Bear Stearns PC analyst Andrew Neff yesterday recommended a "massive and immediate consolidation of the major U.S. PC vendors," despite strong dissents among his peers. Recommendations included Dell's purchase of Gateway and IBM's PC business as well as Apple's abondonment of the PowerPC architecture in favor of porting Mac OS X to the Intel architecture.
by MacNN Staff
Comments
This Neff guy is an idiot. Hopefully, investors will laugh and point at this guy behind his back. I am so sick of these "analysts" thinking that they know how to make the PC sector work. Move Apple to Intel? Oh yeah, that would be worth it! Somebody please flog this jerk.
Apple needs to take a long term view of its processor and platoform selection. Mac OS X is perfectly positioned to be a UNIX alternative and gain inroads with the technology snobs who populate many corporate IT departments. But, many of these IT staff will not look at an OS that they could not run on their existing base, i.e. Intel boxes. There is enough dissatisfaction with Windows among the IT community that OS X could make inroads if it were to run on a PC standard architecture.
Yes, Intel, I can use a fan again on all of my Macs. You can never have enough heat blowing out of these things.
Maybe NASCAR, INDY and Formula One should switch to diesel and consolidate. Sounds good? This idiot is a respected analyst? Doesn't take much these days!
Something major would have to happen before Mac OS (as shipped by Apple) will run on Intel. I would argue that the operating system is the most attractive part of the Macintosh experience. If it were altered to run on Intel, you could get a very Mac-like experience with any old ugly, beige box.
Thumbs down.
Why that is a brilliant idea. First we all get slower machine's. But we get a a big noisy spaceheater to help alliviate some of the cost on my natural gas bill (haha).
Look OSX doesn't have to run on Intel hardware (though Darwin does). All IT department has to do is when replacing old machines, is to phase out Wintel in favor of Macs. This way Apple doesn't have to support a mishmash of different configurations.
OS X on Intel? Nope, not with Steve in charge, my friends :-) However, the idea of gateway being brought out is looking quite possible , given their dire situation and fire sales of those overrated beige PCs
"phase out Wintel in favor of Macs."
I agree. The opposite has been done in the past anyway...
Then again, the main IT lure is the competition concept. Supposedly, on the PC side, there is competition. There is none on the Mac side. People still have the strong feeling that Apple is a monopoly, while in fact Microsoft is. Perception, schmerception...
What do you think that Microsoft will react to the Intel based OS X? Would Apple survive without MS Office in long run? I can't be quite sure... What if Apple make Quad (or even Octa) 1.2 GHz G4+ monster Power Mac? OS X is really prepaired for such architecture. Maybe that's what Apple decided to go for, instead of Intel base OS X. Even Cocoa porting has been stopped quietly.
Apple will survive in professional media authoring world. MS will accept such sharing.
Why did this analyst miss the recommendation for Sony to buy Apple? Just wondering...
Totally stupid. Why should HP buy Compaq? HP has all the technology themselves. IBM's PC mab be losing money but it is good for the company overall. IBM needs its own PC.
I hear this all the time. The truth of the matter is that it would probably not work for Apple in the short term or the long term. The PPC is fine and is progressing as well as it needs to be (although I would like to see a G5 within the next year) so no NEED to switch chipsets. Also, as far as I can tell, the CoreGraphics API still refers to things that are part of the Mac hardware for graphics etc (that is why the 2D segment of grachics accelerators have to be slightly different) so things wouldn't work quite as well. The main issue, however, is that Apple is a hardware company. There primary source of income comes from their hardware. If they stopped selling it, they could be in financial trouble. Most importantly, that is a one-way street that we can traverse at any time. If Apple does really start to die, it wouldn't be too tough to do this then. If they do it now while they are still ok, they can never go back.
Just what I have been hearing/thinking,
~/indigo
This guy is what is wrong with the street, its about how to make a buck now, and disregards long term issues in this sector.
He also displays a total ignorance of technology, he probably needs to have a talk with his tech guy who he probably treats like a serf..
