The Mac is doooomed (tell me I'm crazy)
- Thread starter Mikuro
- Start date
Veljo
Mac Enthusiast
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.
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
Who wants a stylus?
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.
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.
How can you say they're not focusing on their Mac hardware when they just completely replaced every Mac in a year?
hennessymac
Registered
Interesting analogy "can {a} Leopard change its spots" lol
;-)
;-)
Sunnz
Who wants a stylus?
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...
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
iMovie Professional
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
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.
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
Case closed!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?
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).
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.
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
Who wants a stylus?
Here's my opinions:
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.
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.
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.
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
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
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 — as useful as they are — 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™
. 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.