|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
 |
Quote:
What I do think is that there would not be enough cross over to make being a software company viable to Apple. Also there are just too many people who don't know any better than M$ and Windoze. So they just would not get people crossing over. Part of the iPod revolution has been increased awareness of Apple as a brand, but people still do not see Apple as a software company. They see the two things; the computer and the pretty stuff on the screen, as a package. I doubt many people would want to 'learn' a new OS either now that they have been dulled and indoctrinated as well as made dependant on M$. So I think overall it would be a failiure and not produce results for Apple whilst probably costing a lot to promote and distribute. Better, Apple stays as it is. IMHO EDIT: Beside the OS wars are over. It's all done and dusted. We have quite a few and M$ will gradually implode. The future is Video and Audio and general media streaming, as well as increased LAN and WAN functionality. As we move forward the cross over between cinema movie and interactive experience willget narrower. More people will interact but from their own homes. We will have another Video days style panic about Cinemas dieing out now that you can have one in your own home. Some more adverts abolut theft as P2P movie sharing goes ballistic. A lot of failed attempts at set-top boxes. The OS (as a market brand) will become irrelevant. The OS inside a system will become relevant, but stuff will be licensed and bolted together from all over the place. Look at 3D engines today and where they turn up. Heck I only noticed the other day that Freescape® (Which I wrote and designed btw) is being used in some office presentations I never knew about... Jesus, I wrote that back in the 80's and ported it to Amiga's not long after... If you want to see Apple grow in market dominance keep looking at media, the set-top box and Sony. Again, IMHO.  'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take' Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt Last edited by scratt : 2005-02-24 at 09:15. |
|
|
25 chars of wasted space.
Join Date: May 2004
 |
Why would theygo bankrupt if their core userbase is still buying hardware?
I agree their current userbase is too small to surive on software alone. Read my last paragraph. OS's will be the main computer software for years to come. The transition to something else is more then 20 years away. |
|
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
The clone wars of the 90s cannibalized Apple's hardware sales. The clones were supposed to help increase the market share, but that didn't happen. Instead, the third parties sold cheaper, faster hardware and guess what happened... The existing user base bought the cheaper hardware, leaving Apple's overpriced junk by the wayside. Market share did not increase. Apple's revenue and profits started to sink. Clones failed, plain and simple. It was a risky move. Apple tried it and Apple lost. At a time when Apple's market share is at an all-time low, now would be an even riskier time to try a move like this again. Here's an interesting touch of history for you to read about the clone wars. It's a good explanation about why clones don't work for Apple. Keep in mind, of course, that this article was written in 1997 and remember that Rhapsody was the old code name for Mac OS X. One thing Gary conveniently forgets at the end of his article, though, is an important detail that he criticized earlier about Windows NT. NT ran on the Alpha, but it needed its software to be ported and, thus, sales were nil. The same is the case with Mac OS X and x86. Moving to a new architecture like x86 means losing all of your software and starting everything over at square one. This simple fact cannot be underscored enough. Also, I believe he overestimates the power of a "demo" OS. Various Linux distros have had impressive bootable demonstration CDs for a while now, but they haven't served to dramatically boost the Linux user base. The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting. |
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rotterdam, Holland!
|
Quote:
Note: Only Power Computing was scheduled to build mainstream systems for the general public, while the other four licensees were to produce specialized systems for niche markets. And: Apple shipped its long-promised System 8, but with no licensing agreement to enable clone manufacturers to ship the new system software with their computer... In 1997 official Apple statements cited a 10% loss of market share to the clones... sure... but weren't Apple's own dubious / unfortunate business decisions to blame? I don't think licensing Mac OS X and other Apple-software now to other hardware manufacturers is such a silly idea at all. If there ever was a window of opportunity for Apple, it's now...  Denkend aan Holland zie ik breede rivieren traag door oneindig laagland gaan, rijen ondenkbaar ijle populieren als hooge pluimen aan den einder staan. |
|
|
25 chars of wasted space.
