“At this point, Longhorn seems to be a largely cosmetic upgrade–something that helps you organize your data a bit better, thanks to graphical views, shortcuts, and desktop search aided by behind-the-scenes indexing. And since most of its key features have been or will be made available for Windows XP, Microsoft finds itself in the unenviable position of trying to convince the public that Longhorn, far from being a crucial update or a hotly anticipated new version, even matters at all. Hint: if you have to say it, it’s already too late,” Molly Wood writes for CNET.com.
“Windows is weak. So where’s the alternative? There may never be another moment in time like this: the giant is flagging, and a few well-aimed slingshot missiles could bring it down for good. Now is the time to beat Microsoft,” Wood writes. “I think Apple is the most perfectly poised to strike a killer blow. But it will have to untie the Mac from OS X. Some people want attractive, killer-design, expensive hardware, and that’s why they buy Sony and Apple. Other people–and a heck of a lot more of them–want function-over-form, inexpensive hardware that they can buy, sell, hack, and tweak like any other commodity. They buy Dell, Gateway, and Windows. If those people start buying Tiger, Apple suddenly owns the joint.”
Wood writes, “This scenario is not even remotely out of the realm of possibility. Tiger is based on Unix, for Pete’s sake. There’s no reason it can’t run on Intel-based PCs. Apple’s already using Intel processors in its Xserve RAID storage system. Steve Jobs said in 2003 that it was technically feasible to port OS X–then in Panther stages–to any processor, but as recently as February, Apple chief financial officer Peter Oppenheimer said the company has no plans to switch platforms. It should. People would use OS X if they didn’t have to buy a new computer to get it (heck, by some accounts, Tiger and Longhorn are darn near the same thing). Apple should do the switching for them.”
Full article, highly recommended, here.
MacDailyNews Take: In order to minimize issues, Apple could go halfway and license “Mac OS X for x86” to Apple certified vendors like Sony or HP. These systems could be designed to run Mac OS X and recommended peripherals could be certified “Made for Max OS X x86.” This would help ensure the seamless, “It Just Works” Mac experience for consumers of such boxes. And remember, Apple offers email, browser, music, photo, calendar, etc. apps all bundled. The user would have much of what they need and could ditch old Windows apps. Thanks to iPod’s success, Apple is now positioned to take any revenue hit they might experience from a loss of Mac hardware revenue. What do you think?
Of note: Window tech writer Paul Thurrott, while attending WinHEC 2005 yesterday, wrote in his blog, “This one’s bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year.” Full article here. Take it for what it’s worth.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Why doesn’t Apple advertise Mac OS X on TV? – April 12, 2005
iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
Thurrott: ‘Longhorn is in complete disarray and in danger of collapsing under its own weight’ – April 27, 2005
Thurrott: Longhorn ‘has the makings of a train wreck’ – April 26, 2005
Thurrott: Longhorn demos ‘unimpressive, fall short of graphical excellence found today in Mac OS X’ – April 26, 2005
Microsoft employees leaving due to (and blogging about) malaise smothering company – April 25, 2005
eWEEK Editor Coursey: Longhorn so far ‘looks shockingly like a Macintosh’ – April 25, 2005
Due in late 2006, many of Windows Longhorn’s features have been in Mac OS X since 2001 – April 25, 2005
Apple’s Tiger debuts Friday while Microsoft’s Longhorn is burdened with one delay after another – April 25, 2005
Nearly every segment of the PC food chain needs Longhorn to succeed – April 22, 2005
Microsoft’s new mantra: ‘It Just Works’ ripped straight from Apple’s ‘Switch’ campaign – April 22, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs on Microsoft’s Longhorn: ‘They are shamelessly copying us’ – April 21, 2005
