEXTSTEP on store shelves and essentially compete with Linux for the OS conversion market, what is really needed is an OEM strategy. NeXT has to get name brand vendors like Dell, Compaq, and Sony to sell boxes that come with NEXTSTEP already loaded. The Microsoft settlement will allow it, but unless companies actually do it, any advantage over Redmond will be lost. I think Dell, especially, would be in a stronger negotiating position with Microsoft if NEXTSTEP was an option on its price list.

The upside for NeXT is enormous. Suddenly, their software budget is leveraged across a much larger number of units, making the company more profitable and able to spend even more on making the software better. And there is always the prospect that NEXTSTEP will have some real impact on the market, making life harder for Microsoft and making Microsoft better for that.

It changes the playing field completely, and here's how. What is NeXT selling? I would argue that NeXT sells, "We are the computer company that cares about you. We try to build the best products we possible can." There's a level of trust and loyalty that people give NeXT that is unmatched in the industry, and rarely matched outside it. NeXT has that reputation because the company listens to customers. Yes, they make unpopular decisions, and a lot of people hate NeXT. But NeXT customers don't generally feel that way. They generally feel that NeXT is doing the best that it can. Can Microsoft say the same? No.

So NeXT has to make at least a "good faith" effort with this NEXTSTEP port, reflecting the realities of Intel hardware. They have to deliver something they are proud of, that customers feel is worthy of the NeXT brand and the trust relationship that implies. Now, maybe the economics of that work out, and maybe they don't. My point is not the finances, but the brand. The brand is the iconification of the trust relationship. If NeXT can extend that trust to Intel hardware, then Microsoft is in real trouble. Because the only way Microsoft can compete on those terms is by growing a soul.

It is very important not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, don't you think?
 
someone please shoot this guy (PBS guy, NOT racerX :p) through the head...please! -- This is the most thoughtless article I have ever read in my entire 21 year life :eek:
 
Hey RacerX, I've heard everybody talking on these boards about NeXT, and their step. I gather it was some kind of ahead of it's time OS, which went the way of BetaMax Video.
What is it, and where can I read mre about what it did? - every time someone gives an example of something M$ didn't steal from apple, or even that Apple stole from M$, the Mac Techie reply usually seems to be "nope, they stole it from NeXT"

Bernie :eek:)
 
I got thinking about another company that was once only on PPC, moving to Intel and later crash-and-burning in an even more spectacular style than NeXT... Be. I mean, they got bought by a PDA company for goodness sakes. RacerX, I hope you don't mind... I copied and pasted the article and replaced NextStep with BeOS, NeXT with Be, and Steve Jobs with Jean-Louis Gassee. Aside from the BSD heritage, the article reads really well. I'll attach the full revision, but one paragraph jumps out at me:

The upside for Be is enormous. Suddenly, their software budget is leveraged across a much larger number of units, making the company more profitable and able to spend even more on making the software better. And there is always the prospect that BeOS will have some real impact on the market, making life harder for Microsoft and making Microsoft better for that.

If Bob had actually written this, or the NeXT version back then, he'd have even less credibilty than he does now. Even if the horse is dead, we have to remember what happened to NeXT and Be going to generic Intel boxen, and resist it happening to Macintosh.
 
... read yesterday's (Monday's... right now it's still the current episode) episode on appleturns.com . I thought this quote was funny:

"The real question, of course, is why? It seems that ol' Bob wants Apple to release an x86 version of Mac OS X primarily so that Microsoft will be able to point to a viable competitor in the operating system market and pry the Justice Department off its back once and for all. Well, now that's an incentive!"

Haha that made me laugh. And it shows how dumb Cringley's argument is.
 
bighairydog,

NeXT was the company that Steve Jobs formed after he was forced out of Apple. He wanted to make the best hardware you could have for a computer, it just so happened that they developed the best operating system of it's time. Because of an agreement with Apple, NeXT had to aim at the mid-range workstation market in the beginning, but that didn't stop them from having plenty of desktop like apps. In the early 90's they started making an Intel version of their operating system (NEXTSTEP), which became the primary version when they stopped making their hardware in 1994. In 1996 Apple bought them, and what was then called OPENSTEP (because they where working with Sun on it at the time) became Rhapsody (see the next thread over) and then Mac OS X.

kenny,

You are right, of course, the Be/Jean-Louis Gassee is as good as the NeXT/Steve Jobs example (only I had less to replace :D )
 
Cheers RacerX,

Nummi_G4,
As far as I understand it, only the Darwin Kernel of OSX is open source. The cool stuff is the graphics really. Take the graphics away and you just have a UNIX, albeit a scalable, extensible and downright cool one.

Bernie :eek:)
 
But then again, the Kernel is the bit you most need to be open source. Open source developers are very good at making mission critical things work fast and flawlessly, but graphic designers they are not.

(apologies to any open source developers on the board - LOL)

Bernie :eek:)
 
Ok, so everybody here (including me) agrees that porting to x86 in an effort to gain marketshare is a bad idea. We also agree that attempting to become a software company and not focusing on hardware is too risky.

However, the idea that the PPC won't keep up with the x86 world in terms of performance is still a legitimate reason to port the system. If we fast forward three years and motorola is barely in the desktop processor business, their R&D is practically nill, and nobody bothers comparing them to x86 for speed than Apple will be forced to make a switch.

I've mentioned many times that I hope motorola leapfrogs Intel/AMD again. However, I don't predict it so preparing for an x86 release might prove prudent.
 
Although I might get bashed for this, you guys have to keep in mind that Apple is in a different situation than Be or NeXT at the time. Be for example was a company that wasn't profitable at all. To port BeOS to the Intel platform was a necessity as the Mac crowd was too small for Be to grab a big enough bite (apart from nobody buying their own hardware) enabling it to survive. They failed miserably. NeXT went the way many people always suggested the Macintosh would go: Down the drain. Opening NeXT-Step to the Intel platform (and involving Sun) might have been good ideas, but nobody was really interested in it (or at least not ENOUGH people, obviously).

But the Macintosh platform was different (long before 'Think different' came along, that's why the slogan worked so well) - the Mac already *has* a following. The Macintosh always held between 5 and 10 percent of the desktop market (if you call it a niche player, what do you want to call Be or NeXT at their time?) and - more importantly - was always able to get developers to make great apps for the platform.

I'm thinking a bit like you do: I don't think it really makes sense to release a Mac OS X for PC Compatibles right now. I know many PC people would want it, but they would want to PLAY with it, TOY with it, download it from a warez site, they would not actually be BUYING the thing. The danger is, like it was with PowerComputing, that the design shops that are the big buyers of Macintosh computers, would switch to Mac OS X on Intel, mainly because they could buy more and cheaper boxes.

One can say what he wants about the speed/price comparison of a Dual 1GHz G4 and a Dual Athlon 1800+ XP: The PC is cheaper. And if you want to replace the CPUs in about two months, the only chance with Apple is to replace the computer (or buy an additional one) while with the AMD box you can just replace the processors. Purely from an economically point of view, it would not make sense to buy Macs anymore. We put up with this situation because we need to (and want to), but once Mac OS X would be out on Intel, the fun in having a Mac would be gone, it'd be a luxury item solely. (Maybe apart from the TiBook and the iBook, which compete well with PC notebooks, because there you can't just upgrade the CPU as well.)
 
Back
Top