New Imacs are out...

[Diesel]

Click it.

[chillzatl]

nothing innovative there, just your run of the mill iMac with an intel proc. Same goes for the new notebook. Funny thing is though, you can install windows on both of them with no problems. Microsoft has to be loving that. It also won't be long before someone hacks the new intel version of osx to run on anything. Overall a bad move for Apple. But one they had to make.

[Diesel]

I don't think it's possible.

I mean, isn't OSX Unix based?? It can already be run using Linux...

I just think that when you consider that you can partition your system to run Windows and OSX You have something interesting. Plus it's fast. Superfast. However, after a while, Processor speed won't mean much unless you're working with cows..

[chillzatl]

yes, osx is unix based. But the version they are putting out for the intellimacs is written to look for a special code in those intel cpus, otherwise it won't run. Granted, you can install Linux on anything as it is. But Linux is a long way off from offering the easy of use, software and integration that Apple puts into their software. That's what makes OsX on any hardware such an attractive thing.

Now if it's a hack, it doesn't make much of a difference. Because most people who would take advantage of it, aren't going to actually buy OsX anyway. If the day came that apple actually supported such a thing (their best move, but one that will never happen), it would probably sell like hotcakes and all the linux distros out there would be crapping their pants.

[Diesel]

Found this on a website:

Quote:

---

Will the Mac OS be installable on any PC with an Intel chip? I doubt it, but it will be easier to hack such a solution, even though Apple, Intel, and Microsoft will try to dissuade you. Eventually, Windows and the Mac OS will have just about the same features, and it will not matter which one you use.

What will matter is the next few years. As a potential customer looks at the market, will he or she wait for the "new Apples"? Will the small independent developers create software for both the IBM and Intel platforms? If so, for how long? Will Apple's sales dive in the short term? Will people/customers not upgrade to Windows Longhorn because they want to try Apple's OS on their Intel machine? And finally, will firms like Dell offer the Windows OS as well as the Mac's OS?

A lot of decisions, and there are no realistic, concrete answers. And a mistake or two will mean a lot of confusion ... and a lot of corporate losses.

---

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Apple+Intel:Mac 924 Vs Microsoft Gremlin & Linux Mini-van

Submitted by NZheretic on Tue, 06/07/2005 - 19:07.

Apple on Intel is like the original Porsche 924. Either it's a very bad marketing decision or a precursor to a play for a much larger chunk of the mainstream market...

A long established sports car company Porsche, like Apple, use their unique design and reputation for performance and quality to set itself apart from other players in the same market.

In 1976 Porsche released the Porsche 924 as an entry level introduction for new customers to the Porsche brand. The 924 may have been designed by Porsche, but it also had the same engine as models of the AMC Gremlin and Volkswagen Mini-van, and was built by Audi ( at that time a division of Volkswagen ). In comparison to other similarly priced sports cars of the day, the engine failed to deliver the expected performance, even with the addition of a turbo in 1979.

Problems with the early model 924s really damaged the reputation of Porsche and most Porsche enthusiasts shunned it for the earlier model 911 series. Despite the loss of reputation, Porsche stuck with the 924 series for a few years. Sales were not as good as the 911 series and outsourcing the manufacturing turned out to be less cost effective than expected.

Because IBM failed to deliver the next generation of Power CPUs, Apple is need of a new engine. Intel and AMD can provide one, but Apple does not have enough market share for either to manufacture custom CPUs or a new proprietary bus architecture. That leaves moving MacOS/X to the same ia64 or x86 processors which are also used in the Microsoft Gremlin and Linux Mini-van. The latter two OSs are quite capable of providing very comparable desktop experience to MacOS/X well within the next two years.

There is not much Apple can do on the other side of processors bus which is going to deliver enough performance to set it apart from a new Laptop or PC from Dell, Lenovo, HP or any whitebox OEM. Apple style flashy external bodywork is being adopted by those same vendors. The inevitable comparisons will result in damage to the public's perception of Apple's uniqueness.

This leaves Apple with a choice. Either continue to remain the sole supplier of hardware for MacOS/X and loose a large chunk of the desktop market share OR choose to directly compete with Microsoft and let Dell, Lenovo and HP sell Apple designed/approved "built for MacOS/X" laptops and PCs. The OEMs would love to have Apple and Microsoft competing to sell on the OEMs own hardware.

In my opinion if Apple does not choose the latter option, then it's only because of very bad decisions by Apple's management or Sherman Act violating non-compete agreements with Microsoft.

---

[chillzatl]

yah the only way it will happen is if Apple decides to get out of the hardware business. They make a LOT of money off of hardware. Macs have typically been 50% more expensive or so and usually for an overall less powerful system. They're not making that much money on the new Intel macs, simply because they can't. But they are still putting a $200-$500 premium, plus add-on stuff. I don't see them walking away from that any time soon.

