ZDNet’s David Coursey, now a switcher, writes an editorial about the need Apple has to create a cheap Intel box with OSX in it, as a way to tone up its PPC sales and grandually switch x86 users, more than switch PPC users to Intel. OSNews featured a similar editorial recently, but suggesting a G3 CPU.
Coursey: Why I Want a Pentium Mac
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
this is just silly now. How much does Intel pay that guy to say this kind of stuff. The osnews article, which suggested using a G3 made a lot more sense.
coursey is like a broken record. If apple gains 50% share in five years using a power pc, coursey will still come out and give more reasons for apple to switch to x86
earth to coursey. IBM is mounting an attack on Intel. Apple is in good hands. Its not the processor choice that is stopping apple from selling a cheap computer, it is apple.
It would be suicide for Apple to make an x86 version of MacOS X available… You think it was bad (for Apple) when the clones were around (cheaper, better, sturdier)? Same applies, with greater risks in this case..
Personally, I think Apple knows that too well, they’d rather stick to their hardline Mac-only bubble (you want Final Cut Pro? Switch. You want MacOS X? Switch. etc), it’s more beneficial for them in the long run.
My suspicion that David Coursey is too stupid to be trusted with a brain.
He is persistently out of touch. We’ve had this argument before _SO MANY_ times
And we all know he’s a microsoft weeny and wouldn’t actually buy a mac anyway.
This is probably the biggest issue with Apple…the need for a low cost OSX based Mac. Prices seem to be decreasing almost everywhere else in the tech field. Yet Macs still remain high priced. I’m a Mac user, so don’t start getting defensive…
While I’m not sure Intel is the proper choice, it may be worth exploration…and David really might have a good idea here. Perhaps an AMD based box w/o the expensive Apple monitors. Heck, even a G4 based machine would be great if it was less expensive and performed very well (please save your energy and don’t bring up the 800Mhz eMac…we need better performance!).
With such an offering, Apple just might score big!
> It would be suicide for Apple to make an x86 version of MacOS X available…
Not necessarily: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1393
Eugenia
The implication is that Apple should release an x86 version of OS X so that you can get a bare bones x86 system to run it on.
First of all, why would Apple give this sale to its competitors when they themsevles can make a bare bones PPC system?
Apple doesn’t make bare bones PPC systems because (contrary to popular opinion… people don’t buy them. The average consumer computer purchase costs between $799 and $1200 after the machine is speced up to be at least moderatly useful… a price range which coincidentally matches Apple’s consumer lineup.
The reason for going x86 before (within the last year and a half) was because Apple’s professional lineup was lacking in speed… however, spped and Apple hardware is no longer a factor.
you can get a similarly equipped PC as you what can be had to a Mac will be paying a very similar price… so price too is no longer an issue.
So, the only factor that’s left is that Apple doesn;t want to sell you a bare bones PPC… that makes sense because few people are buying them anyways and because the margins are so razor thin anyways.
Rather than this talk of Apple going x86, or making bare bones PPC systems… a better solutions would be if Apple sold motherboard upgrades and empty cases on their web site. All other elements on Apple-branded hardware can be upgrade just like PCs.
If they were to allow for upgrading the motherboard while also allowing the opportunity to buy empty cases, they would be addressing the wants of the build-it-yourself demographic will stealing away the only remaining genuine benefit associated with going x86…. while at the same time allowing them to maintain a consistent hardware spec that has allowed Macs to be more troublefree than the average PC.
> It would be suicide for Apple to make an x86 version of MacOS X available…
Not necessarily: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1393
Good points, but that article is a year old, some (not all) things have changed in the mean time (and I don’t mean the line about the G5 being vaporware) 😉
Forget the possibility that you could purchase OSX off the shelf and run it on your PC. This will never happen (except for a demo CD for promotional purposes, maybe). Apple would do the same ‘tricks’ they did for PPC to make sure that OSX only runs on exact hardware they sell.
This still stands, but with limited resources, and the G5 coming soon as the new workhorse, I don’t see the point in Apple making cheaper x86 or x86-64 machines. For one, Jobs doesn’t want to sell cheap hardware, Jobs likes standing out of a crowd, despite all the troubles with Motorola to make faster G4s available, and let’s face it, Apple drives innovation in the computer industry, they just don’t have the margin to compete with other hardware makers once they’ve decided to copy their ideas.
Selling x86 hardware would kill one thing for sure, prestige of the name and company history. Jobs will never allow that (I must point out I don’t believe it’s right or wrong, Jobs is something else and has his own little understanding of how much better his stuff is).
From the article:
Matt Deatherage, is a seasoned and mostly well-reasoned Apple observer. He suggests that the only people who want to see OS X on Intel are the folks I call “Mac voyeurs”–people who get all frothy thinking about what Apple does but who can be counted on never to buy a Mac.
I don’t think I could put it better myself. Virtually everyone calling for OS X on Intel would never purchase anything from Apple.
Eugenia, the text of the Reuters article was gone but what Steve Jobs essentially said was that Apple would most certainly not consider changing processor architectures at least until they felt that a sizable portion of the Mac userbase had been converted to OS X.
There is no point in creating a releasable OS X on x86. It adds unneeded complexity to their product development and to their product line itself. Suddenly customers would have to worry about whether a given piece of software supports both PPC and x86 or not. If Apple isn’t pushing a full transition to x86, what is the incentive to spend extra development money maintaining x86 ports of OS X and their applications?
“Not necessarily”
Eugenia, while I won’t rule out any posability…. its important to remember that that quote (assuming its accurate) came in mid-2002… a time when Apple’s next generation processor strategy was still in mid-design phase.
Again, while i won’t rule out anything at this point… Apple has far more incentive to keep its hardware on PPC now that the all of Apple’s hardware will see market share growth rather than everything BUT towers… which held back the company’s overall market sahre growth.
The reason why I say that we ought not rule anything out is because making OS X available for both platforms would certinly grow Apple’s market share, and now that Apple will be shipping the G5 soon they could ship systems with both processors while at the same time PPC hardware would remain as the consumer speed king.
Would Apple developers be expected to compile and test for both the Intel platform and PPC? And don’t forget Altivec/64bit optimisations.
Give me a fucking break.
if Apple jsut came out with a more normal looking computer…one with a CRT and a mini tower, then people would probably not think poorly of them since they are expandable and, really, the features are pretty nice (though the bottom of the line PCs should have at least CD-RWs.
Nobody that posts on this site has any realy power when it comes to the decisions that Apple will make. There are a few things that are for certain…
1. Apple doesn’t want to lose control of their product line. Thus making a x86 version of their OS would begin to erode that control. Especially if^H^H^when someone reverse engineers the Mac ROM and creates a similar version, much like what happened with the IBM BIOS in the 80’s. So, that has about as much a chance of happening as Bil Gates truly Open Sourcing all Microsoft software.
2. Apple enjoys their seat as an ‘elitist’ and ‘artistic’ computing platform. They enjoy have ‘zealot’ followers, which most ‘elitist’ and ‘artistic’ Mac users are. (That’s an undenyable fact.) They also likely hoped to gain that with the release of the iMac with the not terribly computer literate crowd, which didn’t quite work… However, they are gaining that with BeOS and Linux/UNIX geek/Administrator crowd. Making a very inexpensive and widely accessible, due to low cost, computer system is the antithesis of that foundation.
You really don’t see zealotry amongst the IBM Compatible PC Market. There are very few people that will almost get into fist fights over HP versus Dell versus the local White Box dealer. However, you shove a Mac ‘guy’ and a PC ‘guy’ into a small hot room and you will come close to seeing a North vs. South re-enactment of the American Civil War, but based upon Personal Computing platform.
While it would be very nice to have mass market appeal and a x86 version of MacOSX, which would give people like me yet another OS to multi-boot with, it is simply something that won’t happen.
As long as Steve Jobs exists at or near the head of Apple Computer, it won’t happen. Once he passes on from this world and has someone takes over Apple ‘franchise’, like Rick Berman took over the Star Trek franchise… None of what is discussed here will happen…
…and once that change of ship’s captain occurs, Apple Computer could likely fade away entirely, unless the new Captain is a REAL tough and REAL sharp cookie…
amd64 has long mode that not only has 64bits but 32 registers rather than pentium 4 16.
as a way to tone up its PPC sales and grandually switch x86 users
How does OSX running on x86 hardware “tone up PPC sales” and help “gradually switch x86 users.” ?? Hypothetically if Apple did release an x86 version of OSX are they going to bogg it down to make it seem slower in order to entice people to buy the PPC version instead?
And x86 OSX would not be able to run other x86 software so how does that help x86 switchers?
Apple can release OSX on x86 hardware yet still be in control of that platform with an iron grip by using some kind of hardware lock, in BIOS maybe. Dell does this now, you can’t use the “Dell OS restoration CD” on any other PC than a Dell. But I rather like variety in computer platforms so I disagree with porting OSX to x86, but welcome the idea of more manufacturers producing OSX compatible PPC systems.
instead of apple selling os x on x86-64, cloners should.
