The Future of Apple

i am 90 percent behind what he is saying, although i dont entirely follow the sony correlation. but hey, its almost 2006, time to think different.

Well, any timely analysis of the Apple/Intel relationship had better consider the news of the day, announcements made by Intel at it's IDF. This is well covered at ArsTechnica:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050823-5232.html

The comparisons of future Intel chips with the current G5 (aka PPC 970) are somewhat amusing.

............................................

At this point Apple needs to revamp the old slogan of "Think Different."

Updated for today's date and times it would be something like:

"Think Different. We did because Motorola and IBM didn't give us much choice."

Oh well. I'm jaded as anyone that has chatted with in the IRC channel has noted. I'm a Windows man but I'm playing around with OSx86 (even bought a BOOK about it last week) because I'm always on the lookout for learning something new.

Will OSX or OSx86 make me go out and buy an Intel-based Macintosh desktop or Powerbook when they're released? No way in hell. Why? Because truthfully Apple still maintains just a niche market in the personal computer industry.

The only two nationwide places you can realistically walk in and get Mac software or hardware is a Best Buy or CompUSA store. I don't count Apple Stores because they're part of the machine itself, so to speak.

Apple being primarily a hardware manufacturer that happens to write the OS for its own personal computers is in a bit of a bind and has been since the Macintosh first came out in January of 1984. Because of the very nature of their business - hardware supplier with a side of software - Apple has to follow their own model that's worked for them with a modicum of success.

My personal belief says: Apple will never release a standalone version of OSX for x86-based personal computers. The reasoning behind that belief is simple:

In order for Apple to do such a monumental thing, they would have to undertake support deals with pretty much every personal computer hardware and software manufacturer on the face of the earth today and for the years to come. With roughly 5% of the personal computer market, it's just too much to bear for Apple to take on such a task.

The sheer fact that us/we/etc can currently run the leaked/patched/released version of OSx86 on a wide variety of hardware is just an enigma for the most part. Apple simply cannot go into supporting the near infinite variety of hardware and software variations that Microsoft has had to deal with for so many years now.

Even Microsoft had to deal with this years ago: they supplied the original IBM PC with an operating system and everything was fine for a while. Why? Because IBM didn't make 4,259 different variations of the IBM PC that's why. "IBM PC-compatible" was the death knoll of IBM as soon as it came into being because it meant any Tom {censored} or Harry could buy parts that worked just like the real thing - and cut IBM out of quite a bit of cash in the process.

Now that the personal computer industry is where it is today, and with new hardware and technologies being produced on a near daily basis, the constant change after all these years just isn't something that Apple can possibly undertake at this point. It would overwhelm their finite cash reserves and finite hardware manufacturing ability.

There are some aspects of this whole thing that closely mirror Apple's beginnings, remarkably.

In the glory days when those two Steves were working on creating the future, Steve Jobs couldn't do jack when it came to bankers and money men. He simply didn't present the image of someone that walked the walk and talked the talk. But something amazing happened:

He changed.

He changed his look, his presentation and his demeanor towards the business community and towards the people with the money that he so desperately required to make the two Steves' dreams a reality. Some would say he sold out because of how much he changed, but in doing so he "saved" the fledgling startup before it really had both feet on the ground.

It's happening again, and Apple is having to change just as it's founder did so long ago. If they want to survive in the personal computing industry, they must change and accept things as they are meaning:

It's an x86-based world regardless of how much {censored} you read on the Internet that might try to sway you otherwise. Intel has almost as much pull as Microsoft does but in the hardware industry, and AMD is doing quite well with its lower cost and sometimes better performing/more efficient processors.

This decision to embrace the x86-platform at this time is a life or death move for Apple, make no mistake. I think it was a long time coming. Anyone that knew OSX was going to be BSD/UNIX based already saw it when OSX first came into being. I did, and so did many others.

I can see that more and more people will be hoping for a generic OSX that any x86-platform personal computer on the market can run, but seriously I just don't think it's going to happen, sorry. It would be a very bad idea for Apple even if their primary motivation at this point was just to shaft Microsoft by releasing another OS that many claim to be superior to XP in all ways.

I don't think that's so, but that's my opinion.

It's not a question of, "hey, let's just do it and see what happens," it's "that would be pretty cool to do but it would kill us if we did it and we're not ready to die just yet."

Apple can survive and even thrive at this point by just following the guidelines they've always had: make a product that people like, that people can use, and even if that means just a small percentage of people that own personal computers, those people will become loyal almost in the extreme and we'll be able to count on them for their support.

It's worked so far, I hope they don't blow it now.

Just my $.02.

bb

To be honest, mac's next move would be the best played if they add a 'new' frontman to the team (to help out jobbs)

A special frontman: One who is passionate about both windows AND osx.

Because if apple decides to play the OS battle with microsoft, they will need to start fishing in the windows pool. And the best way to do this would be to have someone who can really be trusted by windows users, because most windows users laugh at steve jobbs.

To be honest, mac's next move would be the best played if they add a 'new' frontman to the team (to help out jobbs)

 

A special frontman: One who is passionate about both windows AND osx.

 

Because if apple decides to play the OS battle with microsoft, they will need to start fishing in the windows pool. And the best way to do this would be to have someone who can really be trusted by windows users, because most windows users laugh at steve jobbs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehehe Cold cold COLD day in hell before that ever happens.

