Submitted by “The lines between the Mac OS and Windows are starting to blur. And that portends major changes going forward in the world of PCs. At last week’s MacWorld, a little company called Parallels won awards for the latest version of its hit product, which enables you to run both operating systems at the same time on a Macintosh. It’s a major breakthrough.”
Parallels is an excellent product. ‘Nuff said.
Yes Parallels, was a excellent product; until they jumped into bed with Swsoft the thought alone of Parallels code being touched by the knuckleheads at SwSoft makes me want to use something else. The next thing I guess I can hear is that SwSoft is bringing PEM to the Mac by way of running Linux in parallels with Virtuoso.
That happened a couple of years back if my memory serves me correctly…
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/1/22/6709
doesn’t seem to have effected them at all in the aspect you’re suggesting
I think this is why apple is building a consumer devices product pipeline, and has dropped the “Computer” from their company name, because they understand the inevidability that Mac OS is not forever going to tun on Apple Computers. Sure they will still make computers- and I think they will still sell, even if you can get a Dell with OS X installed- But don’t be surprised if the biggest secret about Leopard, is that that it is being developed for other PCs- Apple OS X Leopard.
“But don’t be surprised if the biggest secret about Leopard, is that that it is being developed for other PCs- Apple OS X Leopard.”
Not likely. Apple wants control of both hardware and software, as both the locked down iPhone (and the iPod before) clearly demonstrates. Also, this quote from Alan Kay shown during the Macworld keynote seems to make Apple’s position very clear:
“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.”
“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.”
How does that quote stop Apple from releasing a ‘generic’ x86 version, or licensing OSX out to other hardware vendors?
Because the above does not automatically mean Apple itself needs to stop making computers.
1. It would be making money for their direct competition
2. Ever use Solaris? More importantly, ever try to use Solaris on something not on Sun’s supported hardware list?
Apple can either allow that to happen and hope like hell the third party vendors pick up the slack or they can incur additional development costs trying to make sure **** actually works
Edited 2007-01-22 17:57
They’ve tried it before (with Mac OS) and are not likely to try it again. While they would gain profits from the software licensing, it would cut too much into their higher-profit hardware sales. They would have to gain a very large market share in order for the software licensing to be worth the tradeoff in lower hardware sales. Plus either they’d have to have strict control over the hardware used by third party licensees, or start making sure that OSX can run on just about everything, make drivers for everything, etc, which is a huge headache.
or start making sure that OSX can run on just about everything, make drivers for everything, etc, which is a huge headache.
Exactly.
Right now the can get away with supporting only a limited portion of available hardware options, especially because their current customers are used to check for compatability before purchase.
If the move into the generic platform area, they are getting in a situation quite similar to what Linux is in, i.e. people switching from a different OS or buying hardware without checking for compatability.
While Apple’s position would obviously be better since they can acquire licences and are more likely to get information based on NDAs, it would mean a huge increase in both monetary and developer resource.
To be fair, there are lots of Open Source drivers that can be easily ported to OSX so the driver porting shouldn’t be too dificult.
I don’t understand your argument.
It is well known that PC Level Hardware Margins are very thin whereas software is 90% or more once you get to volume. (Look at Microsoft’s margins on Software)
Apple H/W at the lower end, is very price competitive with normal PC stuff and will have correspondingly low gross margins.
At the higher end, it is a different story and there is indeed more margin to be made.
If Apple made OS/X available(ie fully supported) on certail selected PC Systems then I (IMUHO I my uneduacted humble opinion) would expect that quite a lot of people would be attracted to OS/X in preference to Vista.
Perhaps, this is Apple testing the waters at this time of so much admitidely geeky negative opinion about Vista?
