1984 or Brave New World?

[LVzardoz]

Do you remember Apple's big ad campaign several years ago (from the book 1984) with Apple in the role of the hero breaking the supposed tyranny of big-blue IBM?

Isn't it ironic that so many Mac devotees are now praying for that same IBM to SAVE Apple from oblivion via the rumored adoption of IBM's PPC970 CPU?

If Apple were truly interested in bringing its superiority to the masses and smashing the mediocrity of that other platform, Windows, the path is very clear: bring OS X to x86 (AMD/Intel).

The truth, however, is that Apple is not all that different from IBM or Microsoft. They are not in it for altuism, they are primarily concerned with bottom line profits at the lowest corporate risk.

Apple has the opportunity to bring OS X to the masses and they choose not to simply because they don't need to. They're quite comfortable being the perennial high-margin niche player pandering to those still enamored with Apple's past glory instead of it's potential.

[adambyte]

Well, lest you forget, at the time, IBM was seen as the threat, not Microsoft.

Aside from that, I whole-heartedly agree. And I like Apple right where it is.

[toast]

Apple has the opportunity to bring OS X to the masses and they choose not to simply because they don't need to. They're quite comfortable being the perennial high-margin niche player pandering to those still enamored with Apple's past glory instead of it's potential.

That's a fragile living through the actual market. I don't think Apple loves marginalism so much. I'd rather say some of their attempts to widespread (such as OSX) have failed. OSX is good, but not enough to make Apple OSX gain significant markets such as the DTP industry or home computing (incl. gaming).

On a more conceptual level, I'd thought posting in the Opinions, Reviews & Open Letters implied having an Opinion, a Review or an Open Letter to make public. What's your Opinion ? Any Review ? Is this an Open Letter ?

[LVzardoz]

My opinion is that Apple should release Marklar (OS X for x86) and not be so complacent/elitist with its niche market standing.

My belief, however, is that Apple has become just another corporation that puts "safe profits" ahead of riskier ideals bringing its superior vision to the masses.

Basically, I don't thing Steve Jobs has the balls to compete again with Microsoft. Too risky to his aging ego.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by LVzardoz
My opinion is that Apple should release Marklar (OS X for x86) and not be so complacent/elitist with its niche market standing.

My belief, however, is that Apple has become just another corporation that puts "safe profits" ahead of riskier ideals bringing its superior vision to the masses.

Basically, I don't thing Steve Jobs has the balls to compete again with Microsoft. Too risky to his aging ego.

So then you do not subscribe to the theory that coming out with a beige box version (important distinction between a beige box version and simply an x86 version) of OSX would destroy the market for their own hardware (and thus their primary source of income) and at best leave Apple competing head to head against the biggest gorilla in the jungle and at worst causing Apple to become the next Be (or next NeXT for that matter).

After all, when does "risk" become folly? Balls become brain dead? You want Steve to go toe to toe with Bill, is that a ballsy risky move, or is it just stupid? What are his chances for "success". Is this risk worth losing one entire segment of your business? I think your opinion makes the assumption that doing such a thing actually has a high probability of success, and that many people would not agree.

[LVzardoz]

I guess I have more faith in the quality and utility of OS X more than I do of Apple hardware.

Yes, I would anticipate that Apple's computer hardware sales might take a hit. Actually, that would be a good thing. If would give them plenty of incentive to make Apple more competitive in that area.

There are plenty of religiously loyal Apple fanatics that would be wary of jumping to cheaper generic x86 products, thus ensuring that Apple would keep at least half of its core hardware market intact. If Apple's hardware is as good as many here suggest, Apple should remain the "preferred" hardware for OS X and Apple's designer skills would still be a significant selling point.

The big plus for Apple could be a huge flood of new revenue from x86 OS X and software sales from those who thought about buying a Mac but were put off by inflated costs and underpowered performance.

