What is Digg?77 Comments
- cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Apple will fight tooth and nail to keep control of the machines that
are released with Mac OS X. Thier business model on the Mac depends
on them being the sole supplier of the platform. The last time they
tried opening the field, they lost more Mac owners to the Mac-clones
than they gained from platform crossover. And that was before the
return of Jobs as CEO IIRC, which means that Jobs will be very resistant
to the idea in the first place.
Apple cannot open sourse OS X for the same reasons that you think OS X
is so cool. The proprietary multi-media applications that are tied to
corporate licensees that are not going to give up their revenue stream.
Bill Gates is a businessman, your personal dislike of him and his company
will not change what they have already accomplished, or what they are and
will be known for in the future.
Steve Jobs is a businessman, your hero-worship of him and his company will
not change what they have already accomplished, what decisions they make from those accomplishments and failures, or what they are and
will be known for in the future. - DevilsRejection, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3regarding the whole amd vs intel thing you people are so thick headed it ***** bothers me.
intel sells platforms, they sell motherboards, network cards, and processors that create a platform. amd, while superior, only sells processors, meaning they would have to go to another third party for chipsets, like ati or nvidia or sis or via or uli or whatever else is out there. this brings in added cost and added dependence of party C.
when a relationship is establiahed firmly between apple and intel the only think that they need from third parties are accessories like video cards or other things like that.
intel sells platforms, amd doesn't. end of story.
and don't you dare call me a fanboy, i love my athlon 64 x2 for desktop use, and my intel centrino thinkpad for school. - tadelste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3cquinnd: The world has changed since that time. Those were a different class of Macs, a different OS, different demographics and commodity computers didn't exist. This is Apple going into the commodity world of Intel. This is adoption in the developing world where the potential users are 50 times the current user base. This is where Intel works with governments to assist their citizens purchase computers.
Do use the past to justify a strategy that hurt Apple when they were making lousy products. - helios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For the Life Of Me...I have thought about this for over a year, yet I could not verbalize it with near the surgical precision that Tom has exhibited. Given a perfect world where Steve Jobs understood this to be advantageous and profitable, three things would happen inside of 18 months. Microsoft would go into absolute panic mode. The huge drawbridges at Castle Redmond would be drawn up, archers would line the buttresses and the cauldrons would be set ablaze to repel all attackers.
The computing world would come to a momentary stand-still while we got our bearings and contemplated the impact this move had on us individually and within the enterprise.
Civil courts at all levels on every continent would be backlogged with suits and counter-suits. Novell and RedHat would go into secret meetings for days at a time.
But in the end, if the operating system is not open sourced, it would settle again into business as usual...we would simply have a different Market Leader. Bill and Melinda could quietly retire to the Continent and all of us could begin to Think Different.
helios - captainDig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Garbage. The article is total garbage. He seems to be advocating that Apple should open-source OSX, sell two versions of OSX, sell Aqua for Linux, and sell a media player for Linux.
It's a very mixed message being put across here, and for the most part seems to be one that says Apple should become like Microsoft: "Make OEM deals that force the existing PC vendors to pay top prices for OS X".
Garbage. Absolute garbage. This guy has no idea what he is talking about. - tolbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"tadelste is a dumb ass mac fanboy. Intel < AMD
Apple sux and can't innovate worth *****."
Wow, someone really hasn't done their research.
Anyways, I think the path that Apple is taking right now is best for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple, trying to convince you that they are a hardware company, continues increasing it's market share by providing computers that allow the user to boot into either operating system or both at the same time. Microsoft, meanwhile, finds themselves unthreatened as there really isn't much to lose (in the short term) from allowing the Windows OS to run on a Mac machine.
I could be wrong though. - tolbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"regarding the whole amd vs intel thing you people are so thick headed it ***** bothers me.
intel sells platforms, they sell motherboards, network cards, and processors that create a platform. amd, while superior, only sells processors, meaning they would have to go to another third party for chipsets, like ati or nvidia or sis or via or uli or whatever else is out there. this brings in added cost and added dependence of party C.
when a relationship is establiahed firmly between apple and intel the only think that they need from third parties are accessories like video cards or other things like that.
intel sells platforms, amd doesn't. end of story."
100% agree. I have an athlon 64 in my PC, but I still think moving to Intel was the right move. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It won't happen, they are always going to keep the OS closed-source and on their own hardware. But they could become a very large hardware producer if Windows is capable of being dual-booted on a mac.
- Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Digg News: Spelculation and Fanboyism.
- mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is hilarious. Whenever there is a story about Linux or Apple, Microsoft zealots mostly consists of teenage boys anxious to go stand in line to buy an XBOX 360, come out of the woodwork to make childish nonsensical comments completely unrelated to their interests.
As much as I think Apple is probably the last company that still innovates, they are still a corporate entity which means they are out to make money. The idea of Apple open sourcing Mac OS X is a pipe dream. However I do believe that they can still make a big dent in Microsoft's soft underbelly by licensing Mac OS X to OEMs like Dell and Gateway. This isn't going to happen anytime soon but eventually they will. Also they don't have to port OpenOffice because they're already working on their own office suite. What Apple has to do is to use their strengths. Apple pretty much owns the downloadable music market which means they can leverage that to put some pressure on various other markets as well as be a stepping stone to other markets as I can clearly see from seeing video iPod. What they will do is to use that iPod halo if you will to slowly grow their other businesses. I do see Apple using open source here and there when they see it as their advantage. They are doing that with browser and gcc. Having said that I don't think Apple really gets open source. The recent rejection of their offer to $100 laptop project may open some eyes within Apple but I really doubt it.
What open source community can do at this point is couple things. Learn from Apple. Look at their product and see what Apple does. It doesn't mean copying Apple's stuff to the pixel. It means learn the aesthetics and elegance in Apple's implementation and then do it even better. Clearly Apple understands the desktop market better than anyone. Gnome and KDE folks should take a look at Mac OS X, dissect it, learn from it and then get to work. Just look at Konqueror and Finder side by side and the answer is obviously staring right at your face. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"all the excitement is about OS X causes people to forget that basically its free with the hardware. that is traditionally the way its been too. except you couldn't buy a copy cause it was free. what will do microsoft in is when intel builds a CPU that Windows can't use because its... well, to advanced. then OS X and probably Linux will be running on it. I expect thats why the sudden reminder that they have that other complete rewrite going. unfocused. can't get vista out... working on that new OS... looks bad."
OMG, learn to write english you moron. - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't know if most of the would could afford a 200.00 upgrade every 6 months for an OS that is so-so.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"OH, writing a counter article takes talent and original thought....never mind."
And a complete waste of time. - leviathan3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm unsure whether this would be a good move for OS X. The fact that it is targeted towards such a limited hardware set is likely part of the reason why it's so good. It allows them to optimize for this hardware and not suffer the problems of supporting all the hardware out there that windows currently has to. OS X doesn't slow down with each release, while Windows does. Could they keep that if they had to support the same hardware as windows?
- helios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How did this make it to the Digg front page?.....
By presenting a new and interesting idea into the community. It is obvious that you are uncomfortable with that. The author is presenting a simple idea, my suggestion for those who must resort to name-calling and foul language is simple: Write a counter-article. And while some of you seem upset that this was self-submitted, consider the fact that authors and musicians constantly set up publishing companies to produce their work...if all you can do is slash and burn, please return to slashdot...it was created just for you.
OH, writing a counter article takes talent and original thought....never mind. - tadelste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0leviathan3k: That's an excellent observation. The developer's version runs on Intel 915 chip set. One could easily limit it. If OEm's bundle it, they will maximize performance themselves.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Um, math_genius, y2k affected AMD-based systems, too."
Are you retarded? AMD is a x86 clone so of course it's affected by Y2K bug. But since AMD wasn't the ones deigned the x86 architecture, It wasn't AMD's fault. Intel designed the x86 architecture, thus y2k bug was Intel's fault.
"As for why Apple went with Intel, I believe anybody that's been following this shift knows why - AMD couldn't possibly keep up with demand. Not to say that I disagree that desktop AMD processors have the edge, but that's not the point"
Doesn't matter, the fact is, OSX will be running on ***** Intel processors. - staticten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yes, in 10 years!!! C'mon!
who's using Mac OS X in China??
I love how people above are ja&3!ng off to this $h!t! - twid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple basically makes money today on hardware, accessories, and extended service contracts, both iPods and macs. A switch to a software or services based model would be a huge change for them, and big companies generally can't change their whole entire business model easily.
So, I don't see this coming, at least not quickly. Maybe with the release after 10.5, and even then I would see Apple authorizing certain hardware makers, such as Dell, rather than selling a box of OSX for generic PC's.
Also, it's important to note that Apple was burned badly by the clone Apple market back in the 90's, and Steve Jobs was the one that killed the program. So, I don't see a return to it because the Apple corporate culture has opposed it in the past.