“Apple doesn’t make bare bones PPC systems because (contrary to popular opinion… people don’t buy them. The average consumer computer purchase costs between $799 and $1200 after the machine is speced up to be at least moderatly useful… a price range which coincidentally matches Apple’s consumer lineup. ”
this is true and a nice addition to the apple must offer a 300 mac view. However, apple lacks a tower in the $799 to $1199 range and until recently they didn’t have a tower in the $799 to $1598 range. That apple has finally pushed the G4 power mac to $1299 tells you something. Just $200 less mr jobs and i will never buy a pc again.
My bet is that a good 70% of buyers in that range ($799-$1299) pay under $1050.
“if Apple jsut came out with a more normal looking computer…one with a CRT and a mini tower”
Apple sells such a beast.
“people would probably not think poorly of them”
People don;t think poorly of Apple because of their hardware design. Quite the contrary… People appreicate Apple’s hardware design.
“since they are expandable”
Apple’s hardware is expandible. Where would you get the idea that Apple hardware isn’t expandable?
“and, really, the features are pretty nice (though the bottom of the line PCs should have at least CD-RWs.”
They do have them with CD-RWs…. they are build to order options that you can add on. The price is relative to what you get… as is the case with a PC.
David Coursey makes 2 opposing points in his article: he states that there are users who want to dual boot Windows and MacOSX on the same system without emulation (Virtual PC). However, he (as well as myself and others) make the suggestion that Apple should manufacture x86 systems and put a hardware lock in them in order to boot OSX on that particular system. With the hardware lock in place, it’s also possible for Apple to prevent OTHER operating systems from being installed and booting from Apple-made x86 systems. That would defeat the point of being able to dual boot.
Furthermore there are special features such as the ADC connector, the pro audio connector, special keys on the keyboard unique to OSX. Sure you can replace the keyboard with another USB keyboard, but if the computer chasis is designed similar to all the other Mac products it won’t match the PC keyboard you would attach, certain customers will not accept this. ADC and pro audio connector might just sit idle and unused, I’m just trying to point out the level of integration between hardware and OS that makes Macs what they are.
“2. Apple enjoys their seat as an ‘elitist’ and ‘artistic’ computing platform.”
IF the elitist connotation comes out of Apple, its not because they have their noses in the air… but because their hardware is just so much better.
“They enjoy have ‘zealot’ followers”
As does any platform
“which most ‘elitist’ and ‘artistic’ Mac users are.”
That’s not true.
“(That’s an undenyable fact.)”
No its not.
“They also likely hoped to gain that with the release of the iMac with the not terribly computer literate crowd, which didn’t quite work…”
They weren’t trying to cater to the eliete with the iMac. They simply worked towards creating a very easy to use computer… somthing that they accomplished wonderfully.
“Making a very inexpensive and widely accessible, due to low cost, computer system is the antithesis of that foundation.”
Thankfully, Apple makes such systems.
“You really don’t see zealotry amongst the IBM Compatible PC Market.”
First of all, you most certinly see this type of attitude amongst the PC crowd… (Its common on these threads all the time) Second of all, PC users don’t use IBM compatible systems… although Mac users do.
“There are very few people that will almost get into fist fights over HP versus Dell versus the local White Box dealer. However, you shove a Mac ‘guy’ and a PC ‘guy’ into a small hot room and you will come close to seeing a North vs. South re-enactment of the American Civil War, but based upon Personal Computing platform.”
This can be atributed to Insecurities of the PC user as much as it can be about the Windows zealot or Mac zealot factor.
“While it would be very nice to have mass market appeal and a x86 version of MacOSX, which would give people like me yet another OS to multi-boot with, it is simply something that won’t happen.”
its probably a good thing, because it will be just as unpredictible as your non-Mac system.
“…and once that change of ship’s captain occurs, Apple Computer could likely fade away entirely
Just as likely as any other high profile technology player.
Apple’s OS does run on x86, its called Darwin and its free. The GUI is a different story, as are the apps. Apple is a hardware company not an OS company, as soon as the PC world understands this they will understand that OS X (10.x) will never be sold for the x86.
“Apple can release OSX on x86 hardware yet still be in control of that platform with an iron grip by using some kind of hardware lock, in BIOS maybe.”
but what would that gain them? Very little.
With the hardware lock in place, it’s also possible for Apple to prevent OTHER operating systems from being installed and booting from Apple-made x86 systems.
The author is clearly talking about preventing OS X from running on hardware without the lock, not on preventing other operating systems from running on hardware with the lock.
Apple’s OS does run on x86, its called Darwin and its free. The GUI is a different story, as are the apps. Apple is a hardware company not an OS company, as soon as the PC world understands this they will understand that OS X (10.x) will never be sold for the x86. That’s like telling SGI that IRIX needs to run on x86.
“Apple lacks a tower in the $799 to $1199 range”
yes, but they have a tower in the $1300 range.
“Apple is a hardware company not an OS company”
Actually, they are neither… They are a Macintosh company. Their computing solutions is a complete package… something that is only fully realized with the full package.
Apple puts the prices too high for alot of their low end systems and apple resellers overcharge for older and discontinued models. The average price for an old 500 mhz g4 tower is around $700 – $900. You can go to dell and get a new 2.2 ghz Pentium 4 system for $700. I watch a lot of anime divx videos and my 1.2 ghz athlon is a lot smother than my 500 mhz g4 during video playback.
Apple should not go x86 because osx would just be pirated like crazy. Just put out a $500 800 mhz G4 system once the g5 is released.
I can’t see the same need and want after the introduction of the G5 as that gave the platform the kick that was needed after years of stagnation.
I agree with the article. If there was an x86 cheapo version of a Mac built by Apple and if Mac OS X was locked to that hardware (you cannot put it on any barebones PC) it would help Apple tremendously with getting new customers who would ideally move onto Apple’s superior build products (I’m not saying superior performance, just built). I bet they could take the cube idea, put a Pentium 4 in it with a CD-RW and sell it for 500 bucks including Mac OS X. They would sell like hotcakes. I would buy a few of them for servers and use my G4 as my desktop system for developing and for show =) (nothing is more beautiful than a quicksilver and a cinema display on a glass desk).
But this is a choice for them and not David. You have the choice of breaking into the office space, home, and wherever else in a huge way. Business’ want out of Microsoft but are too afraid to move towards linux. This choice however, cripples their G4 and G5 sales which is the big problem.
All you Mac-heads need to stop talking trash about making an x86 version of OS X. It’s just a processor. It’s not the enemy. It’s a very good processor at that. Very quiet and fairly cheap for the performance. Just imagine buying a 500 dollar good looking cube from Apple and being able to upgrade the processor, memory, drives, and optical whenever you liked…the only thing that couldn’t be upgraded was the motherboard. Sounds good to me =)
“Apple puts the prices too high for alot of their low end systems”
What? Apple’s prices are relative to the prices you would expect to a PC bearing the same hardware and software.
I think what you’re eluding to is the fact that Apple doesn;t compete on the same level as the bare bones PC manufacturers.
“and apple resellers overcharge for older and discontinued models.”
While I suppose its possible that some do, its been my experience that each system that comes from these resellers is very competatively priced when you consider the fact that an equivilent system in hardware and software on a PC would cost approximately the same price.
“The average price for an old 500 mhz g4 tower is around $700 – $900. You can go to dell and get a new 2.2 ghz Pentium 4 system for $700.”
Yes, but with much less.
“I watch a lot of anime divx videos and my 1.2 ghz athlon is a lot smother than my 500 mhz g4 during video playback.”
divx and the Macintosh never did play well together. Thankfully almost every other video format works flawlessly.
Hypothetically if Apple did release an x86 version of OSX are they going to bogg it down to make it seem slower in order to entice people to buy the PPC version instead?
No need to do this, just don’t optimize it.
I recently bought a 2.0 Ghz AMD chip and put it in a Shuttle X-PC case. Those whole system cost me around $700-$800. Now if Apple could sell such a system and include OSX with it, perhaps using a 1.5 Ghz chip and less RAM (<512MB) to save costs, they could have made another customer. I’m not willing to pay $1300 for a 1.2 Ghz G4 when I could put together a system for half the price that offers me more options. The only option I really want to buy from apple is their OSX software and support.
If they can keep up with OSX support like I would expect them to, then maybe I’ll be willing to pay more for hardware in the future.
Let me put it this way. If I bought Macs I wouldn’t be able to give away 6 computers as hand-me-downs to family members this year. There’s a lot more to go around because I saved my money and bought cheap PCs. Now if I could do the same thing buying cheap Macs, I’d do that just the same.
Market share is what increases your ability to be profitable. Its in your best interest to win customers like me, who understand these markets intimately. Possibly even better than some of your analysts.
The main cost of Apple is not the PPC processor, putting an x86 would not change anything for apple.
Porting OS/X to x86 would do wonders to Apple, right? Just ask NeXT, and Be. Those companies are doing great now, are they?
Jeez, people who do not know history are boud to repeat it. I assume Jobs learned his lesson with the whitebox NeXTStep. So case closed.
So now you are expecting apple to force OS/X to maintain and support at least 2 different architectures? Jeez… speaking of suicidal moves. It is already hard to attract developers from windowsland, asking these developers to not only support another platform but rather 2 extra platforms would not make things easier.
PPC has closed the performance gap, deal with it.
Ok. I really wish people would stop with this kind of FUD. Keep in mind I am a Mac user first…but these are the statements that just make Mac users look ignorant.