I wouldn't say most Windows users laugh at Steve Jobs; more like they realize who he is and what he's done - he's the underdog and always has been so most Windows users would probably cheer for him, actually.

As for the trust issue, that's a foregone conclusion. Apple isn't anymore trustworthy than Microsoft or Intel or any other company. They do what they have to do to survive, simple.

bb

It's an x86-based world regardless of how much {censored} you read on the Internet that might try to sway you otherwise. Intel has almost as much pull as Microsoft does but in the hardware industry, and AMD is doing quite well with its lower cost and sometimes better performing/more efficient processors.

Have you been under a rock for the past 2 years? sometimes better? Intel CPUs have been beaten and we know it. FYI: I work for Intel and my bro works for AMD. Intel also knows it hense our "New Roadmap" that will be thrown out into the PR spinzone.

This decision to embrace the x86-platform at this time is a life or death move for Apple, make no mistake. I think it was a long time coming.

Wrong again.

The decision to embrace x86 truely was from the start of OSX. AMD and Intel supplied apple developers with x86 chips back in 1999. In fact AMD sent them 64bit Hammer based chips.

I can see that more and more people will be hoping for a generic OSX that any x86-platform personal computer on the market can run, but seriously I just don't think it's going to happen, sorry.

A lot of people thought the world was flat too...

The editorial has it right, Apple has realized (via iPOD) that they can make more money being , an electronics manufacturer, a content provider, a High-end PC maker, and an OS provider that ties in the content delivery. It's called diversifying. Take econ101.

HINT: Think of iPOD and podcasting services for TV, Sports, Movies, you name it.

As far as hardware support... what is to stop Apple from having a AHQL software and hardware logo with manufacturers of devices? Which would allow them to release an x86 OS package by shifting libility for drivers to the hardware manufacturers. They can also do the same thing as Microsoft when it comes to support when Windows does not work with a device and you call support what do they tell you? "Go to manufacturer for support please."

See what a lot of people forget is that the drivers for Windows are not made by MS (Some common generic ones are microsoft provided but they were still written by the manufacturers at some point and then submitted to MS.)

So what would make manufacturers provide drivers for OSX? Thats back to econ101. DEMAND! Yes the demand is out there and it is slowly learking its head. Ever thought about how many people have been wanting to purchase a graphics card in the last two weeks that would work on both a mac and a pc that would support QE on x86 platform? I would guess in the thousands. And look... ATI is now releasing hardware that will work on both Mac and Windows.

Also what Windows software developers realize is that the Windows structure and architechure is a hodge-podge of {censored}. Most would be happy to code for a more structured OS.

I do know that the OSx86 will be limited to Apple hardware at first but will also be opened up slowly.

It would be a very bad idea for Apple even if their primary motivation at this point was just to shaft Microsoft by releasing another OS that many claim to be superior to XP in all ways.

XP superior? When public root level exploits come out for your OS every 10-12 hours you can in no way claim to be superior to anything in anyway.

Also why would they want to "shaft" Microsoft? You do know that they are heavily in bed together? Yes I know they both have deseases but the way Microsoft sees it as truely "the devil you know is better than the one you don't" They would rather have someone they could compete with and control than an Open OS taking their desktop space. You know they are trying to shrug off the "Monopoly" label they have obtained. (I consider MS a sheep herder and they have a large majority of the sheep)

P.S. I have never been to a Mac event in my life. In fact I really don't like the people that think Mac is some sort of religion. It is just a platform just like Windows. But who cares? You have already made your decision, so now you must realize why.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about the new partnership between Apple and Intel.  Although this story is pretty old, today's announcement of the next generation of Intel chips has many Mac fans wondering what's ahead.  These new chips from Intel almost certainly represent the pool from which Apple will draw their first production MacIntels.

 

The Apple-Intel partnership is symbiotic relationship in its fullest sense - Apple gets the low-wattage chips it (supposedly) desires and Intel locks in another major IT player.  But it seems to me that there is more than just watts and cents behind this deal. There is an incredibly unpredictable variable in this equation - the mind of Steve Jobs.

 

Kick in your Reality Distortion Field jamming devices.

 

Here's the future of Apple.

 

Dvorak had it partially right.  Apple will eventually open up their OS and make it seem like it was forced to do so by the mobs of geeks installing pirated versions on the PCs.  But is this the sole reason for the switch from IBM?

 

Apple is evolving.  The success of the iPod + iTunes has shown that the magic of Apple engineering extends farther than the PC.  But I think Jobs is steering the company in a new direction, one in which creates a hybrid of a Sony/Microsoft business model.

 

While the Microsoft might be a little more obvious, perhaps you’re wondering where Sony enters the equation.  As a tech company, Sony known for it’s high-end computers and personal electronics. If they were both using the same OS, I think Apple and Sony would be considered direct competitors.  But they’re not.  Yet.

 

That’s where the Microsoft model comes in.  By licensing its operating system and software, Apple stands to make substantial inroads into domains it has previously not known.  Witness the rise of iTunes.  Add video support (to run on, you guessed it, Intel hardware) and iMedia becomes the content leader for years to come.  The same values that have made iTunes so popular – simplicity, ease of use, advanced features – will also serve Apple when they release OS X for x86 PCs.  But it won’t stop there.  I think the time is coming when Apple will begin to sell more of its software, such as the iLife suite, and in doing so become a legitimate rival to software powerhouses such as Microsoft.

