What's left for WWDC?

Why not consider the fact that WWDC is not a hardware show but rather a show that focuses on the development of software. Therefore Apple releases the hardware and focuses on software.

At the keynote Steve will no doubt talk about a few hardware items but it will atleast focus on the development of tiger and possibly other apps. Maybe a new app.
 
gerbick said:
Tiger for AMD Athlon64. hey, why not?
Click to expand...
Because Apple is a hardware company. They don't make a lot of money on MacOS sales, and if they allowed MacOS to be run on platforms not sold by them, they'd die. C'mon people, it isn't that hard.
 
AMD and Apple partnered a while back, didn't they? Hardware, hardware... mmmm.

Don't worry about it... I was being merely fictitous.
 
burntoutjoy said:
Because Apple is a hardware company. They don't make a lot of money on MacOS sales, and if they allowed MacOS to be run on platforms not sold by them, they'd die. C'mon people, it isn't that hard.
Click to expand...

Apple is a hardware and a software company. We pay for the software when we buy the hardware. They make money on the software.

Porting OSX to AMD64 would not hurt hardware sales. Try pricing a dual AMD64 or Intel system similarly spec'd as a new powermac. Then add $100 - 150 for the OS. Make sure you get the 1.25ghz FSB, PCI-X, SATA drives, gigabit ethernet, firewire 800 ports, optical audio, oh and a cool case. Let us know what you find out!

I will admit that the average person does not need all the power in a powermac and that this part of the market is not really served well by Apple. If they do not make the hardware for a category of consumer, why not sell them the software? Personally I do not want Apple hardware to be cheap. They could make an inexpensive headless iMac but choose not to go after that market for one reason or another. I would buy one. Perhaps Apple's trepidation here comes from the 90's when they had a bloated product line of headless machines and got into difficulty. The Mac clone strategy from that time also failed. Mostly because the OS was tied to one proprietary processor type (which was way behind Intel and AMD at the time). Apple only survived because of the loyalty of Apple owners to the brand.

Porting OSX to AMD64 and other processors would greatly expand software sales. There is a very large community of people skinning windows to look like OSX. They are going to a great deal of trouble to manipulate their existing OS to look and act like OSX. Some of what they have done is impressive. However, underneath the veneer they put over their OS, they are still using a system that is prone to viruses and major security flaws. If for $100 - 150 they could have the real thing, you can bet that the majority of them would go for it.

Why I think this will eventually happen.

Each new and innovative product over the past 18 months has been built for Mac and Windows. The iPod, iPod mini, and Airport Express. This represents a major change in strategy for Apple which for years has avoided the wintel world completely. Apple software for windows is just as good as it is for OSX. So far it has been free. Quicktime and iTunes work very well on windows XP and are free because they help Apple sell other products. The rest of the iApps would be well received in the windows world because they would help people manage their digital content much more easily. But, there is no incentive for Apple to give them away. So they will have to sell them. The key to the iApps is their tight integration with each other. Perhaps iLife'04 for windowsXP is the next step on the pathway, with the ultimate destination being OSX for Intel and AMD machines.
 
Oscar Castillo said:
64 bit OS X and Xcode.
Click to expand...

YES finally someone who knows other than me.
10.3 IS NOT 64bit! Everybody swons over the G5, yea its fast, but its only running in 32bit mode. There is a special edition of Panther for the G5 that enables the system to use 64bit memory registers, thats it. OSX IS NOT 64bit right now.
Its like running an Athlon 64 on a Windows XP 32bit edition...
So imagine what 10.4 will be like with FULL 64bit performance...
 
That will be huge. I'll tell ya, I have an Athlon64 system and the machine feels much snappier and quicker running the Windows XP 64 Beta than even the GM of XP Pro.

Just imagine what a 64 bit OS could do for the overall speed of the G5 :)
 
OS X on Intel would deal a serious blow to Mac hardware sales. To port over the one key software component that distinguishes the Mac from PC will draws users away from Mac to the platform where components and peripherals are so cheap and plentiful may even win over some converts from the Mac faithful. As exciting as the hardware behind the Mac is, given the choice, I think many Mac users would be running OS X on inexpensive home brew PCs or Dells.
 
So you're saying a 64 bit OS would prove to show no speed increase for the hardware?

I don't know about that, my Athlon64 has been considerably zippier since the 64 OS install. Not that it went from mule to mustang, but you can see improvements.
 