“The average price for an old 500 mhz g4 tower is around $700 – $900. You can go to dell and get a new 2.2 ghz Pentium 4 system for $700.”
“Yes, but with much less.” <—- This part
Who cares about what processor is in the machine. I personally don’t use any Intel products in computers I build for people, nor do I use them in my own machine. It’s the way the Macs are built (non upgradeable, proprietary, expensive) that keeps me from switching to them. And thier support also keeps me from switching too. Every time I’ve called them for help with a problem, I always get the “F— You” attitude.
Lol, i love how he subtlely advertises his crappy book in there. are the pages of that book even worthy of wiping my ass with? The article sure wasn’t, but since it’s a webpage, there are a few obstacles in wiping one’s…
Windows needs BIOS. Windows device drivers need BIOS. If Apple wrote a version of OS X for existing Intel motherboards there would be no conceivable way to “lock” the OS to the hardware that wouldn’t be cracked within a week.
Given that, the rest of the article is irrelevant. He might as well discuss the effect that a direct neural interface would have on OS X sales.
“”Yes, but with much less.” <—- This part”
I know this sounds contrary to what is most often perceived because apple doesn’t compete in many markets thus causing a consumer to look solely at price and not at included hardware and software which would come standard on the compared Mac… but what you will find when such comparisons are made is that a Mac is either only slightly more, the same price, slightly less or significantly less when comparing a Mac to a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) same configurations in both hardware and software.
this is just silly now. How much does Intel pay that guy to say this kind of stuff. The osnews article, which suggested using a G3 made a lot more sense.
why would Intel pay someone to write about porting OS X to the x86. I highly doubt they care about an OS with 2% of the market. Get real.
coursey is like a broken record. If apple gains 50% share in five years using a power pc, coursey will still come out and give more reasons for apple to switch to x86
Pipe dreams. Just like when the first PPC shipped.
Its not the processor choice that is stopping apple from selling a cheap computer, it is apple.
Exactly. So IBM won’t really be able to do a thing for them in terms of marketshare obviously.
“It’s the way the Macs are built (non upgradeable
What? Macs are very upgradable. your statement is a falacy.
“proprietary”
you mean not clonable… because the hardware and operating system are no more proprietary than a Windows PC… actually, the Mac is less proprietary when you consider the fact that Darwin is open source.
“expensive)”
What? Mac’s areen;t expensive. Quite the contrary actually. What you will find is that a Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare the exact 9or as close as possible) specs in both hardware and software to a PC.
“that keeps me from switching to them.”
If those are the reasons, then it appears you have none, as they were all based on misconceptions.
“And thier support also keeps me from switching too.”
Apple’s support is among the best in the industry. As a matter of fact, Apple and Dell scored the highest in the industry and yet were similar to one another.
“Every time I’ve called them for help with a problem, I always get the “F— You” attitude.”
You must have dialed the wrong number.
“why would Intel pay someone to write about porting OS X to the x86.”
1) To de-enphasize the desire for PPC hardware
2) To drive sales and the desire for x86
“I highly doubt they care about an OS with 2% of the market.”
Sure they do when you consider the fact that Mac have risen in every single market segment except pro towers. (Makes sense because Apples pro towers left much to be desired) Now, Apple’s market share wont be brought down by the one hardware element that wasn’t selling well, but instead will cause the market sahre to rise uniformally.
“Its not the processor choice that is stopping apple from selling a cheap computer, it is apple.”
Thankfully, Apple’s computers are very inexpensive… so they don’t have to sell bare boens hardware…. primarly because few consumers buy it. Instead, they buy hardware in the price range that Apple sells its computers.
“So IBM won’t really be able to do a thing for them in terms of marketshare obviously.”
Sure they will. Apple’s market share has risen in every area except pro towers… this is because of a lack of speed. IBM supplies that speed which means that Apple’s hardware sales will increase in market sahre for all hardware… rather than being dragged down by one style of hardware.
I can’t see why Apple would think of having an x86 platform. I thought these kind of articles would end since they came out with the G5. Developers for Mac software already had to make a big transition from OS 9 to OS X. Why would Apple want to add another burden to them? One of the things Apple is able to do is put all the bells and whistles into all of it’s products. Look at what Apple did for USB. Before Apple included it on every Mac there was a very small amount of USB devices available. By including USB and Firewire on all of their computers they help build a market for these devices. By adding all the extras onto an X86 model the price wouldn’t be any less than their current models.
IBM is working on a higher speed G3 chip with the velocity engine in it. This will likely go in the low end. Over time the G5’s and G6’s will work their way down into the consumer models.
At this point I think the only way you would see OS X on X86 is if Apple was in serious trouble could no longer afford to sell hardware. With Motorola fading into the past and IBM stepping up there is no longer a speed advantage to going to X86 and thus no reason for them to even consider such a move.
1) To de-enphasize the desire for PPC hardware
2) To drive sales and the desire for x86
What desire? I don’t think INtel feels there is a heavy enough threat from PPC to bother. At least not in the consumer market. Server side is a different story but luckily for Intel the majority of server sales are x86 based running Linux. Price always wins which is a fact. Dosen’t matter what they come up with, the commodity market wins regardless. Its been this way for 20 years and I doubt it will change.
Sure they do when you consider the fact that Mac have risen in every single market segment except pro towers.
You might want to actually read the quarterly reports that get published within the industry.
Thankfully, Apple’s computers are very inexpensive… so they don’t have to sell bare boens hardware…. primarly because few consumers buy it. Instead, they buy hardware in the price range that Apple sells its computers.
That explains the 2% marketshare right ?
This sounds like an Amiga convention. A lot of circle jerking with no real substance.
What desire [for PPC Hardware?”
are you neglecting the fact that many high-end x86 users will be transitioing to the G5?
“I don’t think INtel feels there is a heavy enough threat from PPC to bother.”
Perhaps they should.
“At least not in the consumer market.”
With understanding that by consumer, that means anything non-workstation, they had better be concerned aboutthe consumer market as that is the market the G5 is targeted at and has a huge demand.
“Server side is a different story but luckily for Intel the majority of server sales are x86 based running Linux.”
And yet IBM is the largest pusher of Linux-based systems on corporate enviornments. IBM, the company that creates the G5. Again, intel would be advised to be concerned…
“Price always wins which is a fact.”
Yes, but if someone has the opportunity to get a bare bones laptop (for example) for a cheap price or a laptop which has more features that may not be available in that bare bones price but is available for the same price as compared with the competition while offering more… consumers will buy it. This is evidenced with Apple’s massive lead in laptop sales.
Additionally, Apple has been rising in market share in every segment of the market it competes (asside from pro towers) this despite the fact that lower-end computers could be had for less. Consumers WILL pay more if there is significant added benefit that makes it compelling to do so. Apple’s pro towers have finally been upgraded and therefore wont be dragging down Apple’s market sahre. instead, All aspects of Apple’s market will be running at full boar… which means market sahre growth.
“Dosen’t matter what they come up with, the commodity market wins regardless.”
That’s not true. If that were the case, how is it that Apple took a massive lead in laptop sales?
“Its been this way for 20 years and I doubt it will change.”
It’s changing now.
>>>“Sure they do when you consider the fact that Mac have risen in every single market segment except pro towers.”<<<
“You might want to actually read the quarterly reports that get published within the industry.”
I did, and thats where that conclusion was drawn from.
>>>“Thankfully, Apple’s computers are very inexpensive… so they don’t have to sell bare boens hardware…. primarly because few consumers buy it. Instead, they buy hardware in the price range that Apple sells its computers.”<<<
“That explains the 2% marketshare right ?”
First of all, the market sahre dropped to 2.3… not 2. Second, the market sahre looks skewed because Apple’s practically non existant sales of pro towers caused all the other major increases irrelivant.
Thankfully, now that the G5’s have been announced and will be available in a mere matter of weeks, Pro towers will not be hampered and Apple’s sales will be running on full boar for each market they compete in.
“This sounds like an Amiga convention. A lot of circle jerking with no real substance.”
When you add more substance to your comments this will change.
the only people stupid enough to think apple will go x86 are the same people who thought bush wouldn’t screw the economy and lie. in short, people with no knowledge of history.
remember clones? bad for apple. remember BeOS? “co-exist with windows?” killed the company. hell linux doesn’t even have a single point for MS to attack and it can’t get market share! wake up! get a map to your colon and find your head so we can begin the salvage operation. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
“You really don’t see zealotry amongst the IBM Compatible PC Market.”
First of all, you most certinly see this type of attitude amongst the PC crowd… (Its common on these threads all the time) Second of all, PC users don’t use IBM compatible systems… although Mac users do.
That point made me laugh. Just take any old PC software box/booklet and read the system requirements… Most of them will clearly say “IBM PC or 100% compatible”. You can run most of them even on today’s PCs. Unfortunately, you can’t run them on a Mac unless you have an emulator.
You’re not really better than the generic PC zealot/Mac basher: you don’t really know of what you’re talking about. Please inform yourself before making stupid claims like this!
You know, back when the Power Macintosh 9600/120 and 8500/120 were first released (the 9600 was simply a larger, more expandable version of the 8500, without all the built-in stuff), I paid about $5,000 for the 9600/120, didn’t like it for some reason, sold it for a huge loss, and bought an 8500/120 for about $4,500.