 

Its hardware business, which has been lauded so often as the sole lifeline of Cupertino, will take a page out of the Sony book – if you want great hardware (even if some of it is proprietary), come to us.  Apple then says, hey, if your grandmother can’t afford one of our machines, buy her a Dell with our licensed operating system and software.  While you're at it, buy one of our CE devices as well.  Apple makes money both ways, and the revenue from the millions of people (like me) who will now use OS X but were previously too poor to buy a Mac will easily compensate for any possible lost hardware revenue.  If there would be any loss at all.

 

So Apple becomes like Sony for hardware and Microsoft for software and OS.  In my opinion, it will work.  It hasn’t been done before, but that’s ok.  Maybe it’s time to truly “Think Different.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to understand what Apple is really doing, and why it can carry on for a while, but it is not going anywhere as a strategy.

They are taking output from the same Far Eastern OEMs as everyone else, putting it in cases which are also made there, but differently colored and shaped, and then selling it to their existing customers for 50% or more than the same output in generic boxes. If you doubt this, open one up, and you'll see Seagate drives, Radeon graphics, Samsung memory, the standard kinds of opticals.... And pretty soon, Intel processors. This is very simple: its called, milking the customer base, and using the proceeds to get into other business areas. You can be sure that is how it is talked about in Cupertino. So they have no sustainable competitive advantage in hardware - in fact, they are at a disadvantage. Now that they have gone to Intel, there will be no way at all to claim differentiation.

The reason they can do this is the OS. Now, at one time the OS was easier to use. After XP that ceased to be true. Its a bit different, but its not easier. It is, for some period, more secure. Pretty soon however it will just be different. No easier, no more secure, and a lot more expensive. It is not just Mac hardware that costs more. What in Windows you get free as service packs, with Apple you pay handsomely for every year. There has been a long term competitive advantage in the OS, and security issues are its last gasp, but they are not long for this world, and they only apply versus XP, not Linux. So, premium pricing on the OS itself is going to go within 5 years. And with it, the effort to make people pay more for hardware to run it on, than the same hardware costs to run something else on, will also run into the sand. The differentiation is not going to be there, if it is really there now.

At one time also, because they supported a restricted range of hardware, their machines were less problematic. There was better integration between OS and hardware. This is no longer true. Those Seagates, Radeons, Samsungs are all just as integrated with XP as with Linux or OSX. That is, they are standard components, and they aren't integrated at all, but that doesn't stop them from working together equally well in any of the OSs. There is no sustainable advantage for them in integration therefore.

As differentiation fades, over five years, the strategy of charging a premium on both hardware and software, without offering any visible benefits, will fail. It will not fail right away, because brand image is a fairly hard thing to lose, and the faithful will keep buying. But over five years, the continuation of this approach will gradually turn Macintosh into Amiga.

What's the alternative? I'm not sure from a strategy point of view there needs to be one - milking the base is quite a respectable strategy, as long as your new ventures pay, and they seem to be doing. Done too enthusiastically it can damage the brand, but it can be done. If however you want an alternative there are two, not exclusive. In fact, you probably have to do both.

The first is to get the costs out and be a low cost supplier. Low cost means, as low cost as Dell. This does not mean producing inferior hardware, because Dell hardware is no different, it means producing the exact same hardware as now. It means carrying on getting the same hardware from your Far Eastern OEMs as you do today, but just mark it up less, because you have pruned Cupertino and improved logistics and supply chain management.

The second is to sell the OS as a standalone product, to other manufacturers. They will take care to deliver products that work, just as they do with their Windows lines. Its not rocket science after all - this is how 95%+ of the world market is supplied, and the stuff comes out of the box and it works. There is no reason the OEMs cannot do this with OSX, just as they do with Windows.

This is basically it. Its not going to be easy. But the fundamental problem is, you cannot remain a high cost undifferentiated supplier for long. Your loyalists will leave you, or they will die of old age, and the fanaticism of the ones that remain will not be a marketing asset. So, you either manage decline gracefully and milk, or you get the costs out and get into a new market model. One or the other. Its going to be interesting to see which it is.

It is not just Mac hardware that costs more.  What in Windows you get free as service packs, with Apple you pay handsomely for every year.

May I remind you that every new Apple release has new features and improvements over the last version?

May I also remind you that these free Windows service packs are fixes to problems that shouldn't have existed in the first place, and don't really add any functionality besides the fact that you won't have as much downtime due to viruses and whatnot?

Have you been under a rock for the past 2 years? sometimes better? Intel CPUs have been beaten and we know it.  FYI: I work for Intel and my bro works for AMD. Intel also knows it hense our "New Roadmap" that will be thrown out into the PR spinzone.

Wrong again.

The decision to embrace x86 truely was from the start of OSX. AMD and Intel supplied apple developers with x86 chips back in 1999. In fact AMD sent them 64bit Hammer based chips.

A lot of people thought the world was flat too...

The editorial has it right, Apple has realized (via iPOD) that they can make more money being , an electronics manufacturer, a content provider, a High-end PC maker, and an OS provider that ties in the content delivery. It's called diversifying. Take econ101.

 

HINT: Think of iPOD and podcasting services for TV, Sports, Movies, you name it. 

 

As far as hardware support... what is to stop Apple from having a AHQL software and hardware logo with manufacturers of devices? Which would allow them to release an x86 OS package by shifting libility for drivers to the hardware manufacturers. They can also do the same thing as Microsoft when it comes to support when Windows does not work with a device and you call support what do they tell you? "Go to manufacturer for support please."

