Re: Apple's ways

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

: I'm just related what I heard...if you do *not* believe it, look here:
: 	<http://www.osxonintel.com/>

Assume the 'early beta' exists.  Is it of the server edition, or the more
recent consumer version?  If it is of the server edition, it would be
incomplete from the consumer's perspective.  For all we know, it may not
be possible to port the polished interface to the Intel platform (at least
with ease).  Even high level languages throw fits over different types of
processor.  Also, it was an early beta.  This means that it is not of
production quality.  Just because it exists does not mean that it can be
compiled then shipped out the door for Intel users.  There may still be
issues.

Also, some Apple users consider the shipping version of OS X to be a final
beta.  It is, to say the least, incomplete.  Some hardware (such as CD burners)
were not supported at the time of its release *on Apple's hardware*.  Can
you imagine how incomplete the support for PC hardware would be.  Supporting
additional hardware _probably_ isn't as simple as stealing code from FreeBSD
or NetBSD either.  If it is based on Mach, as advertised, the device drivers
are supposed to interact with the microkernel instead of the hardware (this
assumes my perception of OS design is reasonably correct).  Supposedly there
is a high level abstraction of the graphics drivers.  That may complicate
using code from BSD as well.  Finally, even BSD does not support all of the
PC hardware out there.  There is a reason why Linux is so popular, and that is
because a number of people have agreed that they would put their efforts into
supporting a broad range of hardware on _that_ platform.

Then there are features which Apple could not (realistically) provide: support
for classic applications (OS X virtualizes the hardware, it does not emulate
classic), nor could they provide binary compatibility.  In otherwords: if you
want Photoshop for OS X, you need to get an Intel version which (to a certain
degree) must be developed independently of the PPC version.  Whether such
software would *always* exist for both platforms is an open question.  If it
did not, it would simply confuse issues for the consumer.

In conclusion:

Do you really think that Apple has the money to invest for a $100/copy return?
That is absurd.  They make their money from their hardware, not by giving
away their software to PC users.

In the PC world, you may be accustomed to one business model.  That business
model probably wouldn't work for Apple, nor its clients.  To some degree, that
is going to force Apple to be a 'revolution' company.  Thus we have the Apple II
and the Macintosh being distinct products, thus the Macintosh and PowerMac being
based on different technologies, thus the cosmetic changes with the introduction
of the iMac, thus the shift to a Unix kernel.  Evolution simply doesn't help if
you have to get up and scream "Hey, I'm different! Look at me!" every few
years.  Evidently the strategy works if people are screaming out for Mac OS X
on iAPx86.  That still doesn't mean that it would be a sound business decision. 

So, if you want OS X, buy the machine.  Apple doesn't exist to give the product
away to PC users, and gouge their more loyal hardware customers.
Byron.