Just buy a mac if you want OS X. If you don't, buy something else. What's the big deal? - muya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0more open source *****. not saying open source is bad but the zealots are whack.
- dotpage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would not be surprised if in Q2 2006 Dell anounced OSX PCs. I'd buy one, 500 bucks and the BEST OS? if you say you would not, you would be lying to youself, not to the rest of us..
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@tolbs - wait until this story hits /.
(sorry, had to say it) - DevilsRejection, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think once the first retail version of OSX for x86 gets released, and hacked, and Steve has seen the demand, then maybe, just maybe, he might consider selling it unbundled.
Until then, he is raping consumers with the prices he charges for hardware, and is enjoying it. - manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Um, math_genius, y2k affected AMD-based systems, too. As for why Apple went with Intel, I believe anybody that's been following this shift knows why - AMD couldn't possibly keep up with demand. Not to say that I disagree that desktop AMD processors have the edge, but that's not the point.
- toasty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why should OS X be available in "home" and "pro" editions? Isn't the beauty of OS X the fact that the OS your mom uses to browse the web is the same OS that is used to make make movies, crunch numbers and what-not?
- StanrickKubley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0manfesto, I hear you. Obviously, a certain percentage of the population always owns a Mercedes or a Mac (I think they are the same people). However, the percentage will stay small, which I guess is my point, so Mac world domination is not going to happen any time soon.
Even if Apple offered a Mac that competed pricewise, it would still be an unwise assumption that the world would switch to Mac. I don't, however, think Mac zealouts or anti-PC people have considered this. There's allot of rhetorical pipedreaming going on.
I do appreciate your comments, though. No hate here. - helios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And a complete waste of time.....
LOL, thank you for making my point for me. It is easy to slam and degrade a person for his ideas in two lines or less. Much more difficult to present counter ideas in an insightful and logicial manner. - alas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It would be nice if Mac OS X could get more share on the Desktop PC market. But I'm afraid that the real reason that Apple moves on the Intel processor is to get into trusted computing (http://www.intel.com/intelpress/sum_secc.htm).
- tolbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You submitted an article you wrote? Kind of self-promotion, but doesn't do us any harm.
- StanrickKubley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is this, an article or a blog post? This writing is nothing but bad assumptions and wishful thinking.
From the article:
"With Microsoft Vista borrowing heavily from the OS X look and feel, why wouldn't someone want the original?"
Mac zealots cannot understand that many consumers do not use a company's propaganda to make their buying choices. In other words, just because Apple says they're the only innovators doesn't make it so. And even if it were true, most people don't care. I don't care if Ford invented the car; I care about what company will give me the most car for the least money. Apple, if you believe their stuff is superior, are more like BMW. Sure, they are good, but then they should be, because their stuff is expensive as hell. They're not doing me any favors.
"Mac users have as much devotion to their computers as Linux users. Not much separates the two communities. You cannot say the same for Microsoft."
And yet, here we are. Lots of users, myself included (and I'm considered geeky by my friends) are not "devoted" to their computers. My computers are machines. I don't love them, and I don't have brand loyalty. I run a new Mac for video editing because of FCP, but the Mac is a supplemental machine. They're too expensive.
"Last week's rejection of Steve Job's offer to provide China with software for the MIT Children's Notebook should have opened Steve's eyes. Even with the superior interface and the special applications, China chose to stay with Linux. It makes one wonder why Steve won't ride the horse in the direction it's going."
There's no wondering going on here. Stop thinking of Apple and/or Steve Jobs as pillars of virtue. I'll tell you the reason Apple isn't going open source and why they will always sell their expensive hardware: profits.
And I am not a Windows zealout (is there such a thing?). I'm typing in Tiger. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i agree choice is good... but i would like OS X to gain market share, no kill microsoft.. we want fair competition.. right now it's unfair
- tazmania, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not until they crack the enterprise market.
Until they can compete with Microsoft Office, and Outlook/Exchange (and I mean bundled with all the enterprise tools). The Fortune 500 like bundles, and support tools (IBM Director & LanDesk to name a few). - HanSolo69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This just in, Linux News reports: No Linux news to report
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"intel sells platforms, they sell motherboards, network cards, and processors that create a platform. amd, while superior, only sells processors, meaning they would have to go to another third party for chipsets, like ati or nvidia or sis or via or uli or whatever else is out there. this brings in added cost and added dependence of party C."