It is well known that PC Level Hardware Margins are very thin whereas software is 90% or more once you get to volume. (Look at Microsoft’s margins on Software)
That’s true. The problem is achieving the volume, which it would have to do at Window’s expense. This would trigger an all-out war with Microsoft, which I’m not sure Apple wants. While Microsoft and Apple are rivals, they’re not at war. Microsoft Office is the office suite for Mac, and MS makes a lot more money off of Office (per computer) than it does off of Windows (which it sells cheaply to OEMs–how many people actually pay the $200 for XP Pro?). So Microsoft still benefits from Apple’s sales, and Apple doesn’t have to invest many millions in developing and marketing a competing Office product. They may not like each other, but they’re at peace. Not so if Apple licensed OSX to Dell which was selling Mac clones for the same price as Windows clones. It would also start an OS price war (since Apple would be trying to compete on the same playing field with MS), and that could end up hurting Apple much more than MS simply because MS has a much bigger war chest.
Apple H/W at the lower end, is very price competitive with normal PC stuff and will have correspondingly low gross margins.
Except that while Apple now makes lower end PCs, they’re still not as low end as Dell, and it makes most of its money off of it’s higher end laptops and fully-loaded desktops for graphic professionals et al.
If Apple made OS/X available(ie fully supported) on certail selected PC Systems then I (IMUHO I my uneduacted humble opinion) would expect that quite a lot of people would be attracted to OS/X in preference to Vista.
You can be sure MS would spend billions to avoid that, and Apple might have to match those billions to make it happen. Sure, OSX might gain a substantial market share. Or, Apple might go bankrupt trying.
Because in the same way that the iTunes music store exists to encourage you to buy, then lock you into iPods; MacOSX exists to encourage you to buy, then lock you into Apple hardware.
But don’t be surprised if the biggest secret about Leopard, is that that it is being developed for other PCs- Apple OS X Leopard.
Don’t be surprised if OS X Leopard is the last OS that Apple will ever make.
Don’t be surprised if OS X Leopard is the last OS that Apple will ever make.
Don’t be surprised it’s the last OS that Apple makes with Carbon Support.
VERY unlikely. Carbon has been progressively modernized since 10.0, and has turned into the HIToolBox which underlies almost all Aqua widgets (Carbon and Cocoa). Leopard even contains substantial improvements to to Carbon to support resolution-independence and remove the last vestiges of QuickDraw in the API.
Apple once tried the mac clone idea before and burned a lot of companies when they turned it off. They were burned themselves since the clones were better than what Apple could produce.
I also can’t see Apple throwing the OS to everyone and writing drivers and supporting every possible configuration. This was one of the most important reasons why Be inc failed and why only a free (as in $) open source OS has a chance against Windows in the PC world.
Apple feels that phones and not computers are the path to greater growth. They’ll leave the mac alone and intel is just a cpu that nobody sees.
The other thing is that they gave up on the open source x86 kernel precisely because they didn’t want mac on other pc’s. There’s a limit how many times you can change your mind and still be taken seriously.
What possible benefit would it be to Apple, as a hardware vendor, to allow OS X to run anywhere other than their systems?
1) The ability to become the 2nd largest software company in the world.
2) The ability to have lots and lots of people exposed to OSX, whose next computer might be direct from Apple (OSX *and* stylish?) rather than Dell (OSX and not so stylish…)
If anything Apple would allow clones, but there’s absolutely no way they’re going to make a “generic” OSX version. Think: Dell as a partner that makes cheap certified clones.
Main problem being the drivers of course. Third-party support just isn’t there and it won’t be. Piracy is also a huge concern for a company that can’t afford to lose billions like Microsoft. If they really wanted that, they’d introduce a really cheap workstation and embrace that PC crowd that chants “too expensive!”.
Main problem being the drivers of course.
If they can make a complete architecture switch within less than 12 months, I’m sure they’ll be able to counter that problem too.
>>Main problem being the drivers of course.
>If they can make a complete architecture switch within less than 12 months, I’m sure they’ll be able to counter that problem too.