 

See what a lot of people forget is that the drivers for Windows are not made by MS (Some common generic ones are microsoft provided but they were still written by the manufacturers at some point and then submitted to MS.)

 

So what would make manufacturers provide drivers for OSX? Thats back to econ101. DEMAND! Yes the demand is out there and it is slowly learking its head. Ever thought about how many people have been wanting to purchase a graphics card in the last two weeks that would work on both a mac and a pc that would support QE on x86 platform? I would guess in the thousands. And look... ATI is now releasing hardware that will work on both Mac and Windows.

 

Also what Windows software developers realize is that the Windows structure and architechure is a hodge-podge of {censored}. Most would be happy to code for a more structured OS.

 

I do know that the OSx86 will be limited to Apple hardware at first but will also be opened up slowly.

XP superior? When public root level exploits come out for your OS every 10-12 hours you can in no way claim to be superior to anything in anyway.

 

Also why would they want to "shaft" Microsoft? You do know that they are heavily in bed together? Yes I know they both have deseases but the way Microsoft sees it as truely "the devil you know is better than the one you don't" They would rather have someone they could compete with and control than an Open OS taking their desktop space. You know they are trying to shrug off the "Monopoly" label they have obtained. (I consider MS a sheep herder and they have a large majority of the sheep)

 

P.S. I have never been to a Mac event in my life. In fact I really don't like the people that think Mac is some sort of religion. It is just a platform just like Windows. But who cares? You have already made your decision, so now you must realize why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AMEN BROTHER

"When public root level exploits come out for your OS every 10-12 hours you can in no way claim to be superior to anything in anyway."

Please give us some examples of root level expolits released twice a day for OS X.

Keep in mind that Mac OS X root account is turned off by default.

I always hear of theoretical vulnerabilities in OS X but none of these ever materalize into anything real.

So yes.... Mac users CAN and SHOULD claim their OS is superior to Windows in many ways.

Mac OS isn't virus free by mistake... Apple's frequent security updates and solidly built OS gives them all the braging rights they want.

OS X is still virus free after all these years.

XP superior?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Take Reading Comprehension 101. Note my original statement again:

It would be a very bad idea for Apple even if their primary motivation at this point was just to shaft Microsoft by releasing another OS that many claim to be superior to XP in all ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said it would be a bad idea for Apple to release OSX for the x86 platform just because some people claim it - meaning OSX - is superior to XP in all ways.

As for you working for Intel, big hooey. This isn't a contest about who has the bigger {censored}. It you want Econ 101 it's simple enough for even you to understand (and I said it once already but I'll repeat it):

Intel owns the business computing industry and the home computing industry, aka the marketplace. These are the facts and they simply can't be denied. You should know this if you work for Intel and your bro works for AMD. AMD is still considered as a niche/enthusiast market for people that actually know what they're doing in relation to building personal computers or computers in general.

Sure AMD makes some great processors. They run a little hot but so what, just add more fans. </sarcasm> But the world runs on the Wintel platform regardless of what people may choose to believe.

"Some things are true whether you believe them or not..."

Windows is to OSX as Intel is to AMD, give or take a few percentage points. In each case one entity is simply overwhelming in scope to the other.

I've traveled through 47 of our 50 US states in my lifetime. Other than 2 Apple Stores, a ton of Best Buys and a few dozen CompUSA stores, I've never seen an Apple Macintosh computer in any store I've ever been in for sale let alone in some capacity to running the business.

I've worked on computers for just over 30 years now so that obviously includes the 21 years give or take a few weeks that the Apple Macintosh line of personal computers has existed. I've been to several thousand homes across the country to do onsite service and repairs. The ratio of Intel/x386 to Apple hardware is 99:1 or higher - and that's from hands on experience.

They're out there, obviously, but I sure ain't never come across many to speak of.

But it's "The computer for the rest of us," or so the slogan says. Must not be many of "us" out there because I damned sure don't know many.

My oldest sister is a school administrator in Henrico County, VA (aka Richmond). She still uses her iBook that is part of her job but she'll be tossing it soon because the school system decided to "get a Dell" earlier this year. They dumped all their Apple hardware recently in that $50 iBook fiasco many people saw in the news. Dell came in much lower in the bid to supply the entire school system with new hardware including several thousand laptops for the student population of some schools. It's just another nail in the Apple coffin, unfortunately.

I'll root for the underdog just like anyone else will, so we'll see what happens.

If Apple decided tomorrow to create a truly generic version of OSX for the x86 platform and they gave it away for free including manuals, CDs/DVDs and a full year of free technical support it wouldn't make a dent in Microsoft's control of the operating system market. Nary a scratch.

Don't think so? I point you to the 200+ distributions of Linux that are freely available and are - go figure - barely scratching Windows in its territory. Talk about supply and demand, sheesh. Microsoft makes 3 flavors of OS nowadays: XP Home and Pro and Server 2003. 200+ flavors of Linux compared to 3 flavors of Windows and Windows still maintains a roughly 95% penetration rate.

You figure it out.

Econ 101. That's funny.

bb

I've worked on computers for just over 30 years now so that obviously includes the 21 years give or take a few weeks that the Apple Macintosh line of personal computers has existed. I've been to several thousand homes across the country to do onsite service and repairs. The ratio of Intel/x386 to Apple hardware is 99:1 or higher - and that's from hands on experience.