Apple shows off Mac OS Tiger in Microsoft’s backyard while Microsoft previews Windows XP ad push – April 19, 2005
Apple’s Mac OS X reality vs. Microsoft’s Longhorn fantasy – April 19, 2005
Microsoft’s Windows Longhorn will bear more than just a passing resemblance to Apple’s Mac OS X – April 15, 2005
Analyst: ‘Microsoft’s Longhorn is going to have hard time upstaging Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger’ – April 13, 2005
Analyst: Apple in ‘position to exploit Microsoft missteps, claim leadership’ with Mac OS X Tiger – April 13, 2005
Apple’s Schiller: Mac OS X Tiger ‘has created even more distance between us and Microsoft’ – April 13, 2005
Will Mac OS X Tiger add fuel to Apple’s recent momentum in the computer business? – April 13, 2005
Why doesn’t Apple advertise Mac OS X on TV? – April 12, 2005
Analyst: Tiger proves ‘Apple is light years ahead of Microsoft in developing PC operating systems’ – April 12, 2005
Apple to ship Mac OS X ‘Tiger’ on Friday, April 29; pre-orders start today – April 12, 2005
Apple Announces Mac OS X Server ‘Tiger’ to ship Friday, April 29 with 64-bit application support – April 12, 2005
Analysts: Apple’s new Tiger operating system could really impact Mac sales – April 12, 2005
Piper Jaffray raises Apple estimates on Mac OS X ‘Tiger’ release news – April 12, 2005
Apple’s Mac OS X ‘Tiger’ vs. Microsoft’s Windows ‘Longhorn’ – March 31, 2005
New Microsoft Longhorn chief was former Pepto-Bismol brand manager – March 18, 2005
Microsoft’s Longhorn fantasy vs. Apple’s Mac OS X reality – September 14, 2004
Is Microsoft’s stripped-down ‘Longhorn’ worth waiting for? – September 10, 2004
Silicon Valley: Apple CEO Steve Jobs previews ‘Longhorn’ – June 29, 2004
PC Magazine: Microsoft ‘Longhorn’ preview shows ‘an Apple look’ – May 06, 2004
Microsoft concerned that Longhorn’s look and feel will be copied if revealed too soon – August 25, 2003
Windows ‘Longhorn’ to add translucent windows that ripple and shrink by 2005 – May 19, 2003
Apps apps apps… how will the apps work in an x86/OSX environment?
Jb
Now is the time to start advertising OS X Apple.
Hell will not freeze over on this one, no way.
“Other people want … inexpensive hardware.”
Yeah, Apple needs to sell a $499 computer, dammit!
“If those people start buying Tiger, Apple suddenly owns the joint.”
Problem is, they never will.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
“Yeah, Apple needs to sell a $499 computer, dammit!”
Yeah, with a keyboard/mouse and a monitor for that price, they’d have a better time selling. When the likes of dell are selling Complete systems with a free printer for $349, Apple cant compete with that.
Oh and MDN…Is this MacDailyNews? Or is it Microsoft Daily News? Because im am becoming increasingly confused…
I think it would be a good thing if Apple licensed OSX…
Developers eyes would bug out of their heads!
Apple can´t market itself or products…sheesh, is that difficult to have a 2-3% marketshare in any market?
Steve is spending all his time trying to maintain his personal image in the press and stamping out secret leakers like some whacked out, paranoid Howard Hughes.
Hey, Steve, its about the products – not you!
FORGET x86
The single-core 32-bit era of computing is coming to a close and Microsoft won, like it or not. Worrying about trying to overcome inertia in the 32-bit world of Wal-Mart $399 computers is Monday morning Quarterbacking. Let the cheapskates run Lindows/Linspire.
The NeXT era is dawning– defined by multi-core processors, 64-bit, heavily network capable and aware. This market is up for grabs and Apple is in the lead, technology wise.
A better middle ground would be to license OS X to IBM for their Power servers. Keep the club small and controlled. Apple does not want to cease to be a hardware company. the x86 bargin market is not a place to be, but a move with IBM could help increase both companies sales and give OS X a shot in the arm in the enterprise market.
Let micrsoft keep 60-70% of the market that represents the pirates and get apple to the 20-40% range where all the apps are available but no need to cater to the lowend and give up their profitable computers.