First of all:
If a 64 bit can give a boost to graphic bound apps then 100% it will give a boost to the way OS X handles its graphics too... Aqua Extreme 2 anyone? ;)

Also, methinks that porting the OS X to Wintel/Amd platform Apple will have a VERY difficult road ahead... Why? Some reasons:
-Cost for developing 32/64 bit OS X versions for BOTH AMD and Intel CPU families
-Cost for supporting those ports
-Lose huge Mac sales (this is 100% and we all know it :rolleyes:)
-Cost for producing software (iApps, FCP, DVD Studio, etc.) for those OS X ports
-Cost for competing with Microsoft inside the same arena (anyone remembers how EVEN IBM managed to lose BIG time against M$ and not to mention the countless other OS and software companies? :rolleyes:

No matter how safe, stable, this and that OS X is, M$ is a force not to mess with especially when you (Apple) charge customers for your products... Linux anyone? Not to mention that if M$ will see an Apple OS coming to the same hardware platform, forget any M$ products for the Mac platform :D

Even if Apple will go for some kind of proprietary AMD/Intel based hardware/software design, they will still have to face a LOT more opponents (other OS and software companies) than they currently do (or don't ;))

This is getting long but hopefully people here are getting the point :eek:
 
forget any M$ products for the Mac platform
Click to expand...
What's left now anyway? MS Office. MSN. Remote Desktop. erm... IE (dead).

So what? Ever thought that now would be a killer time to basically strike a deal with AMD, and break out of their singular, myopic, hardware sales strategy, and sorta take advantage of this 2-3 year lull between MS OS's... make them misstep and rush out "something", and pick up people as they inevitably drop them to "something else"?

I know... Apple's "culture" doesn't 1) Do that, 2) See that as a viable business opportunity because they've never done it before, 3) Silly rabbit, x86 is for squares, yadda yadda. I've heard it all from snob to to fanatic to enthusiast.

But this thread is all about "what if"... not "what will"... and last I checked, Jobs doesn't post here ;)

I'd buy an Apple branded Athlon64, the x86 OS, or even fully convert to Mac 100% if it meant no more MS in my house.
 
Go3iverson said:
So you're saying a 64 bit OS would prove to show no speed increase for the hardware?

I don't know about that, my Athlon64 has been considerably zippier since the 64 OS install. Not that it went from mule to mustang, but you can see improvements.
Click to expand...

All OS are zippier after installing a fresh copy. Get's rid of the cruft that builds over time.
 
What's left now? MS Office. Like it or not, it's the best out there for what it does. Someday, someone will knock it down (it always happens) but no time soon.
Apple is doing well and it surely doesn't need to repeat its failures from the dark days. And it certainly doesn't need to pick a fight with M$. Both companies benefit and profit from one another quite nicely.
 
MS Office? I actually use NeoOffice/J... does what I need 100%.

and I have to ask out of curiousity... what mistakes from dark days? Apple clones? Just wondering.
 
Yes, true, but both Windows installs were fresh, since I had just recently built the system myself. I understand your point, I just don't know if it completely applies to my experience.
 
gerbick said:
Ever thought that now would be a killer time to basically strike a deal with AMD, and break out of their singular, myopic, hardware sales strategy, and sorta take advantage of this 2-3 year lull between MS OS's... make them misstep and rush out "something", and pick up people as they inevitably drop them to "something else"?
Click to expand...


I think you're heavily underestimating the length of time it would take to initiate such a move. It would take no less than 5 or 6 years, if all of Apple's OS developers were trained to program for an x86 chipset and worked solely on it.

That means no updates for us on our own platform for far longer than the "lull" in between longhorn and xp. And no OS developments in that time either.

PLUS, the length of time to develop actual OSes and software would be far more, because everything would have to be recoded for the new chips. There'd be more complications in buying software as you'd have to be sure to buy the PC Mac software (damn, that'd confuse folks). OSX is already hugely lacking in inbuilt drivers for peripherals - imagine supporting everything else - programming PS/2 ports, I don't trust Apple's ability in this area.

AND there'd be less of a community environment amongst Mac users. Really, I don't want it.

No x86 version. PLEASE.
 
I say go for it, its never been a better time. Oh and speaking on re-developing osx for x86 it would most probably already exist somwhere in a secure lab there at apple. c'mon it would have to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top