Maybe Apples don't break as much...?

If Apple decided tomorrow to create a truly generic version of OSX for the x86 platform and they gave it away for free including manuals, CDs/DVDs and a full year of free technical support it wouldn't make a dent in Microsoft's control of the operating system market. Nary a scratch.

 

Don't think so? I point you to the 200+ distributions of Linux that are freely available and are - go figure - barely scratching Windows in its territory. Talk about supply and demand, sheesh. Microsoft makes 3 flavors of OS nowadays: XP Home and Pro and Server 2003. 200+ flavors of Linux compared to 3 flavors of Windows and Windows still maintains a roughly 95% penetration rate.

 

You figure it out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's simple. Linux requires an operator that is actually intelligent. There are easier and easier versions that come out all the time, but until there is one that is as user friendly as Windows or OS X, rather than hands on, then yes, Linux will keep it's current share of users.

If Apple were to give out OSx86 for free, you honestly don't think there'd be a nice scratch right across the Windows logo (aka Steve Ballmer's heart)? Ha. The fact that all the people on these forums are curious enough to look into OS X is proof enough that many others would at least try. A dent? No. People are afraid of the switch. But not all. That's why there'd be a scratch.

May I remind you that every new Apple release has new features and improvements over the last version?

 

May I also remind you that these free Windows service packs are fixes to problems that shouldn't have existed in the first place, and don't really add any functionality besides the fact that you won't have as much downtime due to viruses and whatnot? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, there is some truth in that. Though some service packs have added features also. But it doesn't really affect the main point. The question is not, which OS is better, or which one we think is better. The question is, what is the likely future of Apple in the market. I haven't heard any argument to convince me they are not between a rock and a hard place. Nor have I heard any argument that proprietary closed hardware is a viable 5 year strategy - for anything other than milking the base as long as you can. Not a comfortable thought, but it seems to be reality.

AMEN BROTHER

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yer sounds reasonable to me; and I TOTALLY agree with the crazy Mac religion weirdness, I mean; it's a machine, lifestyle is REALLY something else, lol

the iPod effect in PC's would fade away in days, especially when u can get a illegal osx86 disk...

I would happily fork over 129.95 for a legal copy of OSX for x86 anyday!!! It's the LEAST we should ALL do for ridding us of Microsoft's crappy OS!!!!!!

Isn't the problem something to do with 'the going rate'? The 'going rate' is what things sell for that most people regard as being pretty good quality at a fair price.

People, when they buy machines, have this concept of what the going rate for both hardware and software is. For OSs, the main things are (1) its free with the machine when first bought (2) service packs for that version are free, and are mailed on CD if you ask for them (3) upgrades to the next version go for around $100. OEM copies less.

Then you have hardware. The going rate is around $600-700, and that is supposed to get you a flat screen, 80G drive, 2.5-3Ghz processor, 512 memory. Not an all in one, two boxes. And of course, the OS is included, and probably some Works program, maybe Office if you're lucky.

You have to have something special to get more than that. Apple currently has it for the restricted market of the faithful. Not for anyone else. But, it gets a lot more than the going rate on both hardware and OS from this particular niche of buyers.

My question is, is this strategy getting more or less viable? The Intel move seems to me, its part of it getting less viable. The hardware has, over the years, become identical to everyone elses, and this is the final step. There will be no, absolutely no, company specific components except for the case. The OS is, temporarily, more secure than XP, but no more usable than either XP or the major Linux distributions. Where are the new buyers going to come from who will first buy the hardware at a big markup, and then go on to spend $100 a year on minor version upgrades?

This is not an argument about what we like. So its pointless to reply with arguments about how great X is or how lousy Linux is, or XP, or MS, or how we all hate Dell. This is about the market and what will happen to companies following certain strategies. In Apple's case the basic strategy seems to be, milk the committed user, and refuse to get our costs down. I just cannot see this flying over five years. Can anyone else? And Isn't this the real market significance of X86, it is, like it or not, the hardware becoming directly comparable point for point, and so subject to easy comparisons against 'the going rate'.

Kinda sad, ain't it, alcibiades? And yes, I'm sure you understand me perfectly.

I hope Apple does well and I hope they stay in business. I hate to see any company go under, especially one that is as recognized a brand as Apple is.

Forrest Gump invested in Apple, why not you?. </sarcasm>

Anyway, the iPod did save Apple, even Steve Jobs would admit that. The iMac (remember those)... those were an experiment in futility. Case in point:

I was in the Las Vegas CompUSA store the day the iMacs were released years ago. The store had 1,100 of them shipped in. They were basically offloading the container truck at the rear of the store and simpy putting them in shopping carts for people to wheel them directly to the register - that's how fast they were selling them. The entire stock was sold out in just under 4 hours (I had a friend that worked there so I got updates on status from him during the day).

So that would seem like a good thing right? That one single store selling 1,100 iMacs in a single afternoon, duplicated at CompUSAs across the country (assumption there), yeah that looks pretty good for Apple. iMacs that, according to Jeff Goldbloom - noted technology expert (NOT!) - and those commercials anyone could buy an iMac and take it home and have it up and running and connected to the Internet in 10 minutes. You remember those commercials don't you? I do.