For those Mac fanatics who blindly insist that "GHz" doesn't matter, OS X could prove whether that is true or not by competing on the same CPU platform. Furthermore, if the forthcoming PPC970/80 CPUs are supposed to so great for OS X then that CPU platform should still be the preferred high-end platform.

By putting OS X out there for the x86, Apple could demonstrate its move to greater openness and away from elitist, overpriced pretentiousness, which is how most non-Apple folks currently view the Mac.

Now that Apple has moved to a highly-respected Unix core with OS X, Apple is given much greater credibility among influential tech-oriented Linux fans. Clearly OS X is a much better user experience for the average person than Linux. If the hardware price came down I have no doubt that many Linux fans would flock to OS X. Linux would likely become a server-only OS.

The move to OS X on x86 would undoubtedly garners tons of free publicity for Apple and a snowballing public awareness from influential favorable technical reviews. Its a big story when Apple's David seriously takes on Goliath Microsoft. If Apple was viewed as a more egalitarian entity, there would be plenty of writers that couldn't wait to take Microsoft down a peg or two.

Considering the increasing wariness of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, I would predict that OS X could grab a 25% share of desktop operating systems within three years of introduction of OS X on x86. That's a lot of cash.

A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.

[toast]

A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.

OSX sounds to me like a risk. It is, in my opinion, bringing as much benefit to Apple (eg: new image) than deficit (eg: disappointed DTP industry).

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by LVzardoz
I guess I have more faith in the quality and utility of OS X more than I do of Apple hardware.

Yes, I would anticipate that Apple's computer hardware sales might take a hit. Actually, that would be a good thing. If would give them plenty of incentive to make Apple more competitive in that area.

Considering that software (that's ALL software, not just OSX) accounts for about 7% of Apple's revenue, I think that saying their hardware sales will take a hit but that is a good thing is way optimistic. A four fold increase in software sales wouldn't come close to matching a halving of hardware sales. Don't you think that Steve learned something with NeXT? Apple can afford to "be innovative" and take chances specifically because their hardware margins give them the comfort to do so. I think you're missing the gestalt here. That and the lessons of NeXT and Be.

There are plenty of religiously loyal Apple fanatics that would be wary of jumping to cheaper generic x86 products, thus ensuring that Apple would keep at least half of its core hardware market intact. If Apple's hardware is as good as many here suggest, Apple should remain the "preferred" hardware for OS X and Apple's designer skills would still be a significant selling point.

Apple would get crushed. Apple with as small a market share it currently has can't afford to lose any appreciable amount, and they without a doubt would. If you can run OSX on a beigebox, why would you risk not likeing the OS and being "stuck" when you could buy the x86 and still have your cake and eat it too?

The big plus for Apple could be a huge flood of new revenue from x86 OS X and software sales from those who thought about buying a Mac but were put off by inflated costs and underpowered performance.

Again, even a quadrupling of revenue wouldn't make up for the drubbing they'd get from lost hardware sales.

...
By putting OS X out there for the x86, Apple could demonstrate its move to greater openness and away from elitist, overpriced pretentiousness, which is how most non-Apple folks currently view the Mac.

Well like seems to me that the "elitest/pretentiousness" is created more from the users themselves and not as much from Apple itself. I don't consider thinking "different" as Apple suggests as elitest. Overpriced, well many do consider Apple stuff "overpriced" while others consider it "you get what you pay for". Unfortunately for Apple, in either case price will always be one of the primary factors in a purchase decision. Apple is small, they can't compete against the Dell's of the world (not want to, can't, big difference), they have to charge more. Being "innovative" to differentiate yourself makes matters that much worse as you have to cover r&d costs as well.

...
A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.

In what regard. Apple continues to take major risks. The move to PPC, the acquisition of NeXT and the move to OSX, ditching adb/nubus/floppies/serial. I don't know what other risks your referring to? Apple does what they've always done (well post Apple II anyway), sell premium well integrated computers. Please explain how they are that much different now, what did they use to do that they are not currently doing?