Re: Apple's ways

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill) wrote:

>: All of this is *true*...except I believe that Apple intends
>: to port Mac OS/X to the x86 architecture. If they are smart,
>: they will also port it to the Itanium...
>
>Porting OS X to the iAPx86 architecture would accomplish nothing
>from Apple's perspective, and would probably be a burden.  If
>PowerMacs continued selling, then they would be left with a white
>elephant (MacOS/x86).  If MacOS/x86 was selling, then sales of
>PowerMacs would plummet.

And what would be wrong with that?  Either way, Apple would
grow and prosper.

>Yes, this assumes that Apple is serving a fix market.  You want
>to know why?  Because that is the way it is.  Nobody can compete
>with Microsoft because they own the platform.  Sure, they have
>had their competitors.  OS/2 is now dead, even though it enjoyed
>some time in the spotlight.  Linux is dying the same death, even
>though it is free.

OS/2 died because IBM horribly mismarketed the thing.  Linux
isn't dying at all.  It has been and always will be the OS of
elitist-nerd-programmer types.  Linux is the exact opposite of
MacOS...an operating system that invites the user to dive in
IF the user takes the time and effort to learn everything about
it.  Like MacOS, there is a niche for it.  Windows is between
the two.  You can mess with the guts of Windows easier much
easier than the Mac but it is also much friendlier than Linux.

I have to laugh at OS fanatics whether they be MacOS, Linux,
or Windows.  Each is good for its own target audience.  And
that's why I think it is a shame there is no x86 MacOS.  I do
believe many PC users would buy the OS.  MacOS has much
more appeal to the average consumer than does Linux.

>Apple is a survivor because they have the hardware and the software.
>It has been that way since the Macintosh was introduced in 1984.  If
>either the hardware or the software died, I propose, there would be
>no compelling reason to continue using Apple products.  That may be
>why the transition from the Apple II to the Macintosh was as drastic
>as it was: unless Apple could demonstrate that the Macintosh was a
>revolutionary platform, it would die the death of so much of their
>competition:

Not really.  Apple killed the II at the height of its popularity,
leaving much of its users to turn to the PC rather than follow
them by gunpoint to the Mac.  This is a fact and many of the
PC users you talk to were originally Apple II users for this
very reason, myself included.  If they were wise, they would
have included some sort of transition from Apple II to Mac.
If demonstration of revolution was the true reason for this
tactic, Apple would have used it again when they moved from
68k to PowerPC, right?  Why did they, then, work so hard
to IN FACT provide a transition from 68k to PowerPC?  It
was because they realized they could not ignore the user
anymore.  They had learned their lesson.

The Apple II to Mac non-transition was a mistake.  Face it
and move on.

>If the Macintosh looked like the Apple II hardware wise, then it
>would look like (and perhaps be) an underpowered machine.  The
>6502 could barely support a GUI, the 65816 even has trouble with
>GS/OS.  Worse yet, if people got the idea that GUIs could be
>implemented on todays technology there would be little reason to
>migrate to Apple's new platform: you could simply wait for the old
>platform to catchup.

So move to another processor and slap in a Mega II and
a 65C02 to provide the transition.  Or make a MacLC card
in *1984* not 5 years after the fact in 1989 when it was
already too late.  Or combine the IIGS and Mac concepts
in a Mac IIGS with a 68k CPU.  OR...support the IIGS
concept and make it the Mac.  Remember, it is not an
impossibility for a smaller CPU maker to beat a larger one.
AMD did it once just last year when it beat Intel for nearly
an entire year, coming out with 850Mhz, 900Mhz, and
1Ghz CPUs before Intel did, then coming out with stable
1.15Ghz ones when the 1.13Ghz P3s had to be RECALLED.

>The other option is to look like an Apple II software wise (ie.
>run Apple II software).  This is also doomed to failure since
>developers would simply create an Apple II version and let the
>Mac users suffer.  The benefit of Macintosh would be negligable
>because the software wouldn't exist (except in the special case),
>or the interface would be cluttered with legacy support.

Hmm...give me a break.  If this was the case, I would have
a ton of DOS programs I would still be running.  Give me
a break!

>Everybody assumes that the Microsoft model is the way to go.  It
>represents the ultimate success.  For Microsoft, perhaps.  For their
>competition, doubtful.  Microsoft is the result of both shrewd
>business tactics and plain dumb luck.  Anybody who points to Microsoft's
>success is also failing to note that it was not Microsoft, nor Intel,
>which created the platform which so many people use.  It was created by
>IBM.  While IBM is still a big player in the market, they certainly
>are not a controlling player.  Everytime somebody buys a Dell or a
>Compaq or a Uncle Joe's Computer Outlet computer, IBM is loosing a
>potential client.  IBM can take it.  IBM's primary buessines is not
>PCs, and the PC industry is big enough that they can still be a 'bit
>player' while being profitable.

IBM has sold more Aptivas post-clone than they ever sold
PCs, PCXTs, PCATs, and PS/2s during the days before
and when they tried to stifle the clone market.  The clone
market has HELPED IBM.

>But Apple depends upon brand loyalty and brand perception.  If you
>continue hacking away at either the OS or the hardware (and both have
>been hacked away at), both loyalty and perception are going to go down
>the drain.  The existing client base is dead, and a new one must be
>built.  Now OS/2 had the benefit of IBM, Linux had the benefit of being
>free (and quite different from most consumer OSes).  Apple has neither.

Um, exactly.  Then why are you making excuses for Apple
when they basically killed off the Apple II client base and
had to build a new one for the Mac due to non-transition!

As for IBM, lets not forget that Apple was supposed to have
an alliance with IBM and Motorolla, an alliance which in fact
resulted in the PowerPC CPU.  But look at what Apple did
to its partners.  Apple can't remain isolationist forever.  Oh,
wait, it screwed IBM, Motorolla, Netscape, and the Mac clone
makers when Jobs dropped them ALL and sold out to guess
who?  Microsoft, remember?

>No, I don't think that Apple is going to port OS X (proper) to the
>Intel.  It would be suicide.  It is not their market.

The smartest thing for Apple to do is to ally itself with a player
that can actually succeed.  IBM and Motorolla were smart
moves in the past but Apple has already effectively severed
the IBM connection and Motorolla alone as just a CPU provider
rather than a full partner can't sustain the momentum.  One
option is to build an x86 Macintosh to go along with an x86
MacOS.  Remember, you can design around a processor and
yet not have the same computer.  One look at an IBM PowerPC
computer can tell you that.  It has a PowerPC processor but
thanks to Apple, it doesn't run MacOS.  Similarly, the most
powerful PC processors are x86, so Macs should use x86.

An Apple-Intel partnership simply won't work because there
will be resistance not only from the Apple side but also the
Intel side which has a relationship of mutual blackmail with
Microsoft not to mention several key PC makers.  A
partnership with AMD, however, may prove fruitful.  AMD and
Apple are both "rebel" companies and AMD can provide the
raw processing power Apple needs to compete.  Such a
partnership will benefit both companies.  Apple would gain
enormous processing power while AMD will gain a stable
personal computer manufacturer partner.  As for Intel's
Itanium, AMD has its own 64-bit extended x86 architecture
it is developing.  Because of Intel's dominance in the PC
market, AMD's 64-bit solution may have a hard time being
adopted.  However, Macs, because they are a different
market, would ideally be able to take advantage of this.  I
mean, there is nothing comparable from Motorolla and if
Macintosh is to remain viable, it will have to use SOME type
of next-gen architecture.  Now is the time to jump ship to
AMD.