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Second, if I'm not mistaken, the clones license included Mac ROM chips, that is, Apple sold the OS plus the chips without which the OS would not boot. I don't believe it's possible with OS X since Darwin on Intel does not require Mac ROM. So Apple would have to license OS X only, that is to sell OS X to 3rd party vendors cheaply in order to interest them. Third, while most of PowerPC Mac software would need a simple recompile for x86, do you seriously believe every developer would do it? I bet major apps would never be ported to x86. On the other hand, if, say, Dell suddenly began to pre-install OS X instead of Windows, major apps would leave PowerPC Macs for good. Because, Windows or Mac OS X, it would be Intel anyway. It's easier and less expensive to support one hardware platform than two of them. Furthermore, it's easier and less expensive to support one OS platform than two of them on the same hardware. Here we arrive at a direct collision with MS. Releasing OS X for x86 is much worse than the clone wars, because in addition to cannibalizing Apple's hardware sales it would put Apple in the same boat with MS. Think about it: two software companies making competing OSes and competing apps on the same hardware. Guess which has more resources. Guess which has more marketshare. Guess which has more mindshare even if it's driven by corporate inertia. Guess which will win. If MS decides to give Windows for free to businesses, Apple won't be able to sell a single OS X box. MS can lose those 5 billions on OS sales in a month and the Wallstreet won't even notice it in absurd numbers of MS revenues. This same sum of money will bury Apple and in a year nobody will be able to tell where they got that iPod thingy. |
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Keyboard And Chair
|
Quote:
...like a bird. </Dilbert> |
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Sorry, guys, but Peter Oppenhiemer says "no". I take that as a definite "yes". Pete used every conference call last year to say Apple would not make a stinking $499 computer.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/02...imer/index.php Guess who I wasn't. ;) |
|
25 chars of wasted space.
Join Date: May 2004
|
Well forgetting all the other problems...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First if MS lost 5 billion in a month, you should be able to believe that people would take notice, and their stock would drop. Second, just because MS blows 5 billion doesn't mean Apple would. Apple's 5 billion would last them at least 2 years assuming they sold NOTHING. I'm not saying they should, but done right, they might be able to. |
|||
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Keyboard And Chair
|
Quote:
Great business model, I must say. Chicks dig undertakers, right? |
|
|
25 chars of wasted space.
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
This would be a BIG hassle for a company which is why I said earlier that apple would need to make a slick way to, and let me emphasize more than I did earlier, make the creation of drivers ridiculously quick and easy so the cost benefit relationship to creating a completely new driver so your drive can be purchased by more people. *I have NO idea how driver creation works, and can only guess it's low level stuff I'll probably never understand. But if apple could find an elegant way to either convert driver code (not likely), or just create a simple way for the drivers to act as a go between between the device and system services, it would be great. |
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
I'm surprised that you guys are not talking about this:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/...25022048.shtml It looks like Apple could be able to run the EXISTING operating system and applications on Intel at a very modest performance hit. Seems like a good way for people to try OS-X and start to invest in Mac applications. This would obviously benefit all Mac developers since there would be more customers for Mac software. Finally, it could drive future Mac hardware sales as people try and like OS-X and realize that Apple's hardware is cool and runs the software faster. Seems logical to me.  Last edited by Jim S. : 2005-02-27 at 12:41. |
|
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Actually, we discussed it briefly here back in 2004: holy crap batman, emulation goes warp speed.
I'll wait until I actually see it. There haven't been any public demonstrations of Transitive's software, just marketing speak. So, I find it very hard to believe that they actually have a working version that already ready to be implemented at the OS level. MacRumors is usually a pretty good site, but the "Page 2" section is the stomping ground for unsubstantiated fiction. This is a Page 2 article, if you haven't noticed. All of this is based on one (singular) unconfirmed (yup) report. Take it with a huge grain of salt. The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting. |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Quote:
"To greatly simplify and accelerate running applications on the new platform SGI has turned to Transitive Corporation for its QuickTransit™ product that allows software applications compiled for one processor and operating system to run on another processor and operating system without any source code or binary changes. With QuickTransit, researchers, scientists and engineers currently running applications on other SGI® systems—based on the MIPS® processor and IRIX® operating system—can transparently run these applications on the new system. QuickTransit allows software developers to quickly provide a fully functional, high-performance solution on Silicon Graphics Prism, while circumventing the often lengthy and expensive process of completing a full native port." http://www.sgi.com/company_info/news...linux_vis.html |
|
|
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Moscow
|
Quote:
Quote:
As easy as it seems to hit the compile button once more, that is one more product to support. If you ever tried supporting cross-platform apps, you should know that each of their platform-dependent variants has its own unique bugs, wants more call-support people, platform-specific developers, and so on, and so forth. Many small companies, especially one-man shops, simply don't have any more resources. Remember that 'opening a product up to another market (revenue stream)' doesn't come for free. It may turn out to bring more revenue and may be a complete financial failure (e.g. competing products on another platform are better and cheaper).In short, you have mundane things to do with the recompiled product to make money on it. Quote:
This will require a lot of cash. Obviously, Apple can switch a number of home and office users to OS X on x86. But how many? It should also be obvious that Apple will lose on hardware sales. But how much? The math is something like this: - Costs of developing OS X on x86 (not very much) - Costs of supporting OS X on x86 (possibly more than on PowerPC) - Costs of pushing OS X on x86 (more than Apple ever spent on advertising) + OS Sales (God only knows) - Hardware sales (God only knows) And, please, remember that from the day X Apple's products will be directly compared to those of Microsoft's not only in terms of quality, but also in terms of users' habits, experience, propaganda and the price to switch. It matters. Superiority of OS X does not entail commercial success, in part because users will have to pay for it. It is in such complicated circumstances that it matters who you compete with. Apple will have a hard time competing with much more mighty MS, given the huge handicap in marketshare and corporate investments. |
|||
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Keyboard And Chair
|
Quote:
The difficulty in making a set of drivers generic enough to work with most mainstream hardware aside, Apple would then have to support entirely new internal hardware - entirely new chipsets, architectures and so on. If they failed to support, say, the Athllon64, then AMD users would be less than impressed, and the intention of porting OS X to x86 to increase software sales by "including everyone" becomes a joke. Just look at how long it's taking to port Windows to 64-bit hardware. And they don't even have to rewrite Windows completely... Chicks dig undertakers, right? |
|
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
|
25 chars of wasted space.
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine throwing together an enterprise collaboration system within a short amount of time using rendezvous and other OS X capabilities. Greatly reducing developing costs and really then time is an invaluable asset. I'm always told Obj-C/Cocoa is supposed to be good at this. Home user? I don't know, again maybe the less virus', it's up to apple marketing to figure it out. I'll repeat one more time for good measure, I don't know if apple would have a viable market base to support them, I am just saying, I think it's possible for them to support pc architecture if they it would look profitable. |
|||
|
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
Not many. At most, users may know the type and speed of the processor, amount of RAM, and size of hard drive. Heck, a lot of people don't even understand the difference between RAM and HDD. Ask them anything else and they're going just glance over the requirements and either not purchase it or complain when it doesn't work. You can't rely on consumers to be able to procure and understand this kind of geek-speak information. The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting. |
|
|
25 chars of wasted space.
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
)Apple can provide a list of manufacturer/models that it is known to work with. Manufacturers can get their machines 'MacOS X Certified', just like they do for Windows. If you're building your own, you're *presumably* going to be savvy enough to check the specs yourself. The number of individuals who fall between those two are so small as to be insignificant. |
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
The thing is that Dell et al don't necessarily know what hardware will be going into what machine. It's all based on who's the lowest bidder for a given model. Most name-brand PCs have absolutely horrendous hardware. I really doubt you'd be able to get Quartz running on a POS integrated video card like most of the video subsystems in cheapo PCs these days.
|
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Yup, thereby showing that that $499 Mac mini *REALLY IS* a better deal than that POS $499 Dell with IIV (Integrated Intel Video).
"Well, I'm sorry, but that's simply what you get for buying bottom-rung hardware, you don't get to run MacOS X/x86. Sorry." Suddenly they need to buy new hardware *anyway*... and then the Mac starts to look like a much better deal. Might as well go for the Real Deal, after all, if you're looking at that kind of cash outlay. Toss in some x86 emulation on the MacOS X/PPC side, and the move over becomes a lot easier. Awwwwww, crap. I just made an argument *for* MacOS X/x86, didn't I? Dammit, dammit, dammit. |
|
New Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
 |
hmm, call me silly but OS X is "Kind of" running on Intel right now. After all Darwin is the Core of OS X, now supose appl increased Support for it and packaged it like a linux Distro with "Light" or "Alternative" versions of core technologies, X.org/Xfree86 instead of the Single User X Server Apple includes in X, Gnome perhaps? etc, etc... then you have a platform to increase testing of the porting of OS X to Intel, Heck! you could even make a spin-off or license to Red-Hat or something like that to "Sell" a Darwin Distro.
OS X is really cool but with each passing version it goes closer to FreeBSD / Linux than many ppl would like to aknowledge. Now, isnt this a viable aproach? or is this all just a pipe dream? |
| Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Page 3 of 4 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 Next |
| Thread Tools | |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:20.