BUY Apple!

on May 24, 2005

Yeah, I read the article on C|net...as far as I understood it, Apple is looking at Intel to replace it's IBM PowerPC chips...doesn't mean it's gonna run on x86 code base...Intel does make other chips besides x86. It's not Microsoft who's pooping in their pants...it's pool old IBM...

Them too (IBM). But if they dont port to the x86 architecture, that would be like catching a pass for a touchdown, and stopping on the 1 yard line for a tea break!

17

Dr Guy

on May 24, 2005

yep true or Apple may just want to use a specific component: network or memory controler, some part of an Intel's mobo's NorthBridge/ SouthBridge, or ask Intel to design a whole new product, like a Mac-specific processor. Or Intel's excellent Pentium-M Dothan (or Sanoma)! (that choice would personally impress me)

I dont think they would be talking about a whole new chip since that would take years to develop. But you are right. We dont know why they are talking at this point. Guess we will have to wait for news at 11.

18

Zoomba

on May 24, 2005

The thing you have to keep in mind is that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. The OS and iLife/iWork etc are all applications meant to support/drive the sale of their (overpriced) hardware. If they port OSX to the PC side of life, it will bring about an end to a large part of their business. So despite the Intel conversion, I seriously doubt you'll ever be able to buy a Dell and load up OS X on it.

Now, that doesn't rule out the ability to install Windows on a Macintosh, considering the core parts are all generic. Windows supports a HUGE list of hardware, whereas Mac supports only the specific items in their boxes. So in the future you may be able to get a dual-boot box, but it'll almost definitely still be an Apple Computer.

19

Dr Guy

on May 24, 2005

The thing you have to keep in mind is that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. The OS and iLife/iWork etc are all applications meant to support/drive the sale of their (overpriced) hardware. If they port OSX to the PC side of life, it will bring about an end to a large part of their business. So despite the Intel conversion, I seriously doubt you'll ever be able to buy a Dell and load up OS X on it.

You see that is where I have a difference with Steve Jobs. Apple is not a hardware company. That is why Microsoft and Dell are skunking them. If they would just remember that they are a software company, they could make a killing.

And controlling the Hardware, even on an INtel platform will not kill them. As you state, they will maintain control of the machines, but since Windows would work on any intel platform, a true dual boot machine becomes a reality.

20

Zoomba

on May 24, 2005

Apple is not a hardware company

They have always been a hardware company. They started as one with the Apple, they continued with the Macintosh up to today... are you trying to say they should BECOME a software company? That's a completely different issue... one I think Apple would lose hands-down.

Look at the market penetration of Linux on the desktop... or the old BeOS. On the PC Platform at home, Windows rules supreme and no one has been able to make a dent. Apple creates its own market by owning the software and the hardware. I think they would be able to survive allowing Windows to install to their hardware... but trying to make OS X their flagship product installable on the standard PC would kill them.

21

Dr Guy

on May 24, 2005

They have always been a hardware company. They started as one with the Apple, they continued with the Macintosh up to today... are you trying to say they should BECOME a software company?

Ok,. technically, they are a hardware company. But they should not be. Their strength is in their software. That is what I am saying.

Look at the market penetration of Linux on the desktop... or the old BeOS. On the PC Platform at home, Windows rules supreme and no one has been able to make a dent. Apple creates its own market by owning the software and the hardware. I think they would be able to survive allowing Windows to install to their hardware... but trying to make OS X their flagship product installable on the standard PC would kill them.

See, that is where I disagree. It might kill their hardware side (I kind of doubt that), but look at Microsoft? They dont sell any hardware (FOrget xbox), and are one of the largest corps in the world!

Apple could easily take 25% of the market, because unlike BEOS and Linux, it is a superior product. BEOS and Linux suffer from geekdom, but Apple has always owned the ease of use category.

22

Hus

on May 24, 2005

If Apple did release OSX on x86 hardware, their software sales would sky-rocket. Apple is one of the hottest companies in the WORLD today, and they could use that leverage for an x86 OS. If they did do that however, their sales of iMac's and PowerMac's and their notebooks would virtually disappear. There would be no point, as x86 hardware is a lot faster in terms of processing power and the like. It's much, much, much cheaper. And there would be compatibility problems with the current Mac hardware vs. x86 hardware. So Apple would have to basically gut their machine, scrap all the work they've done with their hardware and start over with x86 parts. Then you got to think about all the products and companies who develop for the Mac...everything they've done is out the window...bye bye, so sorry...