Yeah I work on the Street, anyone need a great mac tech in the City?
this was a very interesting articlei suggest you go to news.com and actuallly read it. First time in a while its not an blatent Anti-Apple article @ news.com
what really amazes me is what Neff said about Gateway. Gateway is about an ion biggger than Apple (~5 bill market cap), yet Neff said Gateway should (and probabaly will) sell out -- to either some Japanese tech giant to Sun Microsoft/ AOL TimeWarner will buy up the company and share it.
all though it will be hard, apple should ultimatly switch to x86
In the linked article: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-202-4500953-0.html
Needham & Co. analyst Charles Wolf said the report was the "height of stupidity" and an overreaction tainted by the current woes of PC stocks.
Additionaly (concenring Neff's merger ideas)...
"There’s no such thing as overcapacity in the PC industry," Wolf said. "There can’t be consolidation in a variable cost industry."
Wolf said none of Neff’s proposed mergers make sense.
"Why would HP buy Compaq?" he said. "What do they buy? They’d get nothing. There’s no technology there. Gateway’s not going to sell out. This is insanity."
Gee what a great idea! Use slower out-of-date chips with lots of performance issues. He's a frickn' genius! Just because the majority of the world uses Wintel boxes, dosen't make it right. I like the idea of everyone making the change to Macs. The world would be a much better place.
What a complete moron. None of those Wintel manufacturers are going to consolidate. Why would anyone want Gateway? For it's high quality products? - Not likely. Gateway makes cheap junk for the mass market. All the big names could make cheap junk if they wanted to, but the low margin business just isn't profitable. Just ask Gateway.
It's not even worth talking about reasons why Apple would move to a ailing old tech like the x86. The P4 is/was a flop. What attraction does it hold?
The guy obviously is some old f*** without a real clue on what's really going on in the industry, see it all the time.
Although I have thought about the possible benifits of having an OSX on Intel machines, in the long run it would probably not work out for Apple. As someone else noted, Apple needs the hardware sales, and the Apple hardware is far more advanced that wintel anyway.
Also I am not to confident that your standard wintel box would be able to properly run OSX's Aqua and such. I'm sure it would work on a small percentage of high end PC's but regular users would find it slow.
If your every day consumer see's and wants Aqua/OSX then they'll have to get an Apple machine. And if they don't want an Apple, in the words of Conan "Den to h*** Wid You"
The problem with the PC industry is competition. If IBM had just kept the IBM PC a closed architecture the industry would be far ahead of where it is now. If Apple had just stuck with the Apple ][ we wouldn't be burdened with this GUI nonsense. Dell should buy IBM and Gateway, HP should buy Compaq, then Dell can buy HP, and Microsoft can buy them all. Then Microsoft can buy the US Government, or any suitable small country, then we can be done with this and have PC nirvana. The Disney-Apple-Sony Corporation can compete with them, so we'll be OK.
Did this guy actually take any economics classes or was he just coked up during grad school?
NeXTStep? Hello? Don't analysts get to read AppleInsider? The day the Microsoft appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court, OS X for Intel will be announced sans Carbon or Classic. This will let Apple get into the serious server space (hint: they don't make any serious servers) without cannibalizing any desktop sales.
Folks,
NeXTStep DID run on Intel. That is what OS X has evolved from! If APple were to license OS X for the AMD architecture (Intel is too big and slow for market), You would increase Apple's take to dominate the PC market...one swoop! Just like USB got new life from Apple, PC users would get new life from APPLE! think different!
I disagree with losing the PowerPC though. The brain-drain at Motorola, internal dissention (execs favour Intel...I'd buy shares of Motorola and stir up shareholder meetings about that!),
has only worsened the outlook. But IBM makes PowerPC processors that are used in their "iron" AS/400s. This analyst feels that if anyone should drop a chip, its drop Intel's P4. Its not energy-efficient compared to PPC, it uses more area, creates more heat and draws more power. Its scalability is limited because of these factors. But you'll find PPC chips in routers, hubs, wireless controllers, and not only Macs.
With Analysts like this guy, no wonder the market is diving...
Ya know I have to wonder with all of these analysts going around spewing all thing about apple (when its pretty much obivious they are clueless about Apple), they say apple should use x86 chips instead.. .and i have to ask myself... "how much money are these guys gonna gain but intel having a reasonably large customer like Apple buying chips from intel" it all smacks of conspiracy to line thier pockets. I bet these analysts dont even own Apple stock so why should they care.?
Remember, Steve wrote his keynote that included Gates on an IBM Thinkpad.