[Diesel]

Moneywise...

In the Hardware field... The ipod, imac, and the mac minis are making a killing. I think what Mac sees is an opportunity to put a Unix based OS on the market that will be more user friendly than Liniux and more innovative than Windows. They will basically put Linux out of business and they will make the competition between them and Microsoft REAL.

The Windows people have to be worried because Mac always leads the way in innovations. If the Mac OS gets to go heads up with Microsoft on the same cheap hardware platform, it makes for interesting competition.

[chillzatl]

yah it's interseting in theory. but it just won't happen.

On the computer front, Apple has never been more innovative than your average PC. Simply because they insulate themselves in the market. They make cooler packaging than your average PC. But that's not innovation. That's pretty much the same for all of their products too, ipods included. But I digress. Their mantra has always been one of "ease of use" and "it just works". That's what they've used for years to try and lure users away from Windows. The reason they've been able to say that is not becuase their software is better or more innovative. It's because they only have a very limited set of software and hardware that they have to worry about being compatible with. For windows, Microsoft has to contend with thousands of different possible hardware configurations. Apple has never had to deal with that. They control the hardware and for the most part, the software. When you control all aspects of your product, you don't have to worry about a poorly written driver for a $20 video card breaking the stability of your system.

If they were to allow OsX to be installed on any hardware, they would have to go from only having to support a very limited set of hardware to having to support virtually unlimited combinations of hardware. That would pretty much put an end to the marketing slogans that they've used for the last decade. They would open themselves up to the same problems that Microsoft has been dealing with for years.

[Diesel]

The ipod is not innovative?

Who do you think Microsoft stole the windows design from? It was Steve Jobs. Trying reading any interview with Steve Wozniak and Steve Ballmer. Or better yet watch Pirates of Silicon Valley.

As far as newer innovations, what do you OSX is? Who do you think made the first diskless computer? Who do you think perfected the all in one system? The only thing that PC have is game playing ability and they've had a lock on the software industry... However, these newer game consoles make playing games on a PC seem like such of waste...

Where I agree with you is that by opening up, they would kill one thing that they have.... the ability to say that we're different. However, they would still be different because they can still sell the hardware but now, they will make the software more mainstream.

Interestingly enough, it's possible that they could outsell Microsoft.

Just look at how well the Imac sold?? People like that ease of use and stability. Not everybody is a PC-Tech or a programmer. So for the average Joe, to be able to get the easiest to use OS in the cheapest hardware.. I think it will cause Apple to be bigger in software than Dell is to Computers.

BTW... I have both Dells and Macs. My first Mac I bought in 1993. It has never crashed. The last mac I bought a friend showed my how to partition the system and to put Windows on it. It's amazing to be able to use Windows or Mac OSX. The latest installation of OSX makes it possible to find ANYTHING on the system or the network with a simple search term.

AND Nobody is writing viruses for Macs.

It's possible if I wanted to to make my Mac into a wireless home entertainment system where I can listen to radio, watch TV, Burn CDs, DVDs, make Movies, and be on the internet on Hawksquawk

all at the same time. I'm sure somehow, you can do the same with a PC, but how easy is it?

[chillzatl]

uh no, it's not. before we get started. I work in the industry and have for 15 years now. It is my job to know, sell, design and implement the latest IT and computer technology. I am well versed in its history.

No, the ipod is not innovative. Apple didn't make the first Mp3 player on the market. They just took what was there and packaged it better than everyone else. You may choose to call that innovative. But I do not. That is what apple has always done. The ipod is no different. Beyond being in a cooler package and having the control wheel (innovation or being first with the obvious?), the Ipod offered nothing more than the products that came before it.

Microsoft DID NOT get windows from Apple. It came from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox Star from Parc. Jobs saw it and copied it himself.

OsX is linux. Specifically, FreeBSD modified by apple to fit their business model.

Gaming is a matter of preference. The games I play on my PC still look better than anything you can get on an xbox 360 and have looked that good for several years now.

The all-in-one system? I assume you mean the Imac? Again, that's packaging. Compaq was selling all in one systems before Apple. They just didn't have the hype that apple garnered with their garishly colored, underpowered, overpriced imacs.

Apple, specifically Osx, will never outsell windows. Not in the home and more specifically, not in the business. Apple is easily 10 years behind the times on offering the things that large scale businesses need. I'm not going to argue about it. I will just say that it is my business to know these things. It's not speculation or assumption.