Would Apple make more money with software sales than it would with the hardware losses? Would they make a big enough dent in the OS market to cover their hardware losses? What if their product flops...and Microsoft still has 97%..? To Apple, it's probably not worth the risk...

23

Dr Guy

on May 24, 2005

Would Apple make more money with software sales than it would with the hardware losses? Would they make a big enough dent in the OS market to cover their hardware losses? What if their product flops...and Microsoft still has 97%..? To Apple, it's probably not worth the risk...

Apple, Microsoft and Dell did not get big by playing it safe. Sure, everything has a risk, but their margin on the hardware is probably a lot less than on the software. So increasing their market share 10 fold (latest stats show they are selling just 1.5% of new computers) is a risk worth taking.

All of this is great for a pie in the sky discussion. In the end, it will come down to Steve Jobs. Guess we will all have to wait and see.

24

mrbiotech

on May 24, 2005

Check out http://robbushway.blogspot.com/2005/05/apple-tablet-pc-sightings.html and http://engadget.com/entry/1234000310044375/

It appears that Apple is specifically interested in Intel's Sonoma technology. The rumors DON'T point to a complete switchover (that would be economically and technologically stupid- retool your entire line that you own rights to just to use inferior processors?). Does look like they're interested in portable technologies, however.

Rumors of video iPods are constantly quelled by anonymous Apple sources who instead say "look bigger", and the rumors of the Apple multimedia/PDA/Tablet would certainly be consistent with this.

I dare say that as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm of Apple they will not release their OS to the seething PC masses, simply because Steve wouldn't be able to control the hardware as he has done with Apple. That's one of the reasons OSX works so well is that it's inextricably tied to the hardware it's designed for.

25

TexasJoe

on May 25, 2005

It appears that Apple is specifically interested in Intel's Sonoma technology. The rumors DON'T point to a complete switchover (that would be economically and technologically stupid- retool your entire line that you own rights to just to use inferior processors?). Does look like they're interested in portable technologies, however.

Sanoma processors are not inferior processors, especially on the high end.

26

kona0197

on May 25, 2005

Sanoma processors are not inferior processors, especially on the high end.

Yes they are - compared to AMD processors.

27

Leauki

on May 25, 2005

"Finally a real alternative to Windows!"

There has always been a "real" alternative to Windows. People just never bought it because there were no advantages (for the standard user) but usually fewer applications. OS X on x86 would have even fewer applications than OS/2 and nobody would buy it, except as a curious toy to boot up every few days to look at it. But such users would keep their Windows installation and buy Windows applications. And that's how Microsoft wins.

(Yes, OS X would have all sorts of free Linux applications, but so does Linux.)

You can already buy OS X. Just buy a Mac instead of a new PC when it is time to replace your old computer. It's so simple. Why would you want to run OS X on x86 when you can buy a Mac?

All the advantages I can think of (and none of them are very real) are reasons for Apple not to do the port:

28

Dr Guy

on May 25, 2005

Check out http://robbushway.blogspot.com/2005/05/apple-tablet-pc-sightings.html and http://engadget.com/entry/1234000310044375/

It appears that Apple is specifically interested in Intel's Sonoma technology. The rumors DON'T point to a complete switchover (that would be economically and technologically stupid- retool your entire line that you own rights to just to use inferior processors?). Does look like they're interested in portable technologies, however.

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. As for the debate of x86 vs PPC, that is the old Beta vs VHS. We know who won. The best mouse trap does not always win. The best Marketing always does.

29

Dr Guy

on May 25, 2005

Sanoma processors are not inferior processors, especially on the high end.

Yes they are - compared to AMD processors.

Now, now, let us not get into an AMD vs Intel debate. This is about Apple, and Intel. I personally prefer INtel as I have had bad luck with AMD. but, YMMV

30

Dr Guy

on May 25, 2005

There has always been a "real" alternative to Windows. People just never bought it because there were no advantages (for the standard user) but usually fewer applications. OS X on x86 would have even fewer applications than OS/2 and nobody would buy it, except as a curious toy to boot up every few days to look at it. But such users would keep their Windows installation and buy Windows applications. And that's how Microsoft wins.

OS2 was fine. I used the latest, Warp 4, just a coupole of years ago. But as you indicate, it suffers from 2 faults. Poor support and no applications.

Porting OSX to the Wintel platform would entail bringing all the applications that currently run on it. That is simply a recomile of the code as the OS would hide the underlying architecture from the apps.

Microsoft wins due to lies and great marketing. But a competitor would make them start cleaning up their act and actaully competing again, and that is what I would love to see. In its current incarnation, Apple just does not seem to want to get out of its niche.