Why do people buy Wintel instead of Apple? Because it is the "standard." Our partisan complaining to the contrary, nothing is going to change that until Apple embraces standards. Making a (proprietary) Athelon box that can run X (w/o Classic) and Windows would sell like crazy.
Yeah, this great new operating system was designed for PowerPC computers and is about to finally be released, taking advantage of the G4's many advantages over the huge, hot, oft-recalled Intel offerings... but let's redo it!
I'm guessing this guy is real good at calculating with a slide rule, 'cause he sure don't know squat about computers.
Hey, let's modify 747's to use Cessna engines while we're at it! I'm sure we could genetically engineer birds to slither like snakes instead of flying (which wastes a lot of energy), create beef that tastes like tofu, and give the colonies back to England. WHAT GREAT IDEAS! I'VE REALLY THOUGHT THIS ONE THROUGH!
Flames and rabid anti-Bill & Macfanaticism aside, let's simply ask the hard blunt question; Is Apple doing well enough to forego an Intel marketing direction? Having OS-X run on a Intel box makes that box a Mac, not a Bill box. There are guys at Dell and Gateway who would love the diversity believe it or not. Let's not get hardware sidetracked; it's the OS we love, not the plastic.
This guy must own a ton of Dell and Intel, anyone check his portfolio? ;)
If Apple is to port OS X to any architecture it should be to other Unix machines (Sun, SGI), this would allow them into new markets and they don't have to worry about one of these companies coming out with a low cost machine that cuts into their market share, remember that is why Apple killed the clones in the first place.
From what I have read, it wouldn't be all that hard to put an Intel chip into a Mac system. It would take about a year to do so.
No, this does not mean OSX in a PC, it means OSX with Apple hardware that has an Intel chip. Many of Apple's parts are standard PC parts, anyway. This would allow Apple to Use a powerful Intel chip (s**** MOTO), and still have their "proprietary" hardware.
Patrick
I never thought I'd hear someone use "powerful" and "Intel" in the same sentence, unless it was "Intel chips are powerful insofar as they require lots of power" or, "Intel chips will cause a powerful decline in Intels marketshare".
Porting X to AMD: remember, once X runs on a PC chip, its just a matter of a few hacks to get it running on PC hardware (so a Intel chip in a mac case is not the answer, Apple will still lose money in hardware sales). I agree that Apple's marketshare would increase if X ran on a PC, but I don't think that the company can handle losing all the money from hardware sales. Lets all hope Apple doesn't have to resort to M$ policy: "we don't make hardware so we'll rape you with the price of our software". LOOK at those prices, they really are ridiculous.
Yeah, right. The day that Intel/AMD makes the x86 avoid all of the extra byte fetches due to misaligned instruction and data accesses is the day that the x86 becomes a viable processor. However, they *can't do that* and remain x86. This is only one of the reasons that the PowerPC kicks x86 butt.
Apple should should move to x86 processors.
The Mhz gap is real to consumers, they walk into a retailer and see a 350Mhz iMac or a 700Mhz PC both at $799 which do you think the average consumer will pick. They could care less that the G3 is supposedly a better processor. All they see is 350 vs. 700.
Who is the nitwit analyst and where does he live?
Some one neuter that nitwit before he reproduces. :-)
If Apple disappeared tomorrow it would be the end of innovation in the computer industry.
If Gateway disappeared tomorrow nobody but its employees and stockholders would even notice. Dell won't buy Gateway because it's cheaper to let a company fold than to buy it and have to do the layoffs yourself.
David
By the time Apple finished porting to x86, IA64 would be imminent. All that effort would be wasted!
Furthermore, Apple should attempt to compete with Microsloth in its own space after the Bush regime withdraws the antitrust suits.
but the simply fact is the 'media' -- these blue-colar wintel using ANALylist ONLY KNOW x86. about 99.9% of have never ever touched a Mac. X86 and Intel and Athlon are all their know, they're dump! but their's nothing we Mac users can do to change the perception of the entire x86-world.
by Apple porting OS X to x86, it will level the playing field. ANALylist will actually be able to use it and see how supior it is compared to windows and then buy Apple confindently. windows users will flock in hurds to OS X. every hates Microsoft products. Apple can change this. Apple should becaome a software only company by dumping its hardware, then picking up a few other companies (Macromedia, Corel, etc) and go from their. plain ans simply. yes, i know the transition to the softwae-only apple will be VERY DIFFICULT, but at least one day we 'Appleuers' will dominate the market and crubme Microsoft!!!