Today, you can buy a top-of-the-line G5 for about $2,000 (when they’re available). I’m sorry, I must be stupid or something, because I DON’T SEE THIS “EXPENSIVE” YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
Oh, sure, compare apples and oranges by saying you can build a PC for $1.99 that is foaming with multi-gigahertz glory coming out of it’s tailpipe, but realize something else…
Macs are specialized, not generic like PC’s. They are a unique experience, not average like PC’s. They are “a higher level of consciousness” simply not attainable with a PC running *ANYTHING!*
So, why don’t I own a Mac? I do. It’s a 33MHz 68LC040 LC575. Dead-dog slow on the Internet. Why don’t I own the 8500/120 I used to own? I had to have Dragon’s Lair on DVD-ROM and had to trade my 8500 with someone for a 166Mhz Pentium PC that had a DVD-ROM drive installed.
Kinda works out nicely when I found out BeOS was being ported to the Intel platform… but we all know how *THAT* story ended…
Had I known what I know now, I might well have simply foregone the Dragon’s Lair thing and traded/sold my Macintosh 8500/120 towards a better Mac later on.
As soon as I have a $1,000 or so laying around (that’ll probably take a wee bit of awhile with all the debt I’m trying to bash back under the rock it came out from under), I plan to buy one of two Macs… an eMac 1Ghz or a G5 system. I’m aiming for the $2,000 top tier G5.
Word has it, the low and mid-range G5 systems are a tad crippled. Any further word on this?
Luposian
“The average price for an old 500 mhz g4 tower is around $700 – $900. You can go to dell and get a new 2.2 ghz Pentium 4 system for $700.”
“Yes, but with much less.”
Users still have all they need in order to browse the web and check email with a cheap windows pc. Free software has no value to end users if they will never use a program like iMovie or iDvd. How many windows users use Windows movie maker? (i’m not talking about the quality of the software, just that it’s there free and can do the job). Reguardless of the platform you still have to pay for Microsoft Office.
And on the hardware side, you get faster components, more ram and more hard drive space than a 3 year old g4 system. I’m not bashing apple, hell I spent $900 on a g4 cube 6 months ago and I love it. All i’m saying is that electronic equipment depreciates with age. G4 processors are up to 1.4 ghz. High end machines should have high end prices because they come with the latest hardware advancements. 3-4 years ago a 500mhz G4 system was a screaming machine running OS9. And pc100 ram and hard disks were a lot more expensive. If they can sell an 800 mzh eMac for 799 why hnot a 600mhz or 500mhz eMac for $500?
“Most of them will clearly say “IBM PC or 100% compatible”. You can run most of them even on today’s PCs. Unfortunately, you can’t run them on a Mac unless you have an emulator.
its ironic because those PCs aren’t compatible with IBM.
“You’re not really better than the generic PC zealot/Mac basher: you don’t really know of what you’re talking about.”
It’s not that I don’t know that the systems weren’t compatible… i was arguing with logistics. I thought that would have been obvious… but apparently not.
why does this coursey character write so many articles base on economic voodoo? Is he Bush’s running mate for 2004?
Coexistence with windows on x86 is suicide. The lack of support for OS X on x86 amounts to suicide. Asking OS X developers to support two platforms is suicidal. And then why would you abandon the G5 when apple has always done best with the high-end users? Intel has no competive offering unless you count the itanium, which you really can’t do.
This is silly and coursey’s broken record nonsense is suspicous. I question that anyone can be soooo dense. then again George W Bush is the american president.
Yeah go x86 now that you have a real processor (G5) coming from a real company (IBM) and you are improving your relationship with that company. Plus IBM is going to offer linux based 970’s, well that is the rumor at least. But it is very believable.
the x86 architecture is a nice try if you like backward compatibility. but it is out-of-date, inefficient and bloated.
risc architecture on the other hand is lean and efficient.
i like the new powerpc architecture even if there are many things to optimize. the g5 has a really nice price, i think. ok, i’m just a student and i don’t have to much money, but i’m ready to pay more for good architecture.
apple should never be one of the biggest players in computer business! there are so many risks in to much marketshare (p.ex. viruses, hacker-attacks, spyware, …). so, i like the status quo.
“Users still have all they need in order to browse the web and check email with a cheap windows pc.”
If a user does nothing more than browse the web and check e-mail, a $400 PC is perfect. However, if they want to do anything more than that, the comparison changes. It makes sense because Apple doesn;t even compete in that market.
“Free software has no value to end users if they will never use a program like iMovie or iDvd.”
Yes, but it has great value when they do.
“How many windows users use Windows movie maker? (i’m not talking about the quality of the software, just that it’s there free and can do the job).”
Probably few, but that says more about the quality of the software rather than the desire of consumers to use it
“And on the hardware side, you get faster components, more ram and more hard drive space than a 3 year old g4 system.”
If you’re going to make comparisons, don;t just compare the aspects of a computer which come with most PCs that don;t have much more than that which you just spec’d. instead, make comparisons with all the hardware and software that comes on both platforms.
“If they can sell an 800 mzh eMac for 799 why hnot a 600mhz or 500mhz eMac for $500?”
They can. They don’t because they would have to strip much of its components to give it hardware and software parity with a $500 PC.
Apple chooses not to compete in this market because making a stripped computer doesn’t add to the user experience that will be had when using a Mac. Instead, it will simply be a mediocre experience… which means they might as well have got a PC anyways.
Apple needs to give advantages, not parity.
i wish the PC users on this thread that disagree with something that was written by somebody else would simply write why they disagree rather than adding FUD to that response.
its ironic because those PCs aren’t compatible with IBM.
Then care to say why instead of spewing clueless and baseless horseshit like this? If your point is that Mac are more IBM compatible because they use an IBM CPU, well, it mean that Macs are PPC compatible, not IBM PC.
i was arguing with logistics. I thought that would have been obvious… but apparently not.
I don’t care of what you were arguing or not. I just corrected a stupid claim.
“Then care to say why instead of spewing clueless and baseless horseshit like this?”
Watch your mouth.
“If your point is that Mac are more IBM compatible because they use an IBM CPU, well, it mean that Macs are PPC compatible, not IBM PC.”
With that logic, one shouldn;t say that PC’s are IBM compatibles but instead Intel compatibles or rather… x86 compatible… considering the fact that the spec has little to do with IBMs origional design anymore.
Which chip design has more in common with that of one designed by IBM? Well, that would be PPC… hence the reasoning byhind my remark that Apple’s computers care more IBM compatible than today’s PCs (keeping in mind the fact that they can’t run PC software)
“I don’t care of what you were arguing or not. I just corrected a stupid claim.”
Not stupid at all. your response could be clasified as such though.
Let me put it this way. If I bought Macs I wouldn’t be able to give away 6 computers as hand-me-downs to family members this year. There’s a lot more to go around because I saved my money and bought cheap PCs. Now if I could do the same thing buying cheap Macs, I’d do that just the same.
That makes sense, I have a lot of IA boxes too and also farmed them out to family members as well. Well, If Apple boxes as in the sub-$600 they would probably sell twice as many compared to the tower and all-in-one.
stupid.
apple isn’t going to support two platforms.
what reason do they have for switching to intc.
to be like the rest of the little sheep that are struggling to cut a profit on personal computers?
yea, i’m sure apple needs to be one step closer to Dell.
what an idiot.
“If Apple boxes as in the sub-$600 they would probably sell twice as many compared to the tower and all-in-one.”
That assums that Apple would be providing the same components as is available in the tower and their all-in-one.
More likely is that if Apple were to sell a $600 computer in the immediate future they would be seeling it with the same specs of an equivilent PC.
IE… relatively low end.
If there’s one thing everyone can (or should) agree on, it’s that PPC is fundamentally a better architecture than x86. The reasons why go deeper than one being RISC and the other CISC, as Hannibal describes over at ArsTechnica, but PPC is a good architecture, whereas x86 should be long dead.
Personally, I laugh every time I read one of these stories, because Apple’s been dying for the past 20 years. Gateway will soon go bankrupt and HPaq will close their loss-making computer division, but Apple will remain. Apple has some of the best margins, and profits, in the computer industry, and routinely dominates the fast-growing notebook market. It makes sense for Apple to revise their strategies, which is why they are in the process of phasing out the use of Motorola processors. But switching from PPC to x86 would be taking a step backwards.
That said, while I would love to see generic PPC motherboards, those boards should not be sold or produced by Apple. Apple and IBM should encourage more companies to emulate the Pegasos model, and IBM should sell desktop-configuration (and desktop-price) G3s/750GXs and G5s (only Motorola makes G4s) to end users. In fact, I’d like to see IBM produce PPC motherboards themselves. But Apple, a high-end consumer electronics company, should stay well away.
A year or two ago I believe just like this guy. I felt that OS X on Intel would be great! I foamed at the mouth to get a hold of OS X for X86. Being a sysadmin it would be the perfect enviroment, but after thinking economically from Apple’s standpoint I know see how it would be detrimental to their business. I think they are doing the right thing by going opensource, yet they are still keeping their product locked to their systems. Gives the OS a better chance because you only have to support x amount of systems not all x86 compatibles. I believe this is one of the reasons MS has struggled so much. Just image what kind of product MS would have if they were doing business like apple has been. Windows might be 20x better than it is today.