Two weeks later I was in that CompUSA visiting my friend. I noticed a large stack of iMac boxes near the customer service/computer repair counter in the front of the store. I asked the friend (he was the senior repair tech) what the deal was and he said as of that morning 873 of those 1,100 iMacs had been returned to their store and the #1 reason he was aware of was:

"It's too complicated for me. The commercial said I'd be online in 10 minutes. I messed with it for 3 days and got nowhere with it so I'm returning it."

I kid you not. Sure there were a few that were returned for hardware reasons, defects, something deleted that ruined the system, etc. The usual rigamarole from typical Joe and Mary Blow average consumers. But the sheer number of people returning them because of not being able to figure out how to get online was by far the most common reason. Lucky for those people they got in under the CompUSA 14 day return guideline. *Whew...*

I've never owned a Macintosh. The only Apple product I've ever owned was an iPod mini that I ended up trading for IBM ThinkPad about a year ago. Do I miss the iPod mini? Damned right I do. It's a simple very easy to comprehend audio player - in other words it does exactly what it's supposed to do and it does it very well.

And that's the point. Apple has always prided itself on being "The computer for the rest of us." Now Apple, with the prospect of switching to Intel/x86 based platforms, needs to return to that philosophy.

The Macintosh has had a single button mouse for 21 years until just a few weeks ago. Now the "Mighty Mouse" is out. What took Apple so long to embrace something that no Windows computer user would be able to realistically get any work done without - a two button mouse? Yes yes yes, I know you could go out and buy a two or three or possibly even a 4-5-6 button mouse (they do exist yanno) but that's not the point.

The point is: Apple supplies the hardware and the experience in my opinion wasn't complete out of the box.

I really hope Apple makes it. Competition is good in the computer industry as it is in any other industry. But wait... let's look at what competition is.

Competition is defined as:

- a business relation in which two parties compete to gain customers; "business competition can be fiendish at times"

- contest: an occasion on which a winner is selected from among two or more contestants

- the act of competing as for profit or a prize; "the teams were in fierce contention for first place"

So the nature of competition means that if two companies put out personal computers then they're hoping the customer chooses their respective products.

In this particular situation, it's not even a competition by definition. Why? Because Microsoft doesn't make personal computers. Microsoft is a software company - and don't even start in on some of the "Microsoft" hardware side of this because Microsoft isn't a hardware manufacturer. They pay some other company to take designs and make physical products from it then package it with the Microsoft name and logo all over it. Microsoft is not a hardware manufacturer and that's a very important aspect of all this.

Apple has a tremendous amount of money and time invested in making their own computers thereby ensuring a high level of quality in the finished product. Let's face it: their products are beautiful and maintain a high level of artistic appeal. Hell, the iPod is in a museum and has won a whole slew of awards for it's simplistic yet highly functional design.

But for me, coming from practically a lifetime for most people (30+ years of hands on personal computing experience) I have to say flat out that OSX is just not the OS for me.

Too many aspects of the interface are just problematic to me: the menu bar for each application at the top of the screen means a lot of wasted and what I think unnecessary mouse movement. On a 1024x768 screen it's not much movement, but on a very high res monitor, say 1600x1200 or even 1920x1200 with windows open all over the place, wow, that's a lot of moving the mouse to get that cursor back to the top of the screen over and over, etc. There are more of course but I'm getting off topic myself.

The future of Apple is Intel and the x86 platform. Apple can't and didn't choose AMD because then they'd both be in the same boat: niche markets. They chose Intel because Intel maintains that overwhelming market presence I mentioned before and the history of staying on top even in the face of - dare I say it - competition from AMD.

Ok, fine I'll say it: AMD offers more efficient and more powerful processors at a cheaper price. But that means jack {censored}. Why? Let's see here. VHS vs Beta comes to mind. VHS offered longer recording times, cheaper media, etc. Beta offered more compact media (store more in less space) and vastly better picture quality.

Who won? Consumers that didn't give a {censored} about smaller media and better picture quality chose VHS because (drumroll please) it allowed them to pirate 3 movies they rented from the local video store on one video tape instead of just 2 like Beta would. I'm not being fascetious here, I'm totally serious.

The point is: better products do not always win in the marketplace. I'm not saying Apple makes a better product, so don't act like I did. I said better products do not always win in the marketplace meaning any product in any industry does not facilitate it being the consumer's choice just because a small percentage say it's the "best."

Anyway, I wish Apple well. I'll continue toying with OSx86 because it's something to do and computers have always been and will probably always be my primary hobby. I've tried pretty much every OS ever conceived and put out to use so why not this one too? I don't have to buy a Mac to use it (and I couldn't do that even if I wanted to since we can't buy OSx86) and I learn something in the process.

I learned that I don't like OSX so far. I don't see that changing, but then again, it goes back to my earlier statement about competition. For someone like me, Apple will never lose any money on me because I never considered purchasing their computer hardware to begin with.

If a consumer sits down and says "I want to buy a computer. I'm going to do research and make an informed decision about which computer is the best choice for me" then Apple would have a vested interest, in some respects, towards that customer's choice. But for a person like me, Apple will never lose potential profits because I flat out will never buy their products - except maybe another iPod mini at some point.