The imac sold yes. but you also have to look at how it sold. The majority of the imacs sales were to existing apple users. That is where the majority of apple sales have come from, on the computer front, for years now. The g4, the g5, the imac, the mini.. they are good at retaining their customers. But they aren't causing a mass exodus from windows.

I won't get into the dicussion about macs being easier to use. That day passed years ago. They are different. But they are no more easy to use than a new windows xp computer. I would also argue that they are only moderatly more stable and this stems directly from the tight controls apple puts on the hardware and the lack of software.

There have been virii written for macs in recent years. But Virii are written for impact. Why spend the time writing a virus and taking the risk of getting caught, when you're maximum potential impact is 4% of the market?

and i'm sorry, but you could not "easily" take your mac system and turn it into a media center system. Microsoft has been making Xp media center for a few years now and it works great. Apple is just now releaseing it's media center front end. While there are freely available media center front ends for the mac (and other linux systems) calling them easy, even for experienced users, is laughable. But unless you use XP MCE, the same goes for windows as well. It was easy for me, because it is what I do and have done for many years.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Microsoft DID NOT get windows from Apple. It came from Xerox. Specifically, Xerox Star from Parc. Jobs saw it and copied it himself.

---

It is funny how the people who developed the revolutionary software that changed history get so little credit for it.

Did they get any compensation at all from Apple?

Those people must have been sick seeing other people get so rich off their creation.

[chillzatl]

haha no, they pretty much got screwed. But realistically, it's not like they had their code stolen. They had an idea that, while it seemed revolutionary at the time, was just the natural evolution of things. They were just the first ones to do it.

You can bet that they all got rich in their own ways though. Many of them either started their own companies or went to work for one of the other players at the time (IBM,apple,MS, etc).

[exodus]

I really liked Pirates of Silicon Valley, but I have to wonder how true it is since I am not really a history buff.

That big scene at the Imac convention, when Jobs was on stage while his workers were unpacking PC's with the new Windows, did that really go down like that? I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

[chillzatl]

There are varying versions of all of it. At this point I think there are few people who know the truth of it, and that includes Jobs and Gates. At this point even their memories of what happened are tainted by the nastyness of what followed.

the movie takes the most controversial versions of events and runs with it. It also paints Jobs and Gates in the most movie friendly light possible. Which basically makes both of them look like nut jobs and thieves.

[exodus]

LOL nut jobs I would say no. Thieves......that might be a little harsh but big business can get messy when the stakes are so high.

It certainly makes for a good story though.

[chillzatl]

yah, it's definitely interesting stuff. People on the MS side like to call Jobs the thief and people on the Apple side like to to call Gates the thief. The truth is probably more that there is a little thief in both of them.

But again it's hard to call them outright thieves when they're dealing with technology that so many people had access to (xerox star/alto) and dealing with concepts that are the natural evolution of what was there before (gui).

[Diesel]

What about Windows?

Windows is still stolen from what Jobs Stole.. In it's original state...

As far as the ipod...

What about the newer technology coming out with the ipod?

you know; pretty soon the ipod will be able to wipe your butt. That's why it's selling so much. Like you said, there are other mp3 players... However, the Ipod is outselling them all?

What gives?

[exodus]

I can only assume you meant to direct this post to chillz.

I am not a techie by any means.

[chillzatl]

as I said in some of my followups to exodus. it's easy for one side to say that the other stole this or that. I don't really see it that way. GUI's were the natural evolution of the interface. While someone might have came up with the implementation first, it doesn't mean future implementations are stealing. They all had seen what Xerox was working on and they all knew it was the way to go.

The only real newer tech coming out in the ipods will be the video based versions of it, to play videos and such. And again, these are already on the market and have been for some time.

I expect Apples next "new big product" to be an apple created cell phone. Stand-alone Mp3 players are a dead market. Not only is it very over-saturated, nobody wants a phone AND an mp3 player. They will put out a product phone with an mp3 player and a slick apple interface (that will link in with the Mac in a variety of ways). They are going to have their work cut out for them though. Sony-ericsson already has the jump on them with teh w600, w800 and w900 phones and they are phenomenal. It'll be neat to see though.

Apple is a very slick company. They know how to market and package their products. I mean c'mon, I personally wouldn't own an ipod (over other players). But I will not deny that their first batch of commercials were cool as hell. The people dancing in front of the colored backgrounds and such. Very slick, very catchy. While MP3's were second nature to most everyone at that point. most people didn't really think just how cool it could be to carry them around iwth you, anywhere! Apple showed people just how cool it could be and EVERYONE bit on it. Nobody else really tried to do that.

The ipod is only the #1 selling player in THIS country. elsewhere in the world, EVERYWHERE, it is not. I think in most of europe and asia it is like 3rd or 4th best selling.