Watch your mouth.
Why? Are you the police?
With that logic, one shouldn;t say that PC’s are IBM compatibles but instead Intel compatibles or rather… x86 compatible… considering the fact that the spec has little to do with IBMs origional design anymore.
Yes, the specs have changed, but they are compatible. I must admit that they ain’t 100% compatible anymore, but they are still much more than any Mac. PCs still have VGA, ISA bus, PS/2 ports, etc. I can run most of the applications of that era natively.
Which chip design has more in common with that of one designed by IBM? Well, that would be PPC… hence the reasoning byhind my remark that Apple’s computers care more IBM compatible than today’s PCs (keeping in mind the fact that they can’t run PC software)
Oh, but I don’t contest that claim. You’re perfectly right and I do agree with you. The problem is that you twisted the term the guy that argued with you used. He said IBM Compatible PC Market. Say that term to any computer-literate person, and he’ll probably say that you’re talking of IBM PC-compatibles, aka the generic x86 PCs. I don’t know why you bother to argue with that.
Not stupid at all. your response could be clasified as such though.
How it was stupid? I know of what I’m talking about and I don’t twist arguments for my own advantage. And you were the one saying that PC users should stop adding FUD to their arguments… Pfft.
Just image what kind of product MS would have if they were doing business like apple has been. Windows might be 20x better than it is today.
Probably, but I don’t think the hardware would be as good & fast as today. You can’t really have competition in a closed platform.
>>>“Watch your mouth.”<<<
“Why? Are you the police?”
No, its just impolite why the comment certainly wasn’t warranted.
“Yes, the specs have changed, but they are compatible. I must admit that they ain’t 100% compatible anymore, but they are still much more than any Mac.”
IBM doesn’t produce x86 chips but they do produce and design PowerPC ones. If x86 was once IBM compatible it is not any more. Therefore, Apple’s computers are more “IBM compatible” than your PC is. Your PC is x86 compatible and is Intel compatible however.
“you twisted the term the guy that argued with you used. He said IBM Compatible PC Market . Say that term to any computer-literate person, and he’ll probably say that you’re talking of IBM PC-compatibles, aka the generic x86 PCs. I don’t know why you bother to argue with that.”
Nobody would have misconstrued my comment to suggest that Apple is compatible with x86 more than the average PC. Instead, readers will see the obvious irony in my comment in that the tables have turned and it is Apple that is using the IBM compatible and not the everyday PC user.
You know, you don;t need to argue with everything i say for the sheer argument’s sake.
“How it was stupid?”
it was stupid because you are quibbling logistics for a comment that was meant to be read at face value.
“I know of what I’m talking about and I don’t twist arguments for my own advantage.”
I’ve read several of your comments over the past few weeks that did exactly that. I responded and thus corrected many of your comments for this simple fact.
“And you were the one saying that PC users should stop adding FUD to their arguments… Pfft.”
I stand by my statement. (My comment about IBM compatible hardware was not FUD)
” Probably, but I don’t think the hardware would be as good & fast as today.”
Sure it would… possibly even faster.
“You can’t really have competition in a closed platform.”
Assuming you mean closeed as non clonable) sure you can. Apple competes with other computing platforms.
I felt it important to clarify the “closed platform” comment because many people are under the false assuption that you can only upgrade a Mac with Apple ram, or Apple hard drives, or Apple sound cards or use Apple drives etc. Of course this isn’t the case.
If you want a mac…THEN BUY A MAC!
Whats the point in porting to x86 and creating a dongle to prevent people from just copying OSX to other x86 compatible systems? Having OSX on PPC is their dongle.
I think that the point that Coursey was trying to make was that it would be nice if Apple would make an X86 version of Mac OS X so that the end user could run both OS X and Windows programs at the same time on the same processor without resorting to an emulation solution like VPC.
Coursey believes that given OSX on an x86 platform, the end user would be able to run everything natively, thus gathering more users to Mac OSX.
Personally, I think that Coursey is wrong. While an x86 processor running OSX might bring in a few new users, I think that the sales of said machine would eat into the current Apple user base instead of converting x86 Windows/Linux users to Mac OSX.
But then again, I’m not being paid to put my opinion on the net like John Coursey. Maybe he knows something that I don’t.
-Matt
I meant to say David Coursey instead of John Coursey. Sorry for the confusion.
Ok, I am curious. There are ALOT of people that will not buy a mac because they are too slow/expensive (myself included). 90% of these people WILL never buy a mac, regardless of switch campaigns etc. Lets call these people Dead weight, they will NEVER equal a profit for Apple hardware wise. Now, lets just say that apple releases an X86 version of OS X. Lets say that 10% of these people that never would have bought apple hardware, but have X86 Pc’s and are disenchanted with the alternatives buy it, because it is a really nice OS. What makes you think that hurts Apples Hardware sales? These people MOST likely would have NEVER bought an apple ANYWAYS! And the die hard mac fans, well guess what they will still buy…… MACS! Right now macs are mostly bought by mac FANS. And that will not change if apple releases an X86 version, those mac fans will still buy macs, because they see the merits in it. But Apple will increase sales, because they now have an audience that they would NOT have had otherwise.
Also, my last point… Last time I checked, the most profitable company around sold Operating systems, NOT hardware. So selling OS’s and not the hardware to go with them isn’t necessarily a recipe for disaster, it seems to have worked for someone else, with an inferior product to OSX!
IBM doesn’t produce x86 chips but they do produce and design PowerPC ones. If x86 was once IBM compatible it is not any more. Therefore, Apple’s computers are more “IBM compatible” than your PC is. Your PC is x86 compatible and is Intel compatible however.
Please note that I used, use and will continue to use IBM PC. I’m well aware that Apple is using more IBM stuff nowadays. It doesn’t make it more IBM PC compatible.
Nobody would have misconstrued my comment to suggest that Apple is compatible with x86 more than the average PC. Instead, readers will see the obvious irony in my comment in that the tables have turned and it is Apple that is using the IBM compatible and not the everyday PC user.
The guy was talking of the IBM PC-compatible market… and then you said that Apple are more IBM compatible than PCs. I saw the irony, you just used it at the wrong place because it can be misleading. That’s my point. Yes, that’s all.
You know, you don;t need to argue with everything i say for the sheer argument’s sake.
That’s why I only corrected you for that statement. I don’t have anything against the rest of your arguments so I didn’t said anything.
I’ve read several of your comments over the past few weeks that did exactly that. I responded and thus corrected many of your comments for this simple fact.
Yes, you corrected me because I was sometimes misinformed, but I never twisted anything.
and DEC died. Maybe if mac osx ran on x86 intel would die?
“Ok, I am curious. There are ALOT of people that will not buy a mac because they are too slow/expensive (myself included).”
If those are the reasons why you and others wont buy a mac… then you don;t have reason to buy a Mac because the speed issue was licked with the G5, and with the lower-end consumer processors being powered by the G4, you got a speed deomon on both fronts.
Regarding the price issue, Apple has been very attentive to hardware pricing in the last 2 years. If you compare a PC’s prices to a Mac, what you will find is that the Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare that exact (or as close as possible) hardware and software to the PC. (The difference in price will depend on the different Mac hardware you compare it to)
“90% of these people WILL never buy a mac”
If these are the reasons why they aren’t buying… they are unwarranted.
“regardless of switch campaigns etc.”
The switch campaign came at a semi-awkward time for Apple. Their entire product line was better than the competition except for their professional towers. When you compare the company’s switcher rate, you will find that Apple outpaced the competition in EVERY market that apple competes in (especially with laptops) except for pro hardware. Unfortunately, that pro hardware drop really took Apple down because it gave the illusion that nobody is switching.
However, now that Apple is scheduled to have its pro hardware updated next month, those pro towers will also benefit from the switch campaign like the all of Apple’s other product line did and we will likely see market share growth for Apple.
“Lets call these people Dead weight, they will NEVER equal a profit for Apple hardware wise.”
If they are choosing to stay with Windows and intel for reasons which aren’t accurate, then its your dead weight analogy is about right.
“Now, lets just say that apple releases an X86 version of OS X. Lets say that 10% of these people that never would have bought apple hardware, but have X86 Pc’s and are disenchanted with the alternatives buy it, because it is a really nice OS. What makes you think that hurts Apples Hardware sales?”
That in itself wouldn’t but there is a potential that many Mac users that would have bought Apple hardware would buy PC hardware to run OS X instead… which WOULD obviously negatively impact Apple’s hardware sales.
“And the die hard mac fans, well guess what they will still buy…… MACS!”
And yet some middle of the road-types would be split… which WOULD obviously negatively impact Apple’s hardware sales.
“Right now macs are mostly bought by mac FANS.”
While fans make up a considerable number of Apple’s user demographic, there is a large number of professionals that also use the hardware for its unique advantages.
“And that will not change if apple releases an X86 version”
Yes, the Mac fans will continue to buy Macs, but as i just mentioned, some middle of the road-types may also split… which WOULD obviously negatively impact Apple’s hardware sales.
” Apple will increase sales, because they now have an audience that they would NOT have had otherwise.”
yes, but will have lost an audience as well. in the end market share would theoretically be the same although the Mac hardware sales would be lost by the aforementioned middle of the road types.