Well, they didn’t have much choice in that, after they discovered what the PPC G5 behaved like (heat! no way to put it in a laptop). And it’s pretty stimulating when you really have no choice at all.
I doubt that they performed that switch in 12 (or even seven months). Still, there is no doubt that what they did was no mean feat, but if rumours are true there have been x86 builds for five years.
It took windows years to function tolerably on a wide range of hardware, I doubt that Apple can churn out (and test) their software on the huge range of hardware that is available right now.
The bottom line is that licensing OSX would still damage Apple’s bottom line. Even though they appear to move away from computers and towards consumer electronics, Apple is still heavily entrenched in the media production industry, which is why they’ve lowered the price of Shake from $3000 to $500 for exemple. I can’t imagine that they make those cuts in software prices if the hardware sells wouldn’t compensate.
The didn’t make the switch in 12 months; they had been building and testing it for five years.
Secondly, solving this problem is not up to them; it is up to the third party device manufacturers; Apple does not have the resources to go it alone on driver support.
Unless they pulled something really, really sneaky … like adopting Vista drivers or something like that.
They were working on it for many years before they switched. So unless they’ve been secretly building up a database of hardware drivers for the past few years, they won’t start allowing Mac clones.
1) The ability to become the 2nd largest software company in the world.
First of all, no. OSX and iLife are not going to generate the kind of revenue to put them in the same league as MS, IBM or Oracle.
Second of all, why? Where’s the benefit as opposed to their current model?
2) The ability to have lots and lots of people exposed to OSX, whose next computer might be direct from Apple (OSX *and* stylish?) rather than Dell (OSX and not so stylish…)
Apple doesn’t want lots and lots of people exposed to OSX; they want lots and lots of people exposed to the Apple Experience(tm). An inherent part of that is the integration between hardware and software, whether you’re talking about computers, music players or phones.
There’s also the inherent issue of brand value that many people frequently overlook. Apple is not primarily an IT company, they are primarily a marketing company. They have cultivated and continue to expand their image with regards to the Apple Experience(tm). They do not sell applications and hardware, they sell solutions, they sell lifestyle, they sell image. There is simply no way they would denigrate that brand value by having OSX running on generic eMachines.
There’s a reason companies like BMW and Mercedes don’t sell budget-priced economy cars, despite the fact that people would no doubt buy them.
There’s a reason companies like BMW and Mercedes don’t sell budget-priced economy cars, despite the fact that people would no doubt buy them.
That comparison would be valid if not for the fact that a BMW is different from a Renault not only on the outside, but also on the inside. Your comparison would make sense if BMW just put different bodies on existing Renault or whatever platforms and engines; instead, BMW develops everything in-house, and builds everything in-house.
Apple is a regular PC maker, using the exact same components as Dell and HP, but only with a different exterior and operating system. Apple does not make computers, they let Taiwanese companies do that for them – the same companies that build computers for Acer or Asus.
This bears not even the slightest bit of resemblance to the automotive market.
Come on, you know what he meant. Apple puts a lot of effort into a close to perfect integrated experience. This mean all the software working smoothly and looking good, all the hardware working smoothly and looking good, and the hardware matching the software and the other way around, with a real sense of style.
Theoretically Dell or any other PC maker could to do the same. In practice, they’d have to work with Microsoft and pick only select components, which would jeopardize their hardware relations and, frankly, Windows is not the same as an OS designed for this specific purpose.
While car companies like Porsche, Volvo ( still, yes ), BMW and the ultra-elites design their cars and the interactions of all the systems in the car, the parts all almost always out-sourced.
VDO provides dash guages to VW ( Porsche and family ), Volvo, and I am sure SAAB as well, amongst many others.
Bosch provides ABS systems.
And so on.
Makers of the products are used to mass-fabricating a general solution, which adapts well to use in most cases. A car model may require a flatter alternator housing, so changes are made to the generic solution ( at a cost to the car maker ) to provide the actual solution.
