[Tuttle]

Originally Posted by DrGruv Mr. Jobs WANTS to be #1, the best, in every home... He doesn't think the os war is over - I think he can win too Mac OS on Cell and Mac OS on any powerpc

I think it would be more accurate to say he knows the os war is over, the era of the dominance of the desktop is waning, and he wants to win the <whatever it will be labeled> war. Digital Media Content Control War? Living-room War? Content Creation and Delivery War?

[Franz Josef]

Originally Posted by BlueRabbit [url=http://www.geocities.com/franktau/jac.html] I wouldn't be surprised to see a return of the clones in a limited form, like the HP iPod, where Apple still makes a good profit off of them, while the deal extends Apple's potential customers.

Apple suffered badly in the 80's because they couldn't build an industry standard. HP iPod and Motorola's phones using iTunes are an attempt to avoid the mistakes of the past. It's not about margin on this product or that.

[DrGruv]

Originally Posted by Tuttle I think it would be more accurate to say he knows the os war is over, the era of the dominance of the desktop is waning, and he wants to win the <whatever it will be labeled> war. Digital Media Content Control War? Living-room War? Content Creation and Delivery War?

talking about the new video format in quicktime? yes and more

how about low and high end servers running mac os in unix?

[octavist13]

I can dig it he can dig it she can dig it we can dig it...

[FireDancer]

"What if Apple Computer had licensed the Mac OS?"
I think Apple could still license its OS to various companies and not hurt their Mac sales. I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't license its server os to companies like IBM or even Sun (if interested). Getting the server OS on the "Big Iron" with added support for Power 4 and 5 would not cut into Apple's low end server market. I've even wondered if getting Mac OS X (minus all the bonus software like the iApps) onto low end IBM business machines with ~1.6 GHz PPC970 or G3, integrated GPU's and small HDs (you know, hardware that is good for business machines but nothing someone in the market for a mac would want) wouldn't be favorable for both Apple and IBM. IBM could use its existing business sales channels and sell to people who otherwise would not be interested in OSX or the Mac for their business computers. Try and sell relatively cheap PPC containing computers running OSX minus the xtras to large corporations who are using the majority of their computers for word processing and spread sheets. I think the key to not cutting into Mac sales is license the OS to companies that still have total control over hardware (like IBM and its PPC). This would get OS X on more hardware (but still limit driver development to specific IBM business hardware) with out cutting into mac sales, get more developers and $$ involved, and allow IBM to sell more PPCs. I know all theoretical and who knows maybe it's been discussed already by Apple or no one was interested??? I guess my point is Apple occupies a very specific niche even with in the desktop/laptop market. I don't think they have done a very good job at expanding into other areas of computers with their technology.....areas that would minimally affect Mac sales......areas that would benefit from Apple's technology

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by FireDancer "What if Apple Computer had licensed the Mac OS?" I think Apple could still license its OS to various companies and not hurt their Mac sales. I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't license its server os to companies like IBM or even Sun (if interested). Getting the server OS on the "Big Iron" with added support for Power 4 and 5 would not cut into Apple's low end server market. I've even wondered if getting Mac OS X (minus all the bonus software like the iApps) onto low end IBM business machines with ~1.6 GHz PPC970 or G3, integrated GPU's and small HDs (you know, hardware that is good for business machines but nothing someone in the market for a mac would want) wouldn't be favorable for both Apple and IBM. IBM could use its existing business sales channels and sell to people who otherwise would not be interested in OSX or the Mac for their business computers. Try and sell relatively cheap PPC containing computers running OSX minus the xtras to large corporations who are using the majority of their computers for word processing and spread sheets. I think the key to not cutting into Mac sales is license the OS to companies that still have total control over hardware (like IBM and its PPC). This would get OS X on more hardware (but still limit driver development to specific IBM business hardware) with out cutting into mac sales, get more developers and $$ involved, and allow IBM to sell more PPCs. I know all theoretical and who knows maybe it's been discussed already by Apple or no one was interested??? I guess my point is Apple occupies a very specific niche even with in the desktop/laptop market. I don't think they have done a very good job at expanding into other areas of computers with their technology.....areas that would minimally affect Mac sales......areas that would benefit from Apple's technology

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[FFL]

You're right, Ben - but it cries out for some line breaks which might double the amount of people here who will read it.