“Last time I checked, the most profitable company around sold Operating systems, NOT hardware.”
No, IBM sells hardware and software… like Apple does.
NeXT and Be are pretty good reasons
Sure it would… possibly even faster.
It depends. If Microsoft had the same market share and every Windows computer in the current world was built on a same platform, no. Remember the evolution of the Wintel platform in the 90s before AMD launched their Athlon? The only competition was between hardware manufacturers. Remove that competition (i.e. only 1 mobo manufacturer for a Wintel computer, etc), and it would have progressed even slower.
Assuming you mean closeed as non clonable) sure you can. Apple competes with other computing platforms.
Yeah, but I doubt the market would be bigger if each hardware manufacturer had their own specifications.
I felt it important to clarify the “closed platform” comment because many people are under the false assuption that you can only upgrade a Mac with Apple ram, or Apple hard drives, or Apple sound cards or use Apple drives etc. Of course this isn’t the case.
Yeah, I know. I didn’t used “closed platform” that way. Well, there’s some stuff that you need to buy especially for the Mac (like video cards), but I know why.
“Please note that I used, use and will continue to use IBM PC . I’m well aware that Apple is using more IBM stuff nowadays. It doesn’t make it more IBM PC compatible.”
Yes, it does. Although that should not be confused with the notion that Apple is compatible with x86.
“The guy was talking of the IBM PC-compatible market…”
And i was making the observation that this market doesn’t really warrant being classified as IBM compatible anymore. However, Apple’s computers could be more closely identified with the remark.
“and then you said that Apple are more IBM compatible than PCs.”
As indeed they are. Although that should not be confused with the notion that Apple is compatible with x86.
“I saw the irony, you just used it at the wrong place because it can be misleading.”
If its misleading, its not because my statement is misleading, but because the term IBM compatible is misleading… hence the reason for my comment.
“Yes, you corrected me because I was sometimes misinformed, but I never twisted anything.”
I am not “twisting” anything either… instead, I am clarifying a misleading statement… in essence… untwisting it.
“Remember the evolution of the Wintel platform in the 90s before AMD launched their Athlon? The only competition was between hardware manufacturers. Remove that competition (i.e. only 1 mobo manufacturer for a Wintel computer, etc), and it would have progressed even slower.”
What i was commenting about is that computing environments in which Apple competes are not void of competition. Their competition is in providing a unified computing environment… In deed Apple is not the only player that competes in that field.
“I doubt the market would be bigger if each hardware manufacturer had their own specifications.”
That’s the beauty of competitive computing landscape (something which we havn’t achieved with the antitrust trial mind you), but the beauty of a fair market is that people CHOOSE which environment to adopt… whether that mean each platform have their own specifications or not.
“There’s some stuff that you need to buy especially for the Mac (like video cards), but I know why.”
Mac-specific video cards are not interoperable between platforms, but neither are the video cards for PCs.
What i was trying to clarify is the oft-misunderstood statement the word closed when it relates to Apple hardware is typically misunderstood to mean that if its not created by Apple that it doesn’t work. it’s important for Apple to shed that belief because its not true.
There are ALOT of people that will not buy a mac because they are too slow/expensive (myself included).
Speed? Price?
As far as speed is concerned, it is true that Macs weren’t nearly fast enough when they were powered by Motorola processors. With the new PowerPC 970 (G5), though, Apple now definitively holds the title for fastest desktop computer, and the G4 is no slouch either. The G4/G5 may not have as fast a clock speed as a Pentium (but a 1ghz bus speed?!?), but its more efficient design, which leads to a slower clock, is also what makes it faster overall.
Regarding price, Apples are indeed cost-competitive with similar offerings on the high-end; it is no cheaper to buy a Sony VAIO than to buy a Mac, in either desktop or laptop configurations. Apple’s perceived price disadvantage comes because Apple does not cater to the low-end. No, Apple will never have a computer for $200, or even $500, unless they can sell you a good computer for that price. But somehow, it doesn’t seem to hurt them – Apple is still profitable, as they have been for a while.
But you forgot a third reason why some people will never buy a Mac: they simply can’t bring themselves to accept the Apple might actually make a superior hardware product.
Ewwww… just re-read my comment and it is riddled with typos:
This:
” What i was trying to clarify is the oft-misunderstood statement the word closed when it relates to Apple hardware is typically misunderstood to mean that if its not created by Apple that it doesn’t work. it’s important for Apple to shed that belief because its not true.”
should read:
What i was trying to clarify is the oft-misunderstood statement that the word “closed” and how it relates to Apple hardware is typically misunderstood. Many believe it to mean that if said hardware was not created by Apple that it doesn’t work. it’s important for Apple to shed that belief because its not true.
heh… interestingly, the Finder in OS X has a spelling service allowing for spell check in every application 🙂
OS X on a PC isn’t going to gain Apple any marketshare. It wouldn’t be a good move for them.
They already have their processor of the future with the G5. And IBM is comitted to the PPC 970 family. So I think Apple is secure as far as its platform goes.
This just wouldn’t make sense for Apple to do. I think improving their low end offerings would help more than OS X on a PC would.
Like shipping the $799 eMac with 256mb of ram. That would be a start.
And I forget who mentioned it, but file compatibility is an important thing. If Apple could ship all their Macs with an “MS Office compatible” office suite, I think that would help a lot!
And hey, maybe they can even make a deal with VMWare to ship copies of VMWare with their high end models?
I think they missed out on a big thing when Microsoft bought Virtual PC. Apple should have bought it and integrated it into OS X. It would have gone a long way in getting people to “switch”.
I don’t think Apple will ever catch up with PCs as far as marketshare goes, but they can definitely do better. Jobs will come up with something… He’s done so much just over the past couple years. So I’m really hopeful for Apple. Things will get better.
But OS X on a PC isn’t going to do it for Apple… It would just be a dead end product. Shipping Macs with some sort of x86 virtual machine would be a much better option.
just my two cents…
Apple makes all their money from hardware….almost.
they port the software over to x86 to sell…..they sell a 1,000,000 copies in 3 months……but their hardware sales plumit…..so now they actualy have lost money.
yeah… so INHO, as long as they are profitable and their sales keep increasing then I am happy.
if you remove the new markets that are opening up, I am willing to bet that the percentage that Apple has sold is much larger than what they have now.
does anyone know where we can get numbers like new markets/old markets ?
If those are the reasons why you and others wont buy a mac… then you don;t have reason to buy a Mac because the speed issue was licked with the G5, and with the lower-end consumer processors being powered by the G4, you got a speed deomon on both fronts.
Yes, the new G5 seems like a nice system indeed. Still too pricey. And, it still is not HERE. I cant buy it right now, so it really is nothing but slather. RIGHT NOW, macs are slower, and priced higher than the competition. When the G5 is on your desk, something else will have come along to compete with it as well.
Regarding the price issue, Apple has been very attentive to hardware pricing in the last 2 years. If you compare a PC’s prices to a Mac, what you will find is that the Mac is either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when you compare that exact (or as close as possible) hardware and software to the PC. (The difference in price will depend on the different Mac hardware you compare it to)
If I hear that phrase ONE more time on here
Lets be honest here. While you may be 100% Correct, That with the EXACT SAME SPECS (if there really is such a thing since they ARE 2 different things) the prices come out remarkably similair. And both HIGH. I would not buy the X86 your comparing the apple too any more than I would buy the apple. Neither would most other people either! The days of the 2000$ PC are numbered, people are just not going to keep plunking that down for something they don’t need, and can get for a much better price!
If these are the reasons why they aren’t buying… they are unwarranted.
Unwarranted or not, they are not going to buy macs. I don’t care if you sit everyone down prior to a purchase, and discipline them on the finer points of macs, they still are not going buy them.
If they are choosing to stay with Windows and intel for reasons which aren’t accurate, then its your dead weight analogy is about right.
Yes, the analogy is correct, but these are dead weights with wallets. With $$$ in them. $$$ that is currently going into M$ pockets.
“Now, lets just say that apple releases an X86 version of OS X. Lets say that 10% of these people that never would have bought apple hardware, but have X86 Pc’s and are disenchanted with the alternatives buy it, because it is a really nice OS. What makes you think that hurts Apples Hardware sales?”
That in itself wouldn’t but there is a potential that many Mac users that would have bought Apple hardware would buy PC hardware to run OS X instead… which WOULD obviously negatively impact Apple’s hardware sales.
Now why would mac users suddenly go buy X86 hardware when they all know that macs are superior in more ways than one, and “slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive” than the X86 hardware they would have to buy? I am talking about people already invested in X86 hardware, quite a large market! People not interested in buying new hardware from ANYONE right now, but may be interested in a SUPERIOR operating system!
“And the die hard mac fans, well guess what they will still buy…… MACS!”
And yet some middle of the road-types would be split… which WOULD obviously negatively impact Apple’s hardware sales.
See above
” Apple will increase sales, because they now have an audience that they would NOT have had otherwise.”
yes, but will have lost an audience as well. in the end market share would theoretically be the same although the Mac hardware sales would be lost by the aforementioned middle of the road types.
How is it theoretically the same? If they sold 10% of the pc market OSX, this would be alot more sales than if they sold 100% of the mac market OSX
“Last time I checked, the most profitable company around sold Operating systems, NOT hardware.”
