Re: Apple's ways

[wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

: 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.

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. 

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Byron.