Will Apple drop OS X in favour of Windows?

you know, that is such a good point smithy. I've never really thought about it before, but you're right - they never do show the OS at all in their ads. Perhaps if they do it will demystify the Mac so people won't be so afraid to try a Windows alternative.

Hard to do in a 30second ad, but they could have demonstrations on morning TV shows (ok, not quite apple's style to do that, but you know what I mean). Or that could have video demos playing on a loop in the iPod section of department stores -- things like that.
 
i thought the coolest thing about usinbg mac OS X for the first time was that *I* found all these cool things about the OS (wooooooOOOOOoooooo!! look at the dock!), and they weren't sold to me as the reason for owning one.

they should just instead advertise to those people who are fed up of not being able to surf the net in peace. fed up of their 6-month old pc slowing down like mollasses got into it.

not show off the dock etc.
 
My experiences with Macs go back to the original 128 K Mac in 1984, and I too would find it hard to believe that Apple would ditch the OS. As much as I have occasionally worried a little about Apple going with the iPod and neglecting OS X a bit (more of a concern than a reality, perhaps), the idea of Apple abandoning OS X, after having put in years of development and mocking Vista, just doesn't "feel" right.

I think the pretty plastics and the like are secondary. Apple do want a reputation for quality, and I think that comes from them controlling the user experience, from the quality of the components they put in their machines, to the operating system. As Apple controls the whole machine (granted, third parties make a lot of the components, such as chipsets, but Apple can choose what to use), it makes for a better experience. Making them "look nice" is the icing on the cake, making the computer look good and making it distinctive, which helps with advertising...

I guess that all things are possible, but I just don't see Apple switching to Windows. I think Steve, in particular, might have some issues with that idea. ;)


Oh, and very nice post, RacerX. :)
 
woah hang on a minute, I've had a 30gb Neo player since early 2000 way before the ipod, it's now been upgraded with a 120gb drive and still works great to this day. £9 for a new battery and it uses a standard 2.5" HD. All user replaceable.

:cool:

mstation_neojuke.jpg



fryke said:
Gotta disagree with your last statement, Mikuro: When the iPod was introduced, it was the _only_ player with a harddrive. And it was _small_ at that, too. It was easy to use, and the software/hardware integration was just great. Other players have _still_ not matched the iPod on a _technical_ basis. (I count the integration to the technical, not the fashion side.)
Click to expand...
 
markfc said:
woah hang on a minute, I've had a 30gb Neo player since early 2000 way before the ipod, it's now been upgraded with a 120gb drive and still works great to this day. £9 for a new battery and it uses a standard 2.5" HD. All user replaceable.

:cool:

mstation_neojuke.jpg
Click to expand...

Uh, no offense but if I had a MP3 player that looked like that, I wouldn't post pictures of it on the net :). Just kidding...
 
i know it doesn't look cool anymore...it did once!!!

as I travel a lot to london a lot more lately, i had to move to an iPod Video 60gb.

I felt conscious using it on the train..

:)
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
I'd be willing to bet that all the Mac users who had ever used Mac OS 7 (possibly even 8) or earlier say "No" to the possibility of Apple "going Windows" while a good amount of people who were introduced to the Mac via OS X think it's actually a possibility. I smell a poll... ;)
Click to expand...
I carried out a simple poll in our household and the majority took the view that anything could happen in the future, because market forces will always supercede quality.

Only Edward (our one-eyed cat) and myself felt otherwise (I go back to Mac OS 7, whilst Edward goes back to Mac OS 8.6).
 

Attachments

  • edward.jpg
    edward.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 13
Well, if it's big enough, you can crack it open and fit a nano in there to fool the muggers. :D
 
However unlikely it may seem that Apple will start selling Windows, it's not so far fetched that they may offer both OS and/or dual boot systems in order to sell more hardware. For those that have a problem with it Apple will simply respond that they're responding to customer demands wanting to consolidate both systems onto one hardware platform.
I recently downloded Feb 06 DirectX runtime for my Wiindows MCE box and it lists Macintosh as a compatible OS. So it's likely we'll see either a dual boot Mac or just a Mac with XP or Vista. Unless DirectX will be coming to the Mac. Perhaps that gamer's iMac I keep hearing about may be a reality.
 
I'm not a Mac user but I've had this debate with an avid Mac user a couple of years ago. His position was in-line with RacerX's, in that Apple is a hardware company and that's their bread and butter. My position is Apple should sell OS X for Intel as a standalone product offering. Continue to produce Macs but sell OS X standalone.

Given the discussion about how the iPod got some to purchase Macs (presumably those who would not have purchased Macs otherwise), I see OS X , as a standalone product, functioning in a similar fashion. As it stands today, someone looking to get away from Windows must consider the cost of a Mac plus the "cost" of the learning curve, data transfer, etc., or they start asking questions about Linux distributions and then get all confused. I speculate, this same person might be open to buying Mac OS X to install on their PC. If they like it, they would be more open minded to Apple products, since their OS X experience would probably be great (leaving some room for problems), and might consider a Mac as their next PC ugrade purchase.

On the flip side, if this person doesn't want to pay the cost of a whole new computer to get away from the frustration with Windows, they won't necessarily be a customer of Apple.

I can see the argument of OS X standalone possibly negatively impacting Mac sales, but I think the iPod example proves this won't necessarily be the case, at least to some degree. I don't think those who prefer Mac hardware today would stop buying Mac hardware, but those not open to Mac hardware today might change their mind once they've had a taste of OS X.

Just my view, as a Linux and Windows user. :)

Peace...
 