...it definately shouldn't be x86 based. First of all, even Intel is moving away from that archaic platform. The largest use of computers in the coporate IT are Sun & DEC Alpha (Compaq). Both are using RISC technology. More specifically, Sun uses SPARC processors which are VERY similar to the PowerPC in operation and design. IF Apple were to port MacOS X, I would suggest the SPARC and Alpha. It would require a lot less time, money, and effort and they would have a larger coporate user database as appose to x86. In that move, Apple could keep it's PowerPC based MacOS X alive and kicking.
Why does this guy's position as an "analyst" make him an authority on running a major computer manufacturer? Does he have a track record as a manager - of any kind of a business? (Even better, what's his track record as an analyst?) Look, I follow the NFL closely, but that in no way qualifies me as a football coach! You really have to consider the source; if this buffoon was able to run a high-tech corporation, he would, and earn a lot more money in the process. It is much easier to make sweeping pronouncements when you know that you'll never have to do aanything about them. Sheesh.
Good God, are you crazy man? 90% of Apple's income is from its hardware. If Apple were to just "dump" its hardware, they'd go out of business before they could even ship MacOS X. Their stock would plummet to non-existant as tens of thousands of people are left in the dark.
If Apple ports MacOS X to the x86 platform, they might as well sign their death certificate. Who would buy a Mac (beside beanie baby collectors and secretaries) if they can get a PC for 1/3 the price?
Innovation in the computer market would be almost non-existant. Apple wouldn't have hardware for everyone to copy off of. Microsoft would slaughter Apple, Apple have no users on the x86 platform. How would Apple fair with ONE product versus the millions that already exist, and the 100s that Microsoft already has in play?
Apple's key source is hardware. Only now has software become an important role for their industry. Everyone's jumping onto the Apple bandwagon. I don't know how many times I've seen the headlines in the newspaper,"Apple going out of business!" Then a week later, the same columnist is saying they've support Apple all the way and own 20 Macs at home.
Apple isn't going to give in just because some half-a** analyst has never used MacOS X, let alone a Macintosh. I think you must've been under a rock for the past 4 years, as you've totally missed the premise behind "Think Different."
Apple will not and should not switch to Intel CISC chips; that is a huge step backwards. Intel and AMD are more likely to dump the CISC architechture.
I think Apple should release OS X for Intel chips though. I realize that Apple makes most of its money from hardware, but I do not see how releasing OS X for Intel would really hurt that; in fact I think in the long run it would be a benefit. Right now, Windows users have to be convinced to change hardware and software both; that is a lot of change for some people to take on faith - especially with all of their ignorant PC friends bashing Macs. By releasing OS X for Intel, Apple would enable people to experience the OS without the hardware investment; they could even continue to run their old software in something like VPC. Apple hardware would still be superior though and you can bet that the next computer they buy would be a Mac.
Unix, BSD, and Linux users on Intel would be quick adopters of OS X for Intel too.
As much as I would like to see Apple release OS X for Intel, they should wait to see what happens with the Microsoft break up before doing anything.
My personal theory is that Bill Gates wants the Microsoft breakup to happen, but of course he can not publicly say so. Last year Bill stepped down from CEO and aligned himself more closely with the applications division. This was just the first step towards enabling himself to get away from Windows; if MS is broken in 2 parts, Bill will stay with the applications division. He knows the Windows OS sucks. He knows that there have been no significant improvements since Windows 95 was released. Whistler (the next release of Windows) is almost going to be what Windows 98 was supposed to be, but it is not quite there. The Mac community waited a long time for our next generation OS to arrive but it is finally almost here; the Windows community has been waiting just as long but Whistler ain't it - the next generation Windows OS is not even in development yet. MS started shipping Office 2001 for the Mac in Oct 2000; they just announced that they will release a OS X optimized version of Office this fall. The last version of Office for Windows started shipping in April 1999 and the next version is not expected until the 4th quarter of this year. MS has announced that they have Office for Linux in development. It seems to me that the MS applications division is ready to dump Windows. I do not expect them to stop developing for Windows immediately, but the priority will be lowered after a MS breakup. Linux and OS X are going to be increasing their marketshare in the next few years and Windows marketshare will go down; it is just not possible for the Windows OS to make the necessary technological leaps to compete head to head with stability and performance of a unix based OS. Once the Linux apps are on a par with Windows apps (some now and many more in the next 12 months), corporate PCs will
I am not crazy
You just don't get it. Did you skip math? MS made its money in licensing the OS on every Intel box and sucking up/spitting out Apps. Updates and numbers made the money. MS doesn't make computers.