Few companies develop all the components they use ( in any industry ). Even wood carvings are usually done on
wood from a tree someone else cut down.
Apple’s hardware is made FOR THEM, with some special changes obviously made to them ( within the bounds of the components available for design and their budget for the model ). The changes may mostly be in shape, but they also must dictate which components to be included, such as how the system board’s memory voltage is handled, or how the board initializes itself and the operating system.
This makes Apple similar to BMW / Mercedes / et al, but not comparable ( anymore ) to Ferrari or Lamborghini.
–The loon
That comparison would be valid if not for the fact that a BMW is different from a Renault not only on the outside, but also on the inside. Your comparison would make sense if BMW just put different bodies on existing Renault or whatever platforms and engines; instead, BMW develops everything in-house, and builds everything in-house.
Apple is a regular PC maker, using the exact same components as Dell and HP, but only with a different exterior and operating system. Apple does not make computers, they let Taiwanese companies do that for them – the same companies that build computers for Acer or Asus.
This bears not even the slightest bit of resemblance to the automotive market.
You’re missing my point, but reinforcing it at the same time.
BMW does, in fact, outsource. The BMW X3 was partially engineered and is entirely produced by an OEM manufacturer (Magna Steyr). But you don’t find that in the advertising brochures. Just as with Apple, BMW focused on investing internally in engineering resources and outsourcing that which could be done more efficiently (and hence more profitably) by an external organization.
Nor will you find Apple extolling the virtues of outsourcing engineering, component selection and manufacturing to the same companies that produce those run-of-the-mill HP and Dell PC’s everybody likes to make fun of.
Apple doesn’t sell a PC and an OS any more than BMW sells a car with four wheels and an engine. They both sell an experience, in Apple’s case it’s the ultimate user experience, in BMW’s it’s the “Ultimate Driving Machine”. Both are the result of a carefully controlled effort to enhance positive customer perceptions and market the brand rather than the product.
But the point I was making was with regards to that brand value. You made the assumption that BMW has teams of engineers and manufacturers in a big facility working tirelessly to make their products under controleld conditions, and that is precisely the perception they want you to have. BMW is all about engineering and quality, right? So branding mission accomplished.
Apple is similarly a brand driven company. People are fiercely loyal to that brand; look at the way people often gush about OSX: “It just works” “It’s all about integration” “It’s easy to use” “It’s more sophisticated than Windows”. These are perceptions, not empirical measures, but they are relevant none the less. People love their Macs because they feel they have something that is better than alternatives. And they get incredibly defensive when others try to measure Mac+OSX empirically against alternatives or competitive offerings. You can’t measure “experience”. Dell+OSX would unquestionably dilute the brand value of Mac+OSX by emphasizing that Macs really aren’t that different than other PCs and OSX is really just another OS. The sum of Mac+OSX is greater than the combined sums of Mac and OSX.
So sure, Apple could OEM OSX to other PC manufacturers, but in doing so Apple would lose the control that goes into maintaining that brand value. They would effectively risk diluting their single greatest asset for a questionable return, when their current model and strategy is working so successfully already. Businesses with the type of brand assets that Apple has developed protect those brands at all costs.
Certainly, stranger things have happened, but I simply cannot see Apple ever OEMing OSX, it just would not make business sense given their current position. That’s a move that will be pulled only as a last-ditch survival tactic if Apple ever finds themselves in the same precarious position they were before Jobs returned. Because once they’ve done that there is likely no going back.
You can’t measure “experience”. Dell+OSX would unquestionably dilute the brand value of Mac+OSX by emphasizing that Macs really aren’t that different than other PCs and OSX is really just another OS. The sum of Mac+OSX is greater than the combined sums of Mac and OSX.