Microsoft and Apple can't really be in competition with one another until the day Apple makes a decision to release a standalone version of OSX for the x86 platform, and I really don't see that happening. It would go against the very nature of the company. Another case in point:

I was telling someone yesterday here's something I think is funny. The original Macintosh commercial in January of 1984 was only aired one single time and never again during the Super Bowl that year. Just one time and it's still considered by many in the advertising and marketing industries to be the greatest commercial ever made. If you haven't seen it, you can find a QuickTime version here:

The original Apple Mactinosh commercial (QuickTime .mov file, 13.1MB)

The commercial portrays a world (or our future, as seen from the Orwellian 1984 perspective) where everyone is the same: bald, downtrodden, dressed in raggish clothing, everything is a dull grey color, everyone eats the same food, does the same tasks, watches the same "Big Brother"-ish TV/video broadcasts, etc.

Then a runner, in full splendid color, white running top, bright red shorts, toned body, full of life and vigor, comes running into the scene carrying a sledgehammer. One bug there: sledgehammers, especially those of the size she's carrying in this video, are really damned heavy so she's Supergirl or something.

Anyway, she comes running into the scene chased by what appears to be cops or enforcers of some kind. She runs into a room full of "normal" conformed people and throws the sledgehammer at the gigantic video screen with the big-head official preaching some gospel about conformity and everyone being in it together, hopefully bringing about a change in that society by demonstrating you can think differently, you don't have to do what everyone else does.

The point of this diatribe is: Apple pretty much shot themselves in the foot by creating a sub-culture of their own with the introduction of the Macintosh. The very purpose was to create a different computer for "the rest of us" so we could be different. But the very act of creating a proprietary architecture computer with a single source for the operating system and the hardware (at the initial introduction in 1984) fell directly in line with what the first and only Macintosh commercial was purportedly trying to avoid: conformity.

I'm not the only one that's noticed this over the years. You can't go around preaching "Stop thinking their way, you don't have to think their way, try thinking our way for a change because it's different, you're different" because by the very act of making the statement you're creating yet another platform of conformity in the process.

If everyone "thinks differently" the end result is: they're all the same. Weird how that works, ain't it?

Funny stuff.

bb

Well this ia all very interesting stuff, and boring as hell.

I think everyone of you should go and watch the WWDC that Steve introduced the intel driven Mac.

He shows pictures of a very young Steve having dealings with Intel around the Apple II days.

that is a long time shopping for the right hardware.

he has been working with Microsoft for years, letting them provide software as well as writting software for the windows world. itunes and quicktime have been around for more than a couple of months.Etc etc.

Apple does think different, they poised themselves to take advantage of the evolving hardware market.

They brought usb, firewire and wireless to the masses. They provide a system that works out of the package, first time.

I know I was impressed the first time and expected nothing less the next, so far I am still impressed.

Not so with my various PC systems and the troubles for the ordinary everyday user. (read this as friends that call and ask for HELP with windows problems)

When the intel Version of the Apple Mac comes out they will be the only company that will openly offer systems based on 2 different "opposed" architecture CPU's

using a common operating system. This is brilliant.

What model is Steve using, don't seem like no ECON 101 to me.

I had the pleasure of watching a PC tech from the local cable co. come and install a Mac on a cable modem.

He told me that it would take about 2 hrs, to which I laughed. He told me the regular "Mac" guy was out of town and he had never done a Mac hook up and his PC jobs usually took between 1 and 2 hrs.

I told him to connect the cable and sit in the chair, coffeee would still be hot when he had finished. LESS that 10 minutes later he just starred at the computer in disbelief because he had never ever connected any computer that fast. we both chuckled about the easy job his co-worker had compared to him, he was ready to switch to the Mac installs.

Oh yeah that was one of those bondi blue imacs. out of the box ready to go, I talked a friend into buying. Yes he is still my friend. on his second Mac.

Do I care if Steve uses Intel or PPC... NO, I know that what ever system comes out of his corp. it will work, and the things that get plugged in will work.

I also know that if there is an earthquake or tsunami or fire, war explosions ..... Steve will still be able to continue to bring something to market.

I would suspect that Apple will continue to develop OS's for whatever CPU's he can get his hands on, don't be surprised if he makes a switch again.

Think Different

Apple also says, "Hey, if your grandmother can’t afford one of our machines, buy her a Dell with our licensed operating system and software. While you're at it, buy one of our CE devices as well."

wow, i'd be VERY surprised to see that. I think it's more likely it to be : "Hey, if your grandmother can’t afford one of our machines, buy her a Mac Mini. While you're at it, buy an iPod as well."

If EVER Apple allows Dell to ship Mac OS X (which I find quite unlike, but Steve Jobs never stops surprising us), or even more unlikely, if Apple starts selling and supporting its OS for any PC, well then... no wait... I really can't imagine such a thing happening.

You know, Apple, it's just like Nintendo. Nintendo keep their good Nintendo games ONLY for their Nintendo consoles, that's what makes Nintendo's strength. According to me, it's the same thing for Apple, letting another manufacturer ship PC's with OS X on it would be helping the concurrence (cuz Apple still got computers to sell, if they moved to x86, it's not to be able to put their OS on 86's, but to be able to have a more reliable and powerfull CPU provider, to sell more computers), even tho Apple tried shipping Mac OS 7 on Dells back in 93 in the days of Star Trek (but Michael Dell couldn't accept cuz he was paying off Microsoft for every computer he sold, no matter whether or not there was Windows shipped with it)

It took the guy just under 10 minutes to install a cable modem? Geezus, what a sorry tech. It takes me like 2 or less. DHCP is a wonderful thing, yanno. Plug it into the AC adapter, plug it into the NIC on the PC, a few seconds go by and wham, you're done.