Or Apple could manufacture everything else themselves, since the CPU is the only reason for Apple to suck up to Intel. Intel doesn't make any decent gfx chips anyway. - manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And, um, OS X is based on neXTstep (from Jobs's old company, o course), so to call it a ripoff is a bit of a stretch.
As for AMD supply, I think that devilsrejection is spot on - intel has much more to offer than just processors. They have a chipset and platform - look at the dev boxes. Not to mention that Apple apparently has first dibs on the dual-and single core Yonah processors come next year. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a pretty big bargaining chip in securing their deal with Apple. - manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Microsoft gave $150 million to Apple in a symbolic action of saying essentially "we don't fear you in the marketplace and will therefore continue to make Office for Mac." I'd think that even if Mac were to obtain dominant market share, it'd take a number of years to do so if for no other reason than the amount of legacy hardware and software that people still turn on and use everyday, and then Apple would become the new evil empire that has to be taken down to preserve the free market. In that transitional period, however, would be true marketplace competition, and I'm sure that's when the greatest innovations in software and hardware would take place.
But that's just a pipe dream, of course. - glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0also about AMD not being able to keep up with demand that has to be the craziest and dumbest thing I have ever heard. Yes I read that in articles like everyone else but let's think about this AMD provides cpu's for a lot of manufacturers for x86 computer do you seriously think Apple out sells all of those manufacturers or even one of them with their high price? Apple is and has always purposely kept their supply low because the demand has always been low compared to x86 because of the price and for them to say AMD would not be able to keep with the demand that is a bunch of BS.
- glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0also to comment on the Aqua wave dock thingy, *cough* NeXTstep
everyone rips something off from someone else, no idea is completely original. - celeb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I Completely agree - nice digg
- glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess we should also remember microsoft from what I hear gave money to Apple in the past, maybe they still have something going on. For they both know one cannot exist without the other without the entire world crying monoply.
- tacroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The job of windows : They have to make a stable platform that can run millions of possibly unstable applications on millions of different and changing hardware platforms.
The job of mac : They have to make hundreds of possibly unstable applications work on ten's of (mostly) static hardware platforms.
Once mac-tel start to have any fraction of the hardware support that windows has then it could have a chance at taking the pc world over.
Personally I would love to have it happen, competition is good. However windows big downfall (i believe) is the complexity of the job at hand. Which inherently creates the chance of failure. - vonskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And monkeys could fly out of my butt. Both are very (VERY) unlikely to happen. Has anyone that's not a Mac Fanboy actually used OSX? It's a dog (and that's on the latest G5 with a Gig of RAM). Between the quirky interface, the slowness, and the choice of A or B for most software packages it will NEVER be a serious threat to Microsoft. Linux has a way (WAY) better shot at doing some serious market share snarfing.
- Trepan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0for Mac OSX to be bigger than Windows, they'd have to act like Microsoft. Now since a lot of you guys bitch about how anti-trust MS is, how would you feel if Apple acted the same way? Would it be OK as long as they beat out Apple? Because at one point Apple was much huger than MS too.
- glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0just reading the first few sentences will tell you how dumb this guy is...... for someone that uses linux you are a freakin idiot. No digg.
Reasons 1 he acts like the world will forget all about Bill Gates if Steve does A B and C
Second says OS X is more stable and secure.....well that is damn right and why shouldn't it be captain obvious when they sell specific hardware with an OS built specificly for it. Stupid people dont give the respect smart people deserve, why because stupid people don't know how stupid they are compared to how smart other people are. I've seen more OS X crashes btw than I have XP crashes, despite virus's and spyware(which normally only slows down the computer not freeze it up entirely). I guess I should say secure...yea ok but stable? Just as stable as XP if not less so and it is a marvelous feit for microsoft considering all the hardware configurations out there. - Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@kodak543 - you hit it on the money. And that's why Apple will lose again.
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0math_Genius is a troll - please don't feed him.
And devilsrejection I think hit the nail on the head - Intel is an entire integrated platform that seems to work well with OS X. - Catch_ME, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why so many MAC Fanboys here?
1st. As long as apple stays stupid and not release there OS into the wild they wont have a chance.
2nd, Windows has 99% of the software for the PC. It wont dominate windows so easilly. - HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Parts of OSX are open-sourced, just not the trade secrets... duh. Otherwise MS would use their methods in Windows.
- Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your comment holds no weight when you say a fanboy thing like Apple is the only company in the world that innovates. Pathetic.
- kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I disagree, as long as apple locks in their hardware, microsoft will always be ahead. Choice is good.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is