That is why Apple (APPL) is a small percentage. The money IS not in the hardware, its in the platform, the tools and the software.
Anyone can build a box. Not everyone can build a slick OS... and OS X is the Mercedes of the OS'
NeXTSTEP *was* running on intel! And if apple licensed (read Fee for licensing) the OS to PC makers to put on the machines, especially with Lime Light on MS for monopoly problems, I would bet PC makers would jump for a slice. Just look how Linux is gaining steam.
Who said anything about innovation. Apple has no problem there. Heck, who put the 3.5: floppy to the masses?
If I was under a rock for 4 years, then you certainly are the slime growing on it...absolutely no use to the rock or anything else around it!
Apple should should move to x86 processors.
The Mhz gap is real to consumers, they walk into a retailer and see a 350Mhz iMac or a 700Mhz PC both at $799 which do you think the average consumer will pick. They could care less that the G3 is supposedly a better processor. All they see is 350 vs. 700.
That is stupid. It would cost Apple lots of $$$ to change to x86 processors which are inferior to the PowerPC processors. Why spend money to make slower machines?
There is no doubt that consumers are victims of the Mhz Myth, but Apple should not become one too because of consumer ignorance.
The solution is to eliminate the Mhz Myth. Or even use consumer ignorance to Apple's benefit. The best way that I have heard to accomplish this is for Apple to stop endorsing Mhz as a measuring stick. Apple should brand their new machines based on something like the Gigaflop (Gfps). Instead of a 733Mhz G4 tower, they should list it as a 6.4 Gfps G4 tower. Then when the average consumer compares it to a 1.5 Ghz Pentium 4, it will appear like the G4 is 4 times the speed because they will likely assume that Gfps and Ghz are the same thing. If they investigate further to find out that a Gigaflop is something different then they will still come to the conclusion that the G4 is faster than the P4. If they dig into the specs and find that the Mhz of the G4 is less than the Mhz of the P4 and they base their comparison on that then they are beyond hope.
With the lower Mhz P3s and Athlons outperforming the higher Mhz P4s, the Mhz Myth is going to become less of an issue in the PC world anyway. Apple just needs to adopt the Gfps label to help move it along.
Crack Head.
I agree, why move to an inferior chip because the unenlightened don't know the difference. Even if it were possible, that's like saying we should all get surgery to become white people to decrease unevenness and differences.
Yes, I know that was stretching the idea.
I agree, why move to an inferior chip because the unenlightened don't know the difference. Even if it were possible, that's like saying we should all get surgery to become white people to decrease unevenness and differences.
Yes, I know that was stretching the idea.
User post:
"If Apple ports MacOS X to the x86 platform, they might as well sign their death certificate. Who would buy a Mac
(beside beanie baby collectors and secretaries) if they can get a PC for 1/3 the price? "
well first of all, i think EVERYONE is confused about 'Apple porting to x86'. what most of us are getting confused about is exactly what that means. Bassically Apple has TWO options:
1) Stop using PPC: basically swap the PowerPC for some Athlon's
2) become software only: stop makeing box's all2gether, and just make OS X and have consumers buy it and put in on their own PC's.
What poeple keep on saying (which is true), is that Apple gets 90% of in money from hardware. if it were to take option # 2, how would it survive!?! Microsoft. period. How does Microsoft survive? how has it for the past 15+ years: software only! MS doesn't make $15,000 servers like SunMicro. software only company its possible! software does sell (ask Bill gates). As someone noted, with Microsoft being broken up, Bill Gates will likey go with the apps company! Duh! Windows can not compete head on head with OS X! what rational human would pick windows over OS X if their had that choice. and since Microsoft apps will be seperate from windows, the apps company will continue to release native versions for OS X ( and other OS's)
some people keep on saying that no x86 users know Apple at all. if their switch to x86, they'll have to start all over as an eMachines and move up. Wrong! what windows user do u know that doesn't complain about wanting something else besides windows? exactly. their even have a frigg'in pettition online for apple to release OS X on intel -- HALF A MILLION people have signed it. here are the Apple customers!
i personally vouch for option # 2 -- i want Apple to rule the world. option # 1 is just plain stupid, going from propierty PPC boxes to propierty x86 boxes -- might as well stay with their supior PPC.