Well put, and one of the mean reasons why I believe Apple will retain control rather than license. And if it did license to anyone, it wouldn’t be Dell. Maybe Sony, who also makes athestically pleasing PCs and in some ways could be called the Apple of the Windows world. Plus Sony has lots of media content (which is also something Apple has via Job’s connections). An Apple-Sony partnership would be interesting indeed. Not that I think it’s likely to happen or anything–I haven’t given it much thought but there are probably lots of reasons why it would be a bad idea or would never happen.
Sony, the same company that licensed PalmOS for the clie…and then dumped it. I still love my tg-50 because of its keyboard.
That comparison would be valid if not for the fact that a BMW is different from a Renault not only on the outside, but also on the inside. Your comparison would make sense if BMW just put different bodies on existing Renault or whatever platforms and engines; instead, BMW develops everything in-house, and builds everything in-house.
BMW does not develop everything in-house. For example the breaks are OEM from Brambo. The same goes for the air-conditioner and radiator.
So the market analogy of Apple and BMW still applies.
Since the letter A is not close enough to the letter E to fat finger it, I must reply to this one.
It’s Brembo NOT Brambo. That’s a heck of a mistype if you ask me.
(…) they want lots and lots of people exposed to the Apple Experience(tm). (…)
Yes, exactly: the Apple prison. Once locked in, it’s hard to get out there with a working brain.
There’s a reason companies like BMW and Mercedes don’t sell budget-priced economy cars, despite the fact that people would no doubt buy them.
Only if you ignore the BMW 1-Series and the Mercedes A-Class and B-Class…
Of course Apple would be selective who they would partner with – eMachine would probably not be on their shortlist. However if they did partner with someone they could also compete on style and the Apple Experience being complete when running on Apple hardware too…
Only if you ignore the BMW 1-Series and the Mercedes A-Class and B-Class…
huh? So a Mercedes A-class is in the same price range as a Fiat Punto? Take me to that dealer…
I do like that idea of running OS X on Dells. I was given a brand new dell last week and it had AMD 2X 3800+ with xp…..boy it runs great too. I would love to run OS X on it.
looking in to it, but I only have ppc version of Tiger.
What possible benefit would it be to Apple, as a hardware vendor, to allow OS X to run anywhere other than their systems?
Well, how could it hurt them? As Apple enthusiats have been telling us for years, Macs are not overpriced, so I’m sure that people would still be willing to pony up for Apples hardware, even if they could get OSX pre-loaded on a Dell. Afterall, Apples computers are so much prettier
As for Parallels, I’m not sure how people think this is going to change anything. If the article is correct and the reason why a lot people/companies can’t switch to OSX is because of apps that only run on Windows, unless Parallels allows them to run Windows apps natively on OSX, then at the very least, they’d have to run OSX and Windows side-by-side on the same machine, or run one of them in a VM. That, to me, sounds like a PITA. How is this going to benefit them if they need a license for two operating systems to run on the same computer?
Question is, with all the apps they’ve got on Windows, what specifically do they need OSX for? Is it to get away from big, bad Microsoft? Hell, at least MS won’t try and tell you that you can’t run their OS on hardware they don’t own.
Edited 2007-01-22 17:31
How could it hurt them?
Loss of that end-to-end control that makes Apple’s systems so nice, increased development costs, being in direct competition with MS…
Hell, at least MS won’t try and tell you that you can’t run their OS on hardware they don’t own.
That could have something to do with the fact Microsoft doesn’t sell hardware and never have. It wouldn’t make sense for them to limit their potential buyers.
Edited 2007-01-22 17:39
Why would they lose the end to end control? It would still exist, for anyone who wants to buy it. If you don’t want to buy it however, in this new world, you don’t have to.
Why is it so important for people not to have the alternative?
Or is the fear, that non-one, given the choice, will actually buy the end to end stuff?
Now, if that is so, what is the point in trying to make them?
Edited 2007-01-22 23:44
Windows, unless Parallels allows them to run Windows apps natively on OSX, then at the very least, they’d have to run OSX and Windows side-by-side on the same machine, or run one of them in a VM. That, to me, sounds like a PITA.