Originally Posted by FireDancer I think Apple could still license its OS to various companies and not hurt their Mac sales. I don't see any reason why Apple couldn't license its server os to companies like IBM or even Sun (if interested). Getting the server OS on the "Big Iron" with added support for Power 4 and 5 would not cut into Apple's low end server market. I've even wondered if getting Mac OS X (minus all the bonus software like the iApps) onto low end IBM business machines with ~1.6 GHz PPC970 or G3, integrated GPU's and small HDs (you know, hardware that is good for business machines but nothing someone in the market for a mac would want) wouldn't be favorable for both Apple and IBM. IBM could use its existing business sales channels and sell to people who otherwise would not be interested in OSX or the Mac for their business computers. Try and sell relatively cheap PPC containing computers running OSX minus the xtras to large corporations who are using the majority of their computers for word processing and spread sheets. I think the key to not cutting into Mac sales is license the OS to companies that still have total control over hardware (like IBM and its PPC). This would get OS X on more hardware (but still limit driver development to specific IBM business hardware) with out cutting into mac sales, get more developers and $$ involved, and allow IBM to sell more PPCs. I know all theoretical and who knows maybe it's been discussed already by Apple or no one was interested??? I guess my point is Apple occupies a very specific niche even with in the desktop/laptop market. I don't think they have done a very good job at expanding into other areas of computers with their technology.....areas that would minimally affect Mac sales......areas that would benefit from Apple's technology

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

I don't see IBM being a clone in this market, and I don't see them having a truly practical reason for entering the market other than to add credence to Mac OS X. I think Apple is doing fine and dandy at making it a credible OS on their own. The days of cloning the OS to compete with Microsoft have come and gone, although I think Microsoft is more competing with themselves at this point to stay afloat in the monopolies they've created. In fact... most of those running on the clone hardware (x86) are finding their market evaporate into thin air with razor thin margins cannibalizing profitability, and many companies selling out (Digital, Compaq, IBM, etc.) to the few that are profitable in the sector.

The longer this goes on, the more potential you have of the winner of it all (probably Dell) becoming more and more like an Apple in the end. Let's face it... more and more Dell is relying on more proprietary hardware designs to differentiate themselves from their pre-fabbed bucket of parts competition. The less competition you have, the less likely you'll be basing off of the same hardware specs as a system's board provider like an Asus, Soyo, MSI, A-Bit, etc. The more like an Apple you will likely become. At razor sharp margins for large volume sales you can't afford to throw R&D money around like Apple does on smaller volume sales but more margin per unit sold. Only I think Dell is poised for this as they've worked harder to differentiate their product of late than the rest. Gateway's last stab was the Destination TV/PC and that was years ago (pre-Amiga ownership).

Competition is a good thing for the consumer, it's not always good for the manufacturer for this reason alone. Funny thing is... Apple isn't having to compete in the same ways as the PC market (because they're different and they have a loyal and fanatic base, which many of us are a part of) and they don't have to run the razor thin margins. Funny... they almost seem like the strongest and healthiest of the bunch as a result of the fandom that most of the others lack?

That said...

I can see Apple working with IBM on using OS X for workstations and Servers and maybe leveraging it's technology with something like Cell to create stripped down OS X Tiger platforms for home entertainment and gaming devices for blu-ray equipped components from Sony and Toshiba. This would help Apple in producing higher-end hardware than they currently have, and also become a huuuuuuuuuuuge player in the media center market via OS and technology penetration. Imagine if OS X, Quicktime with H.264, iTunes, and Apple's DRM were all enabled on Toshiba and Sony products, including PS3?

Huge coup for Apple.

Yet...