Boy, you know it would be cool to be able to go to a store and actually buy stuff for my computer. C'mon.. It's an operating system, not a religon. I would like to see Unix with a Mac GUI run on an Intel box. Hmm.. Sounds almost like NEXT.
plc
Given my experience, IT doesn't go out of there way for competition. Most of the companies I've worked all use Dell. So that doesn't even fly.
I think that IT likes Wintel because it is a hold-over from the days of tinkering and tweaking that only the true geek truly understands which makes Wintel favored by IT. The number of times I have heard IT say they won't support Macs because they "don't understand" them.
So much for competition and lower cost of ownership!
Think of all of the people out there who would be running OSX on their Dells. I can't tell you how many people I know loved the mac but simply wouldn't by it because they feel there isn't enough software out there for it (games etc..) or it's not what "they" use in the business world. I know that's nonsense but the average person wants a lot of bang for their buck and right now the wintel boxes have the market cornered.
This guy obviously isn't very experienced with the Macintosh. No Mac person ever in his life would want X on Intel architecture. I'm bettin that this guy has never in his life felt the power of the Mac; and since he might have heard that X surplasses Winblows 2000 in every way, he pathetically has to simmer the guilt of buying an Wintel box and hope for a better OS on his cheap machine.
First, i don't think OS X for x68 would mean "mac os that can run mac apps as well as windows apps". so there would still be the "well there are more apps for windows" stigma, at least at first. second, everyone here should know that one of the most vaunted attriubutes of our beloved platform is that Apple makes both the hardware and the system software. the fact that apple has complete control over bothof these allows for somewhat tighter hardware/software integration and better stability. i wish apple would release some performance ads instead of all of this jeff goldblum drivel.
intel NO, this analyst is clearly ignorance of technology, AMD chips would far better, but still lets not for get that the velocity engine is 128 bit besides, apple shouldn't try to focus on average consumers' market who doesn't appreciate the power of macs but just for their industrial design, perhaps that may change when there are more and better games for osX
I've worked in a few industries (biotech, software, investments) that are infested with “analysts”. Whatever their particular persuasion, the characteristics they tend to share are the tendency to be at best marginally knowledgable with regard to their subject, susceptibility to the simplest PR manipulations, and affliction with a herd mentality. So who cares what some fool of an analyst thinks? You might as well ask a hardware engineer in San Jose for information on the Latvian economy—after all, it's thousands of miles away and filled with things about which he or she knows very little. Does anyone see a parallel here?
We in the auto industry knows it all the time when a good engineering project got canned because the accountants, Apple is not apple because they make PCs in the cheapest, most efficient way possible, if the market is really like that we'd be all driving toyotas.
Mac people always say that PC people are not openminded. Most of the time, I believe it is true but Mac people can be quite stubborn sometime. Just the mention of Wintel, causes a lot of emotional stress upon mac users as noted in the above reactions to Andrew Neff's suggestions.
The fact that the world is dominated by PC users, is just that , a fact. For Apple to gain inroad into this market they must be openminded. Mac OS is definitely superior and the only way to prove it is to let them try it out on their PC's. Porting OSX onto PC's will effectively open new markets for Apple.
Apple is both a software and hardware company that unfortunately makes their money from only hardware. In a competitive hardware market, Apple is finding it difficult to make money. While other companies are making a killing on software, Apple is giving their prized software for free to entice hardware sales. For example, iMovie and iTunes.This should not be the case.
Porting OSX to PC's, Apple can bring their greatness onto the mass and prove to them that Apple is better. Let them run MacOS and Windows side by side and let people choose which is the better OS. If Apple is truly better, Microsoft will become Microsarus. In the long run Apple can sell their OS at a profit. It is all visionary but how can Apple make enough money in the short term to compete?