Why do you say this would be a PITA? We’re talking about Windows applications running in a rootless window alongside OS X apps – I think that’s pretty sweet!
Basically, I sit back and laugh at some of the crap, especially McSoft flame trolls, since they are working off the last patch Bill gave them.
They are diversifying because they can and are making good money at it.
Who is this “McSoft” you speak of? McDonalds software company?
Mac os X: for peeple who know better, but dont want to fuss with things. think porches and lattes.
Windows: for peeple who dont know better and hav no desire to: think ford focus and mcdonalds coffe.
Linux: for peeple who know better and hav the time to make things for themselves, rather others will like it or not. think, built muscle, kit cars, or even ricers. they drink… yes.
Edited 2007-01-22 17:50
Silly generalizations: convenient excuses for people to turn of their brains and use small-change cliches as a substitute for thought.
You think too much.
Parallels let’s me run eComStation and Haiku on my Mac while I’m running Mac OS X. Windows? Blah
Parallels lets me do my Visual Studio C#.NET Day Time Job while I’m running Mac OS X. eComStation and Haiku? Blah.
The present situation on the desktop means that there is one vendor that controls ~ 90% of the software (MS), then Linux with about 5%, and maybe Apple with 3-4%, and some minor players such as *BSD, Zeta etc. Fine.
If you want total control, go for a Mac. You’ll get hardware controlled only by Apple, and you’ll get Mac OS X, a proprietary operating system. If that’s what you want, you are either somewhat insane or don’t know what you’re talking about.
I want freedom. Noone controls the hardware I am using, noone controls the software I am using. And I want it to stay that way, please.
Perhaps I am a little insane, but I *do* know what I am talking about.
1. I am excercising freedon of choice if I purchase a Mac or a Windows PC.
2. I can still choose to install an alternative OS on my Mac or Windows Box, so I get my freedom there, too.
3. There are external controls on the software and hardware that you are using. To deny this is naive. What do you do if the software you want to run simply isn’t available for your chosen platform? That descision lies with the software vendor, not with you.
4. In my world, I don’t spend a lot of time configuring things, nor fiddling about trying to make things work. They just do. That gives me the freedom to be productive, rather than tinker with my tool. I like that kind of freedom.
I, too, want freedom. I want someone else to worry about the hardware and software I am using so I can get on with my day job. And I want things to stay that way, please.
well, almost nothing. It makes it easier for current Windows users who are interested in getting a Mac PC but who are tied to Windows for some reason (either fear of trying something new, or for certain applications that only run on Windows), to make an easy transition to Mac and still be able to run Windows whenever they need/want to.
But that’s it. This is not a revolution that will change the market or bring OSX to non-Apple PCs, just an evolutionary play by Apple to help make it easier for people to “switch”.
Parallels is just a virtualisation product, right? If you read the article here (http://linux.sys-con.com/read/318829.htm) you’ll learn that Parallels uses an Emulation approach to virtualisation, for which “The main disadvantages of emulation are low performance and low density”. So, given that other, better, faster alternatives already exist, and that VMWare uses a similar apporach to Parallels in their free (as in beer) product, what is with all this fuss??!? From what I can see, virtualisation on Linux is going to kick the ass out of Parallels on the Mac in the very near future (if it isn’t already doing so, of course…).
Parallels is just a virtualisation product, right? If you read the article here (http://linux.sys-con.com/read/318829.htm) you’ll learn that Parallels uses an Emulation approach to virtualisation, for which “The main disadvantages of emulation are low performance and low density”. So, given that other, better, faster alternatives already exist, and that VMWare uses a similar apporach to Parallels in their free (as in beer) product, what is with all this fuss??!? From what I can see, virtualisation on Linux is going to kick the ass out of Parallels on the Mac in the very near future (if it isn’t already doing so, of course…).
