On 2005.6.7, at 11:13 PM, Robert wrote:
"Wiggins d'Anconia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Ragsdale wrote:
On Jun 6, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Jobs is insane.
I'm not so sure about that. IBM seems unwilling or unable to produce
mobile G5s, which is a market that Apple considers very important.
They also are 2 years behind schedule on 3.0Ghz G5s, and appear to be
focusing on video game processors instead of desktop and mobile
processors.
Apple might be OK in a speed comparison right now (on desktops, they
are clearly losing in laptop comparisons), but how about in two
years?
Perhaps IBM has told Apple that they won't attempt a laptop chip,
since
the volume is way higher for video game consoles? What should
Apple do?
They should have released Mac OS X for Intel as soon as they had it
ready. Why wait? It seems Apple is too caught up in their own keynotes
to understand volume sales. One thing M$ was definitely *always*
better
at. IBM will probably laugh this one to the bank, not exactly going to
put a dent in that $99 billion in revenue...
Because it wasn't ready
Five years and it still isn't ready?
That's exactly why they shouldn't have kept it hidden in the lab if
they were going to be doing it.
and obviously after watching the keynote they are
still working on some
things. They are trying (and it looks good so far) to make the
transition as
painless as possible.
I think it is a good move.
If they were just saying, okay, we have had so many people begging for
Mac OS X on iNTEL, we're going to give it to them and charge them
double for running it on non-Apple hardware, that would be a good move.
Moving everything to the monoculture is not a good move.
Personally, it looks like it will be a bit painful for a few years,
but
a far better move in the long run.
Unless they become just another cheap clone maker with a pretty
software
interface. (Did I hear someone say Sun?)
Apple is not Sun in any sane comparison.
You think?
Ian
http://danconia.org