In order to run MacOS, a Mac Rom is required. It has always been the case. If PC users wishes to run Mac OS they must purchase a Mac Rom (from the apple store) on a PCI card and purchase the Mac OS. Sell these items at a premium. Make a 200% margin. Someone will buy them. Meanwhile, Apple will manufacture their sleek line of PC chip based machines. By using PC chips, Apple will no longer have to waste resources on the Mhz war and concentrate on designing innovative, useful, beautiful and inexpensive machines. Apple will have propritary use of their designs and technologies. Other PC manufacturers can no longer copy Apple's ideas and market it as their own since they are now on the same platform.
Steve Job at MWSF showed how much faster the 733Mhz PPC was compared with 1.5Ghz Pentium III. Imagine how much more impressive it would be if he could show how much faster Mac OSX is compared with Windows 2000 on a 1.5Ghz Pentium III. Beat them at their own game. That's the ticket.
Mac OS X on power-hungry and noisy Pentiums? Not a chance! Remember the snail-Pentium vs. PowerPC TV ads and how Apple clones have almost killed Apple? Apple should not abandon the PowerPC hardware as proposed by this short-sighted analyst! Also, have we seen dual-chip Wintel machines in stores to date?
Why kill Apple's hardware division and drive Apple further into the ground? The problem lies in Motorola chip manufacturing and its architectural design differences from IBM. If Motorola cannot keep up with Apple's demands, Apple should threaten Motorola by turning to IBM and get IBM to come up with higher speed chips and develop Alti-Vec alternative for high-speed graphics support.
Why would Apple put Intel chips in their computers or allow their next generation operating system to run on Intel based machines? Intel has already dug itself a nice little hole what with the release of the crippled (at best) Pentium 4 processor. I think they're the ones who need to reevaluate their situation. Motorolla has it's problems right now, but I think they'll clear up in the near future. Intel on the other hand has set themselves back a bit with the failure of the P4. Windows isn't due for another major revision for a little while yet. The WORST thing Apple can do right now is give people a reason to buy a PC when there really isn't much reason to buy one at all. So give PC users a reason to switch over to the mac platform instead.
Somebody said:
"...by Apple porting OS X to x86, it will level the playing field. ANALylist will actually be able to use it and see how supior it is compared to windows and then buy Apple confindently. windows users will flock in hurds to OS X...."
Maybe there's something there: Apple's played with porting to IA in the past, but for obvious reasons never went through with it. They could compromise by creating a simplified OSX for PC's, and releasing it as FREEWARE. People could install it on their PC's without cost, but if they wanted full functionality (and to get rid of those annoying extra dialog boxes), they'd have to move to a genuine Mac.
Somebody else said:
"The solution is to eliminate the Mhz Myth. Or even use consumer ignorance to Apple's benefit. The best way that I have heard to accomplish this is for Apple to stop endorsing Mhz as a measuring stick. Apple should brand their new machines based on something like the Gigaflop (Gfps)...
I COMPLETELY agree and have long wished that Apple would abandon public references to clock speed and use Gigaflops instead. Turn a perceived disadvantage into a real -and- perceived advantage.
Still another:
"...i personally vouch for option # 2 -- i want Apple to rule the world...."
Then Apple could turn out junk and everyone would be stuck with it. I'd rather have Apple be #2 and make higher quality stuff that discriminating shoppers could choose.
And the winner:
"...I'm bettin that this guy [...] might have heard that X surplasses Winblows 2000 in every way, he pathetically has to simmer the guilt of buying an Wintel box and hope for a better OS on his cheap machine."
Sounds like the most reasonable explanation to me ;o)
BradHAWK
I also agree that Apple should stop allowing themselves to fall victom to the Mhz myth. Right now, they could be selling high end machines based on gigaflops and on the other end of the spectrum, increase the clock speeds that the G3 based machines are running at. I know IBM has supposedly been making faster G3's for awhile, but hasn't been able to do anything with them since Motorolla has been stuck around 500 Mhz with the G4's. The PowerPC processor is a supperior chip to the x86. PC users need to realize this. Mac users shouldn't have to bow down to a more widely used yet inferior processor just because general perception of a "powerful" computer is not on their side.