Typical linux zealot n00b’s comment. Everyone (including me) who tried Parallels on Mac said that it is an excellent program. Open your mind, linux desktop market is only 0.3%-0.4%, far below Mac that has about 5%, yet feel that windows domination will end very soon.
> Not likely. Apple wants control of both hardware and software, as both the locked down iPhone (and the iPod before) clearly demonstrates.
Apple could still do that with stringent OEM requirements. I don’t think that’s a show-stopper.
Sure, OS X would find its way to unsupported computers. The key word here is “unsupported.”
But maybe Apple is growing beyond the point where computer hardware sales are its future primary business. If this is the case, opening OS X to the big, wide world is an opportunity to get some ROI on their research and development, sell more software, and extend the Apple brand.
Ten years from now, I believe Apple’s primary identity will be consumer electronics and entertainment. They’re the new Sony.
Personally, I want OS X to propagate to PCs. If it doesn’t, OS X will likely be Apple’s final OS, and the MacBook Pro of 2017 will be running Windows Vista SP 2.
On the other hand, if Apple licenses OS X to a premium Dell, Sony, or HP line, the OS will remain in active development well into the future. Maybe we’ll even see an OS XI.
macusers wont buy a mac with windows vista as the default os
macusers wont buy a mac with windows vista as the default os
If Jobs tells them that Vista is finally good enough for Apple machines, then they will buy it, brag about it, then turn on Linux users.
they would tell jobs go to hell and switch to linux or other free os (macusers have made a choice to not use windows)
The argument is not, that it is good for Apple to release the OS. Nor is the argument, that it will lead to a better product.
The argument is, it is unavoidable. It is the last step in a causal chain that started with the Intel move.
The argument is, it doesn’t matter what Jobs or Kay want. They are in the grip of forces more powerful than them. They can either do it, or they can be pushed aside.
Consider if you will what happens when Intel Leopard is available at retail. How long do you think it will take before it is routinely installable on Dells?
Whether people really want it, I am not sure at all. But Jobs and Co firmly believe (a) that people want it (b) that Mac users given the choice of hardware will switch. The argument is, given this mind set, there is only one way they can go.
All it means is that the 10% or so of people who buy Macs also have the option to run Windows. Given that they have been buying Macs for the last 22 years without the option of running Windows (unless they buy a PC, – and wait till about 1991!), how many of them are actually going to do that? Especially considering how many of them hate Windows.
OTOH, having the option to run MacOS as well as Windows on any PC – now that would really make sure Ballmer had to change his underwear. For a time – if things keep going as they are, pretty soon Linux is going to outstrip both MacOS and Windows.
All it means is that the 10% or so of people who buy Macs also have the option to run Windows. Given that they have been buying Macs for the last 22 years without the option of running Windows (unless they buy a PC, – and wait till about 1991!), how many of them are actually going to do that? Especially considering how many of them hate Windows
The ‘hatred of Windows’ that you’re talking about, is a relatively small group of internet-based zealots. The vast majority of Windows users actually don’t care what OS they’re running as long as they can do everything they need to. Unless the Linux fans learn that 99% of the computer using public, aren’t interested in waving around their choice of OS like an extension of their manhood, or have more important concerns in their lives than the ability to ‘fix the OS themselves’, then I’m afraid that 2007 will not be the year of Linux on the desktop; much the same as 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 …
OTOH, having the option to run MacOS as well as Windows on any PC – now that would really make sure Ballmer had to change his underwear.
I imagine that Balmer doesn’t really give a hoot. For one thing, he sells another Windows license; that’s more money for Microsoft. He can also look forward to the possibility that some of the big players will pull an OS/2 and simply decide not to develop for the Mac; just tell users to install something like Parallels instead.
f things keep going as they are, pretty soon Linux is going to outstrip both MacOS and Windows.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5
If things keep going the way they are, Linux is going to disappear from the desktop altogether. Despite years of screaming “Don’t use MS! They are EEEviiill!!!”, it appears that the share of Linux desktop users is dropping and heading over to Apple. Hardly surprising as I have seen a lot of Linux folk giving up the dream and running to MacOSX.