@tomdkat
I think the iPod being a hardware product no longer tied to just the Mac OS is what made it successful. And if Apple applies the same strategy to the Mac they should sell in greater numbers. As for OS X as a standalone product it may be too soon now that it's in transition. New users having to put up with anything that needs to run through Rosetta may be left with a bad taste in their mouth after having used the applications under Windows.
 
Again, they did this in the 90s except not only did they license out their OS, they also allowed these other companies to make the hardware. Since Apple is still a hardware company (like it or not, they are), these other companies basically cannibalized Apple's hardware solutions. Sure, Apple should have just fought them on features and price, but they didn't and since Apple was hemorrhaging money badly, once Steve came in there was no option but to close out the clone makers.

If Apple were to do this, it would be great for consumers, but would it really change people from using Windows? Consider all the software they have and now they would have to completely replace it. It would do nothing to change things. The fact that hardware is also required allows for Apple to supply extra software along with the hardware purchase in order to start using the Mac and Mac OS X right off the bat. This would disappear once the hardware is gone.

Plus, Apple wouldn't have the hardware to make up for the loss, meaning they would disappear into oblivion. And having lost the integration between the software and the hardware (which is one of the reasons the experience is as it is on OS X) would basically place Mac OS X in the same position as Windows...completely bloated in attempting to support all of the varying hardware out there at the expense of the experience.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but other attempts at bringing something like Mac OS X (namely NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, and especially BeOS) to the PC platform have proven to be deadly. Linux and the BSDs have a chance mainly because of their open source nature, but right now Windows dominates the PC hardware landscape in terms of commercial software. Once Apple loses the integration between the hardware and software that makes it all seemless, it's pretty much over.
 
I don't know how many times it's been said already but Apple will never switch to Windows and Apple will never sell Mac OS X to anybody, only mac users. Granted Apple does make money on software, apple makes a lot more on hardware and will not be willing to give that up because it will lose money in the long run.

nixgeek said:
Plus, Apple wouldn't have the hardware to make up for the loss, meaning they would disappear into oblivion. And having lost the integration between the software and the hardware (which is one of the reasons the experience is as it is on OS X) would basically place Mac OS X in the same position as Windows...completely bloated in attempting to support all of the varying hardware out there at the expense of the experience.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but other attempts at bringing something like Mac OS X (namely NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, and especially BeOS) to the PC platform have proven to be deadly. Linux and the BSDs have a chance mainly because of their open source nature, but right now Windows dominates the PC hardware landscape in terms of commercial software. Once Apple loses the integration between the hardware and software that makes it all seemless, it's pretty much over.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything completely except for this part. OS X would run great on any hardware. NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP became really popular in several organizations and businesses (including the CIA) and ran on Intel hardware quite well, software was also able to be "universal" (as we call it now) in the mid 90's on several different processor architectures. Mac OS X already has hundreds (thousands?) of drivers built in to work with all kinds of devices no matter what hardware it is. Drivers can be loaded dynamically without restarting the OS etcetera. It's just Mac OS X is a lot more stable than Windows because it's designed to handle any kind of hardware without any modification. NeXT/OPENSTEP has been running on Windows PCs for a while now and quite well at that.
 
Thank The Cheese said:
Article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1925239,00.asp

I kind of get annoyed when people post stuff they've just seen on Digg or Slashdot, but I simply had to post this article here to get everyone's opinion.
Click to expand...
it's all press don't panic
Thank The Cheese said:
The article basically explains one person's opionion that Apple is slowly its way towards dropping OS X as we know it, in favour of developing hardware and software only for the Windows platform. It cites things like the iPod dropping firewire, and the Intel switch as proof of this.
Click to expand...
Hey OSX wins over XP, how many updates have they done in the last 15 years (pun from another post)

Thank The Cheese said:
far from convinced, but I did get a little knot in my chest thinking about it.
Click to expand...
I hope this is not smoking influenced
Thank The Cheese said:
If anything, I think Apple woul dbe more likely to in the future offer Windows users more, like more Windows-compatible hardware. Or maybe Apple do have a secret plan to adopt windows, but not as a replacement to MacOS, but rather an accompanyment, through dual booting.
Click to expand...
No Apple will stick with OSX and their own OS's and beyond
 
We heard Apple is working closely with Microsoft to bring VirtualPC to intel Macs. This alone sounds to me as if both companies are not really interested in people booting into Windows on those machines. It's a win-win situation for both companies this way:

For Apple: As long as people can't boot into Windows and use VPC for Windows compatibility, they're still using Mac OS X.

For Microsoft: They not only sell you a Windows license but also a VirtualPC license. Since VPC is part of the full Office package, you'll probably get _that_ instead of just VPC, so they have more Office users, which is probably more important to them.

In general, I think people just read too much into the whole switch to intel. It seems like everybody around the web expects Apple to "let the other shoe drop" one way or another. But there's no pressure for Apple to either release OS X to the unwashed masses, nor is there any pressure to adopt Windows... For now, they'll just go on as before: They'll make Macs (albeit with intel processors inside) and develop Mac OS X for it. The OS will get better and better, some things will get on our nerves, but I just don't think there's a bigger plan behind this. It's just _easier_ for Apple to be on this camp. They don't have to explain to potential customers "how fast a 800 MHz G4 is compared to a 2 GHz Pentium" etc. They're using the same specs now, so people can actually compare the machines. (Although there's still a lot of potential to misinterpret specs of a computer...) That's, imho, one of the real reasons for the switch.

Let's just look forward to Leopard, shall we.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top