JJ – “Developers eyes would bug out of their heads!”
Yeah, from laughing that this would ever happen.
NO x86 for Mac OS X!
“Yeah, Apple needs to sell a $499 computer, dammit!”
– Yes, the mini is a great deal considering the quality and the software that you’re getting, but a lot of PC users won’t see it that way. PC manufacturers are throwing in free monitors and printers with a below $500 price tag.
But you may say that the systems they’re selling for $400 are filled with cheap parts. True, but so is the mini. Cheap harddrive, DVD/CD drive, slow processor and inadequate memory is inside the mini too. And the cheapest PC Dell has to offer is usable despite what many of you think. How many people are still using one or two year old computers? Well, that’s probably comparable to the Dell $350 computer systems. Perfectly usable for what a lot of consumers are looking for.
Sometimes on a limited budget, the initial cost is the most important factor.
Up to a point I agree with bobby. What Apple should do is to license the Mac motherboard to perhaps 2/3 top tier vendors – IBM, Sony and Toshiba spring to mind. That way they keep control of the experience.
What they are trying to do is to reduce dependence on the Mac hardware as their main source of income. If they get the revenue from the iPod and its variants plus other stuff up to more than 50% or so of the total, then I think we will see licensing, but it won’t be in the same form as MS with X86.
X86 is a disaster area which Apple should stay well away from. Why do you think IBM sold their PC division?
Tacitus
Licensing software is obviously something Apple is trying to avoid. Apple is trying to sell hardware, which offers more profit per unit shipped. This is not a bad thing, either. Macs are better machines from the bottom up. While we can still modify our Macs, I think most, if not all, mac users would be dissapointed if Apple sold out to second-grade hardware vendors. How well would OSX run on a $349 dell? My bet is not as well as even a basic mini.
I must admit I love the idea of Apple porting OSX to the X86 (P4 or later?). Sure they’d have some compatibility issues but they could test it before the release to anticipate what will work and what won’t.
I just love the idea of millions of people spending $129 to buy OSX for their existing PC hardware. I can see companies that are all PC allowing some departments to switch to OSX. In a few years time I could see these same folks coming back for the real thing – a Mac with OSX.
If anything would ever knock Microsuck off its perch this would be it. lt would be a huge blow, their stock would tumble and Apple’s would skyrocket. Software companies would instantly start working on OSX versions. Game companies would work overtime to make OSX versions. It would change the rules of the game.
It is ridiculous to propose that Apple should get rid of it’s lucrative computer hardware division by just giving it away to x86. Apple doesn’t make money off x86. For every 10 x86 OSX versions it sells, it would lose a Mac sale – and into the bargain, software developers won’t have much reason to develop for PPC OSX any more (look at the amount of software for Solaris x86 vs Solaris SPARC).
Anyway, there is no need to port OSX to x86. “Oppenheimer said the company has no plans to switch platforms” – but it would not require a platform change to support OSX on other PPC systems; something that Apple has tried in the past.
If Apple did start licensing “clones” again, it may now be in a position to license to companies that are actually important – like Sony. Rather than release an x86 version of OSX, I’d put my money on a deal with Sony (and maybe IBM, if their x86 deal allows it) for PPC based hardware. Rather than clones, why wouldn’t Apple license the OS to established players in the PC market – using it’s own platform as both a differentiator and as a profit centre.
Of course, it may also occur to Apple that selling 20% of all new PC hardware is more profitable than selling just the OS to 90% of it. And who can blame them? They are, after all, in business to make money.
A consumer OS X on x86 is not worth the effort. Most 3rd party apps would have to be ported from PPC. Developing and testing on the array of crappy x86 hardware would be very expensive.