I am not sure it makes that much sense to IBM other than to help a different group overthrow Microsoft (which in a way could help IBM's server market capabilities if Microsoft ever makes Windows scale well to server use... which is a laughable thought at least for now). IBM is firmly behind Linux now. Linux plays well with Mac OS and Mac OS can be made to play well with Linux via open source. The one advantage that Mac OS has over most Linux variants is Apple's support of SIMD and other technologies like Core Image, Core Video, Core Audio that could be delivered to sub-chips. Yet my guess is... unless Apple is in-bed on the Cell chipset, then it's null. Sony and IBM working together to produce a Cell/SIMD Power/PowerPC compatible Linux that scales from PS3 to Workstations to Media Center-style entertainment components and devices... makes more sense to me.

To me the question isn't whether IBM joins Apple, but whether Apple joins IBM/Sony/Toshiba....

Beyond that... Apple has as much potential to clone the Mac OS now for PowerPC (now an Intel/AMD port.... I won't argue with ) as I feel they have to buying Sun and switching everything to Solaris. At least with an AMD/Intel port they can throw it out there on a whim to try to eat up some of Microsoft's marketshare which I'm sure Sony and IBM would neither one cry about either.

[atomicbartbeans]

I think that the PowerTank G7 will ultimately and decisively be Micro-Shaft's demise.

It would weigh 58 metric tons, sport dual G7 1800 Horsepower plate-armored processors and a V16 diesel power supply (maybe even gas turbine?), hydraulic RAM (excuse the pun), and a 6-speed automatic hard-drive/super-drive transmission. Not to mention dual DVI (Deadly, Very Impressive) cannon ports. Can my PowerTank G7 have flame-like stripes across the side? We could call it FireWire styling. Forget LCS, this will have an onboard Sodium Cooling System. Apple will build a nationwide 9-lane highway system to get these delivered (it will pay for itself considering the PowerTank's 35-Mil price tag). I can't wait to drive one of these to work if I can afford it's voracious appetite for fuel, 20 gallons per mile (not a typo).

And here's a unique feature among tanks: it doesn't crash.

PowerTank G7: AppleNova's ticket to 1st place in Folding@Home, and Apple's literal secret weapon against Micro-Shaft.

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Forget the PowerTank G7. Wait 'til the PowerFuture G8... I've heard the reason the previous head of tech was fired was from the insanity of trying to make the Flux capacitor pull 1.21 jigowatts consistently. The secret of course was the new IBM developed Mr. Fusion power supply for the unit. The new guy supposedly had that licked 3 weeks in... and without Freescale's help. ::gasp::

Coming soon from a reality distortion field near you!

[FireDancer]

At least with an AMD/Intel port they can throw it out there on a whim to try to eat up some of Microsoft's marketshare which I'm sure Sony and IBM would neither one cry about either

But not really.....an x86 port to desktops that competes with the PowerMac/iMac/PowerBook/iBooks would have the potential to devestate hardware sales. The more I think about it, the more I'm really beginning to think Apple is just missing out on other parts of the pie (high end servers & business desktops) that have nothing to do with the prosumer/consumer computers they currently sell.

In my mind it's less about trying to get back market share from MS and more about expanding Apple's current technology offerings into areas where is could be successful. I just think there is more potential there than is being realized.

Also, IBM selling more PPC would benefit Apple in many ways.

Is Apple hurting right now....no...Have they been making wonderful profits yes! Do they need to do any of this no....but who doesn't want to expand their business?

P.S. Are my line breaks better?

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by FireDancer At least with an AMD/Intel port they can throw it out there on a whim to try to eat up some of Microsoft's marketshare which I'm sure Sony and IBM would neither one cry about either But not really.....an x86 port to desktops that competes with the PowerMac/iMac/PowerBook/iBooks would have the potential to devestate hardware sales. The more I think about it, the more I'm really beginning to think Apple is just missing out on other parts of the pie (high end servers & business desktops) that have nothing to do with the prosumer/consumer computers they currently sell. In my mind it's less about trying to get back market share from MS and more about expanding Apple's current technology offerings into areas where is could be successful. I just think there is more potential there than is being realized. Also, IBM selling more PPC would benefit Apple in many ways. Is Apple hurting right now....no...Have they been making wonderful profits yes! Do they need to do any of this no....but who doesn't want to expand their business? P.S. Are my line breaks better?