No, IBM sells hardware and software… like Apple does.
But our good friends M$ do quite well selling Software, and poor at that!
It would be a delicate tightrope for Apple to walk, but there might be some virtue in what Coursey proposes. An Apple manufactured box based on the x86 architecture might be an excellent Trojan Horse through which Apple could put the Mac OS into the business markets they are locked out of. The idea being that some companies would be more comfortable with a Mac OS system if it also ran Windows natively.
I picture a device configured much like the PowerPC Cube but with x86 guts. It would be price for businesses. Not necessarily rock bottom pricing. It could be purchased in one of 2 OS configurations. The lowest price would be with Mac OS X only. For more money it could be configured for duel boot with Windows XP.
Apple would also have to develop an office type suite that could take the place of MS Office. Of course Safari and the other software Apple delivers with the OS would also be ported. However since this is a low level office machine Apple could avoid having to port their entire range of software (no Final Cut).
The cost of engineering this could be very low. AMD might provide a lot of assistance if they got an exclusive on the processors. Also since the options for customization will be limited, Apple will not have to port a lot of drivers.
so what you are saying is that you are a low end customer…500 or less.
well good for you, but for people who are in the majority….750+…macs are competitive price wise. have fun with your low end computer.
“Last time I checked, the most profitable company around sold Operating systems, NOT hardware.”
No, IBM sells hardware and software… like Apple does.
But our good friends M$ do quite well selling Software, and poor at that!
Actually they don’t. They have made most of their profit in the last 10 years on fancy gimmicks like issuing new shares for stock options (when the options are exercised that counts as revenue – and profit – for MS) and selling puts against their own stock. Microsoft makes it work because of their market position.
The new G5 seems like a nice system indeed. Still too pricey.”
If you have a beef with the G5 then you must have a MAJOR beef with comparable Intel competition which costs over $1000 more.
“And, it still is not HERE.”
A month is not a long time to wait.
“I cant buy it right now, so it really is nothing but slather.”
No, its not slather… its a month away.
“RIGHT NOW, macs are slower, and priced higher than the competition.”
High end Mac are slower right now, but they (along with the rest of Apple’s offering are not priced higher than the competition
“When the G5 is on your desk, something else will have come along to compete with it as well.”
And then we’ll see how its price compares with the G5.
“While you may be 100% Correct, That with the EXACT SAME SPECS (if there really is such a thing since they ARE 2 different things) the prices come out remarkably similair.”
I made sure to add… “or as close as possible”
“And both HIGH.”
Some systems are high and some systems are low (although Apple doesn;t compete in the ultra-low end range)
“I would not buy the X86 your comparing the apple too any more than I would buy the apple.”
That’s fair, but on the same token, its not fair to call the Mac expensive now is it. A more accurate assessment is would be that the PC is more expandable or more configurable… but certainly not cheaper.
“Neither would most other people either!”
The fact that most people don’t doesn’t suggest that they wouldn’t as most consumers have ill-conceived notions about Apple in the first place.
“The days of the 2000$ PC are numbered, people are just not going to keep plunking that down for something they don’t need, and can get for a much better price!”
Hence the reason why both Macs and PCs come in less expensive prices. Fortunately however, for those that do want the increased power, its a relief to know that both platforms have products that can meet their demanding needs regardless of the increased price tag.
“Unwarranted or not, they are not going to buy macs.”
Perhaps not, but not for the reasons you’re eluding to. It has little to do with price and has far more to do with awareness.
“I don’t care if you sit everyone down prior to a purchase, and discipline them on the finer points of macs, they still are not going buy them.”
Ahhh.. here’s the kicker, if in fact everyone was not so misinformed about Apple and the Macintosh, Apple’s market share and user base would be FAR greater. Thankfully, Apple is correcting those misconceptions and has managed to increase market share in every one of their product categories, (except for pro towers which didn’t give much reason to buy until recently. Now, Apple’s market product line’s market position won’t be dragged down by one product but instead, they’ll all be working in unison to bring Apple’s market share and user base up.
“Yes, the analogy is correct, but these are dead weights with wallets. With $$$ in them. $$$ that is currently going into M$ pockets.”
Yes, as a result of ill-conceived notions about a potentially better product for them.
“Now why would mac users suddenly go buy X86 hardware when they all know that macs are superior in more ways than one”
Because some consumers, while seeing the benefits that Apple provides may choose to opt for the more configurable advantage that is associated with the PC.
“I am talking about people already invested in X86 hardware, quite a large market!”
I know what you’re talking about, but that would only increase market share… NOT profit as compared to Apple selling OS and hardware.
“People not interested in buying new hardware from ANYONE right now, but may be interested in a SUPERIOR operating system!”
yes, and some people who may be interested in mac hardware and a mac operating system may opt to only buy just the operating system under your scenario because some may already have PC hardware. What that means is lost revenue because margins on hardware are greater than margins on software.
“And the die hard mac fans, well guess what they will still buy…… MACS!”
And yet some middle of the road-types would be split… which WOULD obviously negatively impact Apple’s hardware sales.
See above
“How is it theoretically the same? If they sold 10% of the pc market OSX, this would be alot more sales than if they sold 100% of the mac market OSX”
Actually, not exactly, but for argument’s sake, lets say it does. What your analogy fails to recognize is that some of those Mac users who buy Mac hardware will have left as a result…. so Apple would be selling to a decreased Mac hardware user base… This means lost revenue.
“our good friends M$ do quite well selling Software, and poor at that!”
Your forgetting that Microsoft didn’t achieve its position by simply making the software available and people installed it. Rather, the lions share of Microsoft profits come by way of Pre-installed OSes on hardware from contracts that Microsoft has with PC OEMs.
Until a competitive marketplace is established (unlikely because Microsoft wasn’t punished for its misdeeds nor did the remedy establish a fair marketplace) Microsoft would be free to do to Apple what they did with Be and Linux with regard to the PC OEMs.
Microsoft told these companies that if they sell hardware with these operating systems bundled on them, they will loose their license to sell Windows.
it’s important to drive this fact home because Microsoft sells very few boxed operating systems. As a matter of fact a while back, there was a report that Apple sold more boxed operating systems than anybody… even Microsoft. This shows that to gain Widespread acceptance, Apple will need to make licensing contracts with PC OEMs and as long as Microsoft continues to abuse their monopoly, Apple can not do this which in the end means… that Apple will loose.
“It would be a delicate tightrope for Apple to walk, but there might be some virtue in what Coursey proposes. An Apple manufactured box based on the x86 architecture might be an excellent Trojan Horse through which Apple could put the Mac OS into the business markets they are locked out of. The idea being that some companies would be more comfortable with a Mac OS system if it also ran Windows natively.”
if this is the case, then it would be wiser for Apple to create a W.I.N.E.-like Windows compatibility layer that employs native Aqua user interface elements instead. this would allow Apple to maintain control over the user experience while merging into these markets.
“Apple would also have to develop an office type suite that could take the place of MS Office.”
If one were to look at Apple’s keynote presentation software, it would appear that they are already on that track.
“The cost of engineering this could be very low.”
Actually, the cost would be virtually non existent… Don’t forget, NeXT (the operating system that OS X is based on) was ported to PPC from x86. Apple is said to have been keeping a native x86 port of OS X up to date with the PPC version all along.
“Also since the options for customization will be limited, Apple will not have to port a lot of drivers.”
Why would customization be limited?
This was a Good article because gave me this idea. Why not port XP to mac? Apple should provide drivers to their hardware and make it run on XP. Since they are primarily a Hardware based company, they won’t lose money and being Microsoft a software company they would certainly agree since this means more money their way. And what advatage would this bring? DUAL BOOT OS X AND XP. Easy solution.
“Why not port XP to mac?”
I think you mean XP to PPC.
Not a bad idea if you ask me. Microsoft would be in a much better position processor-wise if they moved to PPC rather than x86.
“Apple should provide drivers to their hardware and make it run on XP.”
Would you expect Microsoft to create drivers for Apple to create a version of OS X on x86? Of course not. Why would you think that Apple would do the same for Microsoft?
“Since they are primarily a Hardware based company, they won’t lose money and being Microsoft a software company they would certainly agree since this means more money their way.”
This assumes that Apple is the only company that can make PPC hardware. That isn’t true.
Why not port the commodore 64 basic to the Mac, duh…
XP — Crappy operating system that permanently trips over it’s own toes? Apple’s been there, done that (remember OS 9.x), of course they didn’t excel in crappyness as much as Microsoft did.
This assumes that Apple is the only company that can make PPC hardware. That isn’t true.
Hmm… Who else does, except IBM? I’m really interested by the PPC architecture, but I don’t really like Apple. I’ll still probably buy one of their laptops soon because they look really neat and have an excellent price/performance/quality ratio, but I don’t like the “Think different” philosophy… Oh, and I’m a DIY-er, so I prefer to build my own computers.
“I would not buy the X86 your comparing the apple too any more than I would buy the apple.”
That’s fair, but on the same token, its not fair to call the Mac expensive now is it. A more accurate assessment is would be that the PC is more expandable or more configurable… but certainly not cheaper.
Or maybe more fair to say that “Apple does not offer as many options and there are none that appeal to some consumers.”