As for people calling you or anyone else for help because it's a Windows machine, well, again that goes back to the proprietary nature of Apple and it's hardware base. Realistically how many people go out and buy a Mac of *any* kind and then get it home and say "Oh this sucks, that sucks, I need a new video card, the hard drive isn't large enough, the CD/DVD is too slow, I can't burn DVDs" etc? Not many because Macs are designed (quite literally) to be used out of the box and never touched.

But that's not the case with the Windows operating system and the personal computers that run it. As I've stated in the past, the near infinite variety of hardware that exists in the computer marketplace makes the fact that someone can go out and buy a bunch of totally different brand named parts and slap them together and have it work - that says a lot about Windows.

Windows caters to a far larger customer and hardware base than OSX could ever possibly hope to achieve. There is more driver support for Windows because - lo and behold - there are more computers running Windows. Simple.

Also, I wouldn't exactly say Apple brought USB and Firewire into the marketplace. Neither technology was created by Apple so they just started adding it like all the other computer manufacturers. Because of Apple's place in the video industry, Firewire took precedence over USB for various reasons, the simplest being it's better than USB in many ways.

But wait, there it is again, the "better products do not always win in the marketplace" thing I mentioned. Firewire is better than USB but USB maintains the overwhelming majority of the marketplace when it comes to peripherals and support. Show me a PC without USB sometime - it can't be done. But I can most definitely show you tons of PCs without Firewire.

Besides, Apple learned another valuable lesson with the iPod. When it first came out they effectively snubbed their noses at all the PC owners on the planet and said "If you want to use our iPod with your PC, you're out of luck without a Firewire port, sorry. And our software isn't for Windows either."

That decision was reviled in the industry and by consumers big time and it cost Apple a few bucks. Lots of bucks.

Then comes the next generation of iPods. Guess what, someone realized "we could be making a {censored}load of duckets off these stupid Windows users if we just added some Windows software and USB compatibility. Make it happen" and so they did. That's when the iPod really took off because it suddenly was a usable and marketable device to that 95% marketshare controlled by PCs.

Oh well, I said it before: I wish Apple well. Time will tell if they make it.

bb

you do make me laugh.

I have been working with computers for over 30 yrs as well.

I have had many different computer configuration over the years, but the Mac has always been the easiest to keep running.

I wasn't suggesting that Appple was the reason that usb and firewire came to the marketplace, just that they put it in their computers from the factory. not both everytime but certainly usb, and this became a standard by Apple first.

You are right that the best things do not always survive in the market place.

The 10 min setup I was talking about included the rewire etc. I know i didn't write it in that way, at the time of that visit very few PC's came with ethernet cards installed, the Mac's did. Another standard set by apple (hardware config not the ethhernet standard)

My point is that Steve is leading the way by putting the things we will want in his computers.

Yes I can add onto my PC, but I can also add onto my Mac.

Yes drivers are around for the PC but it took a long time to get to be "user friendly add ons"

Yes I use Windows XP, Yes I use OS X, yes I have used the previous OS's and a few others uncluding Linux.

From all my experiences I still recommend a Mac machine as the first choice of a system for a noobie because it will work with not hassle.

Sure so will dell, and so will IBM, and the machine you get cobbled up at the local shop.

But to start off your adventure you get a lot more software with the computer.

From all my experiences I still recommend a Mac machine as the first choice of a system for a noobie because it will work with not hassle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you suggest giving someone new to computers a computer that they really can't understand from the start, that they can't really ask any friends for help with (unless they're cool college kids that get clothes from the Gap and own iPods like the commercials portray constantly), can't really find software for in most places (while CompUSA and Best Buy do carry some, it pales in comparison to what's available for PCs, especially in the entertainment/gaming genre), and you say they aren't going to have a hassle?

Apple products may be more reliable than their PC counterparts, but when something does go wrong, with only two major retailers (Best Buy and CompUSA) offering service, aside from an Apple Store and there aren't many of those, where do Apple owners turn? Apple? Some choice there. Onsite service? I used to work for a 24 hour onsite support company that actually cared about customers (and it wasn't today's Geek Squad or Geeks On Call) and out of 225 techs only 2 of them had any Mac experience at all. Some would say that's a testament to Apple reliability - I say it's a testament to not many people "thinking differently" and not owning "computers for the rest of us."

Those slogans alone define and create conformity.

Please.

But to start off your adventure you get a lot more software with the computer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really? Should we do a side-by-side comparison? Nah, that would derail this thread too much I believe. iTunes is the big app in OSX and everyone knows it. Windows Media Player does practically the same thing except for being able to purchase tunes - give Microsoft time and they'll cover that too. Besides, not everyone wants an iPod as insane as that may sound. Windows supports pretty much every portable media player on the planet today and in the future while Apple and OSX support... well... iPods.

Going back to my earlier point about conformity, Apple sure does a great job of locking people down when it comes to choice. "If you wanna be cool and own cool stuff, you get it from us. We're the arbiters of cool. Just get in line, follow our lead and we'll show you the way."

Sorry, I ain't buyin' it.

bb

I think that you are wrong in the sense that apple will release its operating system to the public. Most people, including me, would rather have a nice stable computer supported by apple for $1500 rather than a white box computer that had limited driver support for $200. Sure geeks will install it on whitebox pc's, but most people will go out and buy macs in my opinion. They sure as hell look a lot nicer than PC's