OSX is a graphically enhanced UNIX. UNIX will run on a PC and so will OSX. OSX is the future of computing, forget Window 2000. If Apple plays its cards right OSX has the potential of being the defacto OS for servers everywhere and eventually on all PC's. The PC market will consoldate and it is only a matter of when. If Apple keeps its head in the sand, they will not survive. Seriously, can anyone see Apple being bigger than Microsoft anytime in the future. If Apple cannot change this picture, it will not survive. Apple need to make some bold changes.
Apple always has better software, evening the CPU field would be very enticing to the public.
Apple always has better software, evening the CPU field would be very enticing to the public.
I'm tired of people coming up to me while using my 2000 G3 PB and asking whether I have Window 2000. We all drive cars and all cars run on gasoline. Not all cars are the same. When we see a Porche, we don't ask its owner whether it runs on Gasoline. We simpily admire it and drool. This is what I expect when I take my state of the art PB out of its case. This is why I think Apple should port Mac OS to PC's. People will have a better appreciation and understanding of the MacOS religion. When they see my G4 PB, they will ask "how much?, I want one".
That was a good point, releasing a "semi-osx" on intel/amd boxes.
It could be a basic version of the OS without most of the graphical flare, and if it were free Im sure there would be a vast number of people trying the os out. Then if they really liked it, making the move to a real Mac with the full blown OSX wouldnt be nearly as daunting.
I definetly think the worst thing Apple could do is stop producing the hardware, what would all us multimedia folks do being forced to work on crappy x86 machines?
The way to make OSX the king it deserves to be, is by getting it out to the masses so they can see for themselves how incredible it is compared to the Windows there used to.
hahah what a t***
The idea of Apple porting Mac OS X to x86 machines is controversial. Many think that the statement was ignorant and stupid. Others think it isn't such a bad idea. The truth is that it's both. If Apple were to release a PC version of OS X anytime soon, it would be an extremely bad idea. Windows, despite being an inferior operating system, would destroy it in the x86 market due to the fact that it's already established and has a huge library of programs out there for it. And even worse yet, people who like the Mac experience but don't have a lot of cash would probably buy a cheaper intel machine running OS X instead of an actual Mac. That's a very bad thing. If Apple is going to give the PC market it's operating system, they have to be very cautious. But if Apple were to pull it off successfully it would be a huge victory for everyone involved. The key is the anti-trust case against Microsoft. If Microsoft is broken into separate companies, one developing programs, another working on the operating system, it would give Apple a chance. If they were to make a deal with the programs branch of Microsoft and get them to develop a large line of native applications to run on OS X then there might be some hope of stealing some market share in the PC world. I could see Bill Gates stabbing his former operating system in the back in favor of a more advanced one. With support from Microsoft (sans Windows) Mac OS X could become the next big thing. And with money rolling in from sales of the OS, Apple could still continue to make Macs, which would probably still be in high damand amounst many in the graphics and publishing feilds. But this is all a huge "what if..." scenerio. For now, Mac OS X should be just as it's title suggests... an operating system for the Macintosh. We'll see what happens in the months and years after the 24th of march...
I regularly run apps of the same make on both Mac (G4 450Mhz) and PC (P3 6hundred and something Mhz), particularly PhotoShop. I have found that whilst waiting for the PC to complete a complex filter I can make toast from the excessive heat output, thus saving me time by multitasking my break with my work!! Also the beige does not show up the bread crumbs! Analyst=Plonka ( UK parlance for idiot)
"Why abandon the PowerPC? It's more powerful and cheaper."
damm man i dunno what the prices of macs are like in your neck of the woods but they're usually 2-3x the price of your run of the mill x86 stuff here. so i dunno where you get this cheap part from but its much faster :) speed yum...... i think i will stay with the cheap stuff (amd) for the time being unless i win lotto :(
The so-called analyst is really not a teky. OS X is not just Unix based fruity OS. It also is something that is designed to benefit from Altivec and multi Altivec structure. Furthermore, it is the only OS that can fully benefit from multi PowerPC processor system. Making this marvellous thing to Wintel is just going to make one good looking OS that you can't do anything with... That really sucks.
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker
iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...
Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover
One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...
Logitech UE Air Speaker
If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Joined:
Abandon Intel
Why abandon the PowerPC? It's more powerful and cheaper. The abswer to the PC slowdown is reducing the price of powerfrl machines ang increase the bandwidth of Internet access.