Configurable is hardly the word I would apply to wanting a computer in the range of an iMac but in a tower.
And does ANYONE know why Apple’s US retail store still shows the old prices for the G4’s (1.25 superdrive at $1,949.00)? I thought they had cut the prices on those things. Only an idiot would pay those prices.
“I don’t care if you sit everyone down prior to a purchase, and discipline them on the finer points of macs, they still are not going buy them.”
That’s probably very true. And it has nothing to do with price. It has everything to do with the fear of the unknown and just wanting “what everyone else has.”
Apple could lower the prices on their Macs 10% and it wouldn’t budge their marketshare (but it would kill their bottom line!)
Apple needs to give people definite reasons to switch. Then they’ll WANT a Mac and be willing to pay a tiny premium.
“Who else [makes PPC hardware], except IBM?”
Apple IBM and Motorola are the first that come to mind..
“I’m really interested by the PPC architecture, but I don’t really like Apple.
Really? Why do you like Apple?
“I’ll still probably buy one of their laptops soon because they look really neat and have an excellent price/performance/quality ratio”
As does all their computers
“but I don’t like the “Think different” philosophy…”
What is it about the philosophy that you don’t like.
Microsoft has made a fortune on software sales. Why doesn’t Apple believe in its product enough to think it can do the same? The product is written (OSX for the PPC), why not leverage it? The cost is fixed. Now, just market it and the rest is profit.
To top it off, no one says they have to give up their PPC hardware. And, with their new found profits, they won’t have to gouge everyone with exorbitant hardware prices. At last, their hardware prices can be in line with x86.
I want an Apple. But, I just don’t see a future in trading proprietary software for proprietary hardware. That’s jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Darren
No ordinary person is going to spend money for a used 500MHz G4 or new eMac when they can get a brand new 2.2GHz one with more memory, a bigger hard drive, higher bus speed, a 3 year warranty and the operating system that “everyone else” uses.
Steve Jobs understands this. If Apple could put $600 towers next to the HPs at Costco they would see a market share increase, but they wouldn’t become a market leader because most consumers don’t want to be different; they want what everyone else has. Apple had the opportunity to be the de facto standard back in the early 1980’s when they owned 25% of the market and nobody had even heard of Microsoft, but they blew it and it’s too late to do anything about it. Apple is now a niche player, the computer company for those who think differently and shop differently. Porting the OS to Intel would do nothing but harm.
Still I believe Apple needs to be agressive on pricing because 3% is a dangerously small market share. Compare a Dell Dimension 4600 (or the even cheaper 2400) to an eMac and try not to cry when you see the PC win absolutely every category from speed to storage capacity to warranty. Only in software does Apple have an advantage and for most people having what everyone else has is more important than having the better OS. Better prices would help to convince those who are currently reluctant Windows users to make the switch. These days everything except the OS, case, motherboard and processor of a Mac is the same as a PC. Surely there’s a way to make Macs more affordable without sacrificing what little quality they have left.
Everyone is complaining about Apple’s second tier of products – and rightly so.
But what needs to be remembered is that when a company has two tiers of products the lower tier needs to be obviously inferior to the upper tier. The problem was (and still is) that given the terribly slow speed increases in the G4 over the past two years (and poor DDR support) the Macs have been very far behind in speed. This shouldn’t be news to anyone. But the low-end Macs are still in the second tier of those systems.
Obviously Apple is going to do things to prop up its low-end systems. They have a number of options (simple iMac bumps, new iMac mobos and bumps, new low-end towers) but it will take time to see things through. Be patient!!!
I am happy for the G5’s and looking forward to new products that are no doubt in the pipeline.
Microsoft has made a fortune on software sales.”
No, they made a fortune in OS bundling, then sold its office suite after customers were already using the OS
“Why doesn’t Apple believe in its product enough to think it can do the same?”
Apple believes in the OS, but they can’t arrange a deal similar to that which microsoft arranged because Microsoft tells PC OEMs that if they bundle a competitors OS they will loose their license to sell Windows.
“The product is written (OSX for the PPC), why not leverage it?”
They already do.
“The cost is fixed. Now, just market it and the rest is profit.”
They do.
“To top it off, no one says they have to give up their PPC hardware.”
Although many will adopt OS X on the Intel side, it takes (I’m estimateing here) approximately 100 OS X sales to equal the profits made on the average Mac hardware. If any Mac users choose to use x86 hardware, they have to sell THAT many more copies of Windows. A better plan is to continue selling OS X on PPC and forget the whole x86 idea.
“And, with their new found profits, they won’t have to gouge everyone with exorbitant hardware prices.”
First of all, Apple would be loosing money for reasons which I mentioned above, Second, Apple’s hardware prices are not certainly not exorbitant. Rather, they are right in to with the prices that can be had on equivalent PC hardware.
“At last, their hardware prices can be in line with x86.”
They already are.
“I want an Apple. But, I just don’t see a future in trading proprietary software for proprietary hardware.”
The foundation of Apple’s OS is open source, a far cry from Windows, and Apple’s hardware is not proprietary… it uses common hardware just a PC does. Apple just doesn’t clone their hardware.
“Apple had the opportunity to be the de facto standard back in the early 1980’s when they owned 25% of the market and nobody had even heard of Microsoft, but they blew it and it’s too late to do anything about it.”
They would have retained that ability a lot easier if Microsoft had not stolen code and Windowing metaphors from Apple.
“Still I believe Apple needs to be agressive on pricing because 3% is a dangerously small market share.”
Agreed. Thankfully, they already are.
“Compare a Dell Dimension 4600 (or the even cheaper 2400) to an eMac and try not to cry when you see the PC win absolutely every category from speed to storage capacity to warranty.”
Well those comparisons aren’t exactly fair now are they.
I challenge you to find a Mac and compare it against a PC with the exact (or as close as possible) hardware and software configurations and not find that the mac is either only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive than the PC.
“Only in software does Apple have an advantage”
No, in key hardware points AS WELL AS in key software software points.
“and for most people having what everyone else has is more important than having the better OS.”
Except in instances where the hardware and software solutions are THAT much better than the competition. In cases such as these you find that consumers do switch. This explains why Apple grow its market share in every category in which they sell other than high end pro hardware. Now that Apple’s high end pro hardware is released and not dragging down quarterly market share results, Apple will be increasing market share on every front… thus negating the theory that people are only willing to buy what everybody else has.
“Better prices would help to convince those who are currently reluctant Windows users to make the switch.”
Better prices than those in which Apple is less expensive? That’s a big order.
“These days everything except the OS, case, motherboard and processor of a Mac is the same as a PC.”
Coincidentlly, it is these selling points which often times put the Mac over that of its PC competitors.
“Surely there’s a way to make Macs more affordable”
More affordable than they already are… which is more affordable than a PC? That’s a tall order.
[i]”without sacrificing what little quality they have left.,/i>
Little quality? you obviously haven’t used a Mac lately.
“Everyone is complaining about Apple’s second tier of products – and rightly so.”
Huh? Who is complaining… and how is this right? if you’re going to make a statement like that you had best clarify it somehow.
“The problem was (and still is) that given the terribly slow speed increases in the G4 over the past two years (and poor DDR support) the Macs have been very far behind in speed.”
How is this the “still” the case when the G4 is relegated to Apple’s consumer lineup and the G5 is for the pros. With that shift, Apple is at the top of its game speed wise.
“Obviously Apple is going to do things to prop up its low-end systems.
They already have, and yet are doing things to make the situation even better.
They have a number of options (simple iMac bumps, new iMac mobos and bumps, new low-end towers) but it will take time to see things through.
Time? They’ve already done it.
“Be patient!!!”
Why? It’s already done.
“I am happy for the G5’s and looking forward to new products that are no doubt in the pipeline.”
As is everyone else.
We’re speculating. And, we disagree. I don’t thing we would ever change each other’s mind. So, going point by point would futal. However, your last statement is an oxymoron.
proprietary… it uses common hardware just a PC does. Apple just doesn’t clone their hardware.
If it’s common hardware, it’s already cloned. What you were trying to say is that my proprietary claim was invalid. In fact, it is valid because you can’t run OSX on anything other than Apple hardware (the PPC processor).
Darren
my last post should have had the subject:
Re: leverage your product
instead of:
Re: Similarly configured
sorry
I’ve seen this idea tossed around and I can’t help but think how it really cheapens MacOSX.
Someone purchases MacOSX for their X86 PC. Apple didn’t consider packaging mobo drivers for his version of an ASUS motherboard and it doesn’t install or doesn’t see his $5 softmodem. The PC user tosses MacOSX in the trash and goes back to Windows. At least it works right?
Then consider that since Apple makes MacOSX for X86 you will never have had the G5, iMacG4, Al and Ti PowerBooks.
What a boring world it would be. The haters would still criticise.
Who really benefits from MacOSX on X86? X86 users thats who. No thanks. You keep running Windows and love it, I’ll stick to my Mac.
MacOSX X86 does not benefit Mac users PERIOD. I don’t want to buy a PC to run MacOSX that why I bought a Mac for so this argument is stupid and benefits people who hate Apple and Mac hardware but are jealous of the OS.
Its not like you have Mac users constantly whining about getting Windows on PPC.