The platform could also use a good consumer tower and a DTR notebook. I fear Apple is too progressive to give us those. Apple hasn't had a good DTR Book since Wallstreet. As for the PMG5, it may be a really good machine for professionals, it's a major step backwards in the practicality department compared to the MDD G4s.

[FireDancer]

As for the PMG5, it may be a really good machine for professionals, it's a major step backwards in the practicality department compared to the MDD G4s.

I'm assuming you mean one optical drive, two internal HDs and the lack of additional PCI-X slots.

I agree more of all these would have been very nice. I get the sense that some prosumers want the PMs to be full workstations but that Apple doesn't really consider them full workstations...simply a high-end desktop. If Apple can give the iMacs a decent update both in terms of CPU and GPU and make them more appealing to consumers.....

I think it would then be easier for Apple to bump the PMs into the true workstation class of machines with the addition of an optical drive, at least four internal HDs and more PCI expansion. If Apple could simply bump the speed of the G5 (dual CPU with dual core aside for the moment), add these features and keep the same price points.....PMs would be a great deal.

I think PMs as they stand hover right on the line of high-end desktop and workstation and people (non-Mac lovers) in the market for either one of those tend to not quite know what to make of them.

[FireDancer]

The platform could also use a good consumer tower and a DTR notebook

I think the single CPU PM tower at $1499.00 does a "fairly" good job of covering the consumer level tower.....the prospect of dual-duals makes things even more interesting.

A single Dual core G5 in the iMac at the current price points would be a formidable competitor in the consumer market.

A dual-dual core G5 in the PowerMac would make it a true workstation level machine optimized for professional multithreaded apps.

and I agree that Apple's idea of a notebook is rather narrow (albeit in my opinion correct) with portability being the most important aspect.

I don't think Apple will ever be able to compete with x86 DTR in terms of raw CPU power and I think they don't want to. If the CPU and GPU power of the PBs could be brought closer to the "true" portable x86 notebooks....Apple's in a solid position.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by FireDancer The platform could also use a good consumer tower and a DTR notebook I think the single CPU PM tower at $1499.00 does a "fairly" good job of covering the consumer level tower.....the prospect of dual-duals makes things even more interesting. A single Dual core G5 in the iMac at the current price points would be a formidable competitor in the consumer market. A dual-dual core G5 in the PowerMac would make it a true workstation level machine optimized for professional multithreaded apps. and I agree that Apple's idea of a notebook is rather narrow (albeit in my opinion correct) with portability being the most important aspect. I don't think Apple will ever be able to compete with x86 DTR in terms of raw CPU power and I think they don't want to. If the CPU and GPU power of the PBs could be brought closer to the "true" portable x86 notebooks....Apple's in a solid position.

The G5 has more than enough power. In tests with software that's designed to make full use of the processor, the G5 is more or less equal to the best that the wintel world has. That's dispite some inefficiencies that have recently come to my attention. With a lot well known software, it was chosen to simply port the x86 code instead of building a Mac/PowerPC version from the ground up for financial reason. Ports usually run a lot slower than native applications. It's really a product of our marketshare woes.

On to the desktops. I have two main issues with the PMG5 SP.
A) its too big. I have a fairly big desk and I'd need a new one for the G5. My El-capitan G3 was exactly the right size. Big cool case also = expensive.
B) One optical drive. I could care less about things like four hard drives and PCI-X slots that I as a consumer would never use. I do, however, enjoy having multiple optical drives. External drives are an option, but they're slower and more expensive than internal models. I also like the option of getting an off the shelf DVD-Burner from newegg for $60. An internal card read wouldn't hurt either.
C) lack of processor options. I'd like to see a choice between SP 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, and 2.5
As for the iMac. It's the ultimate light duty computer, but its completely ill suited to people like me.
A) notebook optical drive. I can tell you right now, I'd never use the thing.
B) lack of expansion slots. Give me a single grahpics card slot and a couple of PCI slots and I'll be happy.
C) lackluster graphics card.