On Jun 9, 2005, at 7:59 PM, dave pasted:
Apple agreed to switch from processors made by IBM to
special processors made from Intel over the next two years -
that's it. This
is only slightly more significant than Apple choosing to change
the hard
disk or memory supplier it puts into its computers.
That's exactly how I feel about the whole issue... it's a complete
non-event. I'm an OS X user, not a PPC user. I don't really care
what's inside the box. Does it really make any difference whether
your computer is based on Sparc, MIPS, x86, PPC, Cell or just a hot-
wired Radeon?
Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated
by IBM's
inability to keep pace with Intel.
IMO it was the result of a brilliant strategic manoeuvre by Apple -
after the problems they had with Motorola they kept their options
open by maintaining an x86 port of OS X. It's called CYA and it
really paid off when IBM couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver.
It seems Apple was tired of losing the
gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising
faster
computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In
addition,
they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-
powered chip
for laptops.
I think the author has his points around the wrong way. The primary
reason they moved to Intel is performance per watt - partly now but
most significantly in the future. Intel somehow delivered a good
enough spin-story to convince Steve Jobs that the Intel future looks
much better than IBM.
Take a look at Apple's current lineup: the only product line that
isn't really small is the PowerMac. The laptops are in desperate
need of updating: the G4 debuted in laptop form in 2001. Don't you
think it's about time they had G5s in them? Personally I'm surprised
they got one into the iMac while keeping it quiet.
Mac users will eventually see the benefit of this move, but will
first have
to suffer through a period of uncertainty and forced upgrades.
Eventually,
this switch will enable Apple to offer speedier machines more in
line with
PC performance. Until then, however, customers will have to make a
tough
decision - purchase a new computer that is guaranteed to be made
obsolete or
wait two years for machines to be released and software to be
natively
working.
All computers are guaranteed to be made obsolete, it's just a matter
of time scales :) The switch seems to be far enough away, with
support guaranteed for a fair while afterwards, that not many
customers seem to be put off at this stage (from what I've heard).
Bear in mind that early-adoption of any technology product is likely
to be uncomfortable so many will wait until the second generation of
x86 boxes before committing.
In fact, I've been strongly considering a Powerbook lately and after
thinking about this for the past couple of days I've decided to go
ahead with it anyway - and I expect this to be the first line to be
switched over. 12 months is a long time in the computing world these
days and I really can't afford to go without a laptop for that long.
My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented
on what
the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on
anything
other than an Apple Mac."
Allowing OS X on generic boxes will kill their desktop hardware
business overnight so I can see the commercial basis behind that
decision, especially because their hardware sales are increasing
rapidly. Plus I'm sure they'd rather not have to deal with the extra
support overhead of cheap & nasty beige-boxes with dodgy hardware and
bad drivers. Users fitting cheap generic memory is a big enough
problem in the Apple world.
The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the
option to
install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from
budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic
AMD or Via
white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple
will not be
reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines.
Well it is Apple's decision to be a hardware company as well as a
software company. If they decide to protect their hardware business
by tying their OS to it, that's their commercial decision. We might
not necessarily agree with it, but that's the way things are.
There are already plenty of choices available in x86 OSes - if OS X
really is so much better than anything else then either buy an Apple
machine or work to make your OS-of-choice better. Don't just sit
there whining about it.
A more open strategy could perform differently this time if Apple
put as much
ingenuity to its structure as they put into their elegant software
and
hardware. Imagine a world where Apple encourages clone
manufacturers to grow
the middle- and low-end markets while keeping high-end products for
themselves.
I think that would be a serious mistake. You need the high-volume
products to finance the development of high-end stuff - the products
you need to give yourself the good name that sells your high-volume
products.
Apple's extensive R&D
means they can never offer a low cost operating system like
Linspire which
is able to for $10-15 per computer to system builders.
Well, researchers and developers do need to be paid.
In addition,
after-market software costs more for Mac than for Microsoft Windows,
Does it? That's news to me.
All of the software I've bought so far cost the same regardless of
platform. Some even comes with both Mac and Windows versions in the
same box!
so the
cost advantage for desktop Linux is magnified when compared with
Apple
beyond just the operating system.
Linux is free - nothing can compete with that. Well, not on purchase
price anyway.
Finally, the developer community is always the key to an operating
system's
adoption, and desktop Linux is enjoying an explosion.
So is the Mac platform, unless you're living in a cave. Apple's
revenue is absolutely skyrocketing and believe me they are looking
after their developers. As far as I'm concerned it's great that both
Apple and Linux are making inroads into the Windows-dominated
desktop. Diversity is good. Heck, I have all three platforms at
home; they're all good for something. Even if one is only good at
infuriating me ;)
There's a substantial
library of Linux software such as the 2000+ programs in the CNR
(click and
run) library, which can be installed with a single mouse click.
I just spent about 2-1/2 days installing Subversion on x86 Solaris;
believe me I love software that "just works" :)
Apple has
superior polish today, but Linux is closing that gap quickly as
leaders
emerge and natural selection is creating some uniformity. Already
Linux has
Apple beat on variety and user community.
Variety *and* uniformity? :)
I think both platforms have equivalent communities but they're
different kinds of people.
(HTML rubbish removed)
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