The problem is very simple; the kind of negative marketing that the Linux community had been putting out over the last year, just makes you look like sore losers. Instead of telling people not to install MS, how about telling them why they should be running Linux? And use arguments that people are actually interested in. Start getting the applications up the same level of functionality as MS and Apple. Believe it or not, saying ‘it does 90% of what MS Office does’ will not actually cover it; especially if the bits you need are in the missing 10%
Edited 2007-01-23 11:01
The ‘hatred of Windows’ that you’re talking about, is a relatively small group of internet-based zealots. The vast majority of Windows users actually don’t care what OS they’re running as long as they can do everything they need to.
Funny, I thought I was talking about Mac users. Nice of you to correct me on what’s going on in my own mind.
Unless the Linux fans learn that 99% of the computer using public, aren’t interested in waving around their choice of OS like an extension of their manhood, or have more important concerns in their lives than the ability to ‘fix the OS themselves’, then I’m afraid that 2007 will not be the year of Linux on the desktop; much the same as 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 …
That’s so off the ball it’s amazing. Or it would be, if these numbskullian opinions weren’t all too widespread.
If things keep going the way they are, Linux is going to disappear from the desktop altogether. Despite years of screaming “Don’t use MS! They are EEEviiill!!!”, it appears that the share of Linux desktop users is dropping and heading over to Apple. Hardly surprising as I have seen a lot of Linux folk giving up the dream and running to MacOSX.
Yes, dear.
The problem is very simple; the kind of negative marketing that the Linux community had been putting out over the last year, just makes you look like sore losers.
I’d rather be a sore loser than a liar.
Instead of telling people not to install MS, how about telling them why they should be running Linux?
Gosh, we never do this.
And use arguments that people are actually interested in. Start getting the applications up the same level of functionality as MS and Apple.
What applications that exist now on Linux don’t?
Believe it or not, saying ‘it does 90% of what MS Office does’ will not actually cover it; especially if the bits you need are in the missing 10%
Actually, if you don’t need “the missing 10%”, then a cheaper option at much lower prices is very attractive.
Otherwise we’d all be driving Lexuses (Lexi?).
Apple doesn’t sell hardware *or* software — they sell “the Macintosh experience” (hardware + software). They’re not going to break up their hardware and software thus shattering their carefully crafted RDF.
“Mac os X: for peeple who know better, but dont want to fuss with things. think porches and lattes.
Windows: for peeple who dont know better and hav no desire to: think ford focus and mcdonalds coffe.”
Actually, McDonalds has tried to improve their coffee quite a bit by bringing in a low-end “premium” blend. It’s not too bad. Not great. Better than it used to be, tho’. They were actually thinking about creating coffee shops and entering that business…
I am not really sure I understand what you are saying but… if I am interpreting it correctly then let me say this: Life is about choice. I have to make a 1000 choices a day at least… about 90% of these are choices I would rather not be bothered with having to make.
I like that my Mac is good looking, performs well, is NOT expensive, runs a pretty sweet OS, and does everything I need it to do.
Still, owning a Mac does not limit my need to choose entirely… there is a large list of supported hardware, all kinds of “made for mac” add-ons (both hardware and software) and I have a serious problem of collecting excellent open source software and shareware software as it is…
———-
“””
The present situation on the desktop means that there is one vendor that controls ~ 90% of the software (MS), then Linux with about 5%, and maybe Apple with 3-4%, and some minor players such as *BSD, Zeta etc. Fine.
If you want total control, go for a Mac. You’ll get hardware controlled only by Apple, and you’ll get Mac OS X, a proprietary operating system. If that’s what you want, you are either somewhat insane or don’t know what you’re talking about.
I want freedom. Noone controls the hardware I am using, noone controls the software I am using. And I want it to stay that way, please.
“””