Re: Possibility of open-sourcing GS/OS

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <MdWdnb6IVsNykuzenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>  "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > If they simply made it available as an alternative OS for installation
> > on new PCs (and as an "upgrade" for the aftermarket), they might go a
> > long way toward getting their foot in the door.
>  
> Yes, but the lost control over the machine would likely do significant 
> harm to the quality off the user experience. That would be 
> counterproductive.

Yes, that is a distinct risk.  In this case, the risk of giving
users more choice in the configuration of their systems.

Microsoft has always largely accepted this risk, at great expense
and cost in complexity, to promote greater competition among
component manufacturers (ironically).

There would inevitably be compromises in this area, but they
could be mitigated by offering pre-integrated systems for users
who wish to avoid most of that risk.  (Of course, many users
do not like to think of themselves as unable to deal with
that risk...  ;-)

> > A winning campaign in the market could be made on the basis that it
> > is the "final solution" to spyware, viruses, etc.  Of course, this
> > claim would ultimately become specious, since as soon as their share
> > rose to a level of any significance, they would be a target, too.
>
> Not likely unless/until they dominate the market. The ubiquity of 
> Windows is certainly part of why Windows is targeted, but it's also 
> low-hanging fruit. It's got a far greater number of extant infection 
> vectors than the other potential targets.

Of course, but the attractiveness of a target is a rapidly increasing
function of its market share.  If MacOS were 20% of the market instead
of 10%, they would be targeted much more than twice as much.

And the number of _effective_ extant "vectors" is in approximate
equilibrium on any platform, since systems are immunized against
older vectors as new vectors come into existence.

> > The thing that could make this transition more palatable would be the
> > continued growth of the iPod market, so that their computer hardware
> > business was a smaller slice of the Apple pie (!).
>
> It would have to be huge growth. iPod's got volume, but the hardware is 
> still the real cash cow.

The iPod is the fastest growing part of Apple's revenue and earnings,
and this might be expected to continue for a couple of years.  If this
were coupled with a drop in Mac revenues/earnings, that might catalyze
the kind of strategy change suggested.

Of course, moving MacOS to an Intel base drastically reduces the barrier
to making such a move.

> That said, and keeping the cow metaphor in mind, Jobs said straight out 
> several years ago that in his opinion what Apple should be doing is 
> milking the Mac for all it's worth while working on "the next big 
> thing." That was right around when he came back to Apple, but I really 
> can't recall whether it was before or after.

Sounds almost identical to his earlier opinion about the Apple II.

Perhaps Mac users should fasten their seatbelts...

-michael

Music synthesis for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it is seriously underused."