Now that Apple has a $499 computer, “x86 is cheaper” pundits aim at the gaps in Apple’s lineup. As more people switch to OS X, Apple will probably make a wider array of machines available. They’ve got the form factors down, they just need to fill them out. Imagine a cheaper PowerMac and a G5 mini with a fast 3.5″ drive in an external SATA case…
But an x86 version of OS X Server with simple VGA support, no sound and scaled back graphics… Hmmm…. What if Apple developed/ported a few key apps (like a groupware server) and released OS X86 Server with unlimited clients for $1500? Of course, it would be an “experiment” and x86 support would be dropped in a few years….
“This market is up for grabs and Apple is in the lead, technology wise”
Which market by the way? The other 3 percent? I wouldnt say its up for grabs…It has to start with apple lowering prices, and Mac users becoming more (user friendly)
Speak for yourself. Microsoft’s .Net platform is a hell of a lot easier to develop, maintain, and deploy than any other invironment. Unix is an old has been.A reliable has been, but its developement has almost grinded to a halt over the past 10 years..Its like beating a dead horse. The under the hood advancements in Tiger are so shortsided you can hardley tell the’ve done anything. At least MS didnt “borrow” another kernel because their programmers are to stupid to come up with something on their own. You can argue that Windows came from VMS or whatever, but they’ve changed it for the better. Has anyone used OpenVMS? Its a peice. 20 years and it hasnt gone anywhere. Windows 06 will smoke tiger and 10.5, 10.6 all the way to 11. Sorry to burst your eyeballs, but like they say, the best man doesnt always win. Apple may have a (so called) “better” technology. But how can ANY of you judge that? Besides making the normal childish remarks {”Windows Sucks, Macs Rule”) give us windows users a “Real” reason to “switch”.
Bobby,
As far as apple in the enterprise…First, they need to create an OS X server edition that doesnt suck ass.
I think moving beyond IBM does nothing for Apple. The only real reason for doing the IBM deal would be to increase Mac sales. IBM still carries weight in the enterprise, if they wer shipping servers with OS X, it would bring a lot of coorporate IT departments with it. Toxhiba and Sony would just be the new “Power Computing” refried for the 2000’s. IBM is centered on servers (selling off their desktop division), and are a big player their. Apple has excellent server products, but has had trouble with mainstream IT deparment acceptance. So Apple would not dilute it’s hardware sales with the move, but rather grow that market.
Successful businesses work under the motto “Never say never”. Five years ago did anyone think Apple would release a killer Mp3 player? Ten years did anyone think Apple would invite Steve Jobs back to Apple, and he would accept, and then resurrect the company?
Never never say never
Think about though. If Apple were to license OS X to a “select” group of PC manufacturers (Sony and hp), that alone would give Ballmer and Gates heart attacks. Sony execs have repeatedly said they are considering dropping Windows alltogether in favor of an in house OS which, like their PC’s, would be called Vaio. As far as Apple hardware is concerned, Apple could keep it enticing by debuting a new OS on the Apple brand first, then on the x86 stuff a few months later. That way, Mac users would always have the best and latest.
Apple has enough small issues with their own hardware…why would they open it up to other peoples junk…this creates a whole new realm of incompatibilities…look at the big picture. Steve was smart to kill the clones.
I still opt for a complete hardware/software solution.
Tinkering with X 86 problems will take all the fun out of it and destroy innovation.
It’s not about marketshare or who is bigger, it is about what is better
and what is the best seamless user experience in order to obtain productivity in every aspect of life.
It is still a hardware company that makes great software, not the other way around.
Soon MDN’s majic word will be “antidisestablishmenterialism”
Apple will never progress far if they don’t allow other hardware manufactures to build Macs, or as Molly suggests, release OS X for Intel.
(This is why Linux has been successful. If it ran only on one manufacturers computer, you’d never have heard of it.)
There are WAY too many PC manufactures who’s livelihood and existence depends on being able to build personal computers.
If Apple dominated the OS market, most other manufacturers would be out of business. So that’s why it’s never gunna happen.
Unless… rather than making OS X for Intel, I reckon Apple have to revisit letting other manufacturers build Macs. Specifically Dell and HP. But tightly controlled. Or maybe even rebadged Macs. Dell rebadge printers and thin